Re:Is LambdaConf for Conservative Christians, Too?
by smt88 on Friday March 25, 2016 @09:47PM
(#11364059)
> a ridiculously oversimplified caricature of atheistic philosophy
It seemed to me that the author was offering an explanation of amoral atheism, which he explicitly mentioned several times.
Re:Is LambdaConf for Conservative Christians, Too?
by dllthomas on Saturday March 26, 2016 @12:37PM
(#11366275)
Wouldn't that apply just as well to an amoral theism?
Re:Is LambdaConf for Conservative Christians, Too?
by lhnz on Friday March 25, 2016 @09:37PM
(#11364016)
> public figure by promoting racist violence is absurd
There haven't been any instances of this that I've seen - I tried to describe the offending paragraph as best I could here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11363002).
Re:Is LambdaConf for Conservative Christians, Too?
by sanxiyn on Friday March 25, 2016 @09:51PM
(#11364083)
> someone who's chosen to become a public figure by promoting racist violence
Maybe Mencius Moldbug is such a public figure, but Curtis Yarvin isn't. Mencius Moldbug was doxxed, not chosen to become a public figure. Do you support doxxing?
This is... a ridiculously oversimplified caricature of atheistic philosophy, presumably now posted (as the original post predates the current controversy[0]) to imply the obviously incorrect syllogism that if we accept people who are privately religious we're somehow obligated to not only accept outspoken racists, but put them on a stage.
[0] The idea that it should be controversial to deny a platform to someone who's chosen to become a public figure by promoting racist violence is absurd, regardless of any technical accomplishments (which would be a pretty strong characterization of the pointless Turing trap that is urbit). I've already canceled my flight for LambdaConf and in the future I will happily decline to work with people who failed to do so.