> collaborators in behavior that should _never_ be tolerated?

Why? What has he done to anyone? Do his designs have built-in genome detectors?

Or are you encouraging us all to join in as collective arbiters of wrong-think? Doesn't that seem a little too Maoist Cultural Revolution to you?

"Wrong-think" as a phrase is one of those thought-terminating clichés. People are voicing their disagreements with his professed viewpoints, yet you are using that cliche to dismiss them without addressing their viewpoints. This does not lead to a vigorous discussion in the marketplace of ideas.

> "Wrong-think" as a phrase is one of those thought-terminating clichés.

Agreed.

> People are voicing their disagreements with his professed viewpoints,

Voicing their disagreements with his pseudonymous comments from a completely different non-urbit context. I suspect (but I don't know) that if he wanted the public's perspective on his non-conformant political thought to skew the public's views on his technical design work, he wouldn't have used a pseudonym in the first place.

> yet you are using that cliche to dismiss them without addressing their viewpoints.

Quite the opposite. I am using that cliche, in a question, to ask if that is what the parent is asking (inciting?) us to do: arbite non-conformist thought.

The viewpoint that (here) I intentionally don't address can be summarized as: "I heard the designer wrote something that I disagree with elsewhere, under a pseudonym - more than once! I hereby dismiss anything he has to say on any matter." That's like saying: "Hitler lover strawberries, so we must all agree to avoid them."

> This does not lead to a vigorous discussion in the marketplace of ideas.

I agree, but... what marketplace of ideas? The aforementioned comments have nothing to do with the merits (or lack thereof) of urbit. A public shaming of a heretic is not a marketplace of ideas. Maybe the guy doesn't pay his taxes. Maybe he's behind on child support. Maybe he eats puppies for breakfast. I don't know. I also don't know that it really matters, as regards the merits (or lack thereof) of his engineering design.

And, I'm sorry. It seems that I have contributed to the thread going even further afield than it already had. I shouldn't have said anything to begin with...

The marketplace of ideas means you don't get to dictate what others find relevant.

For some, this means that they don't want to be professionally or socially associated with someone who thinks some ethnic groups make genetically good slaves. People can vigorously discuss whether his writings crossed lines of acceptable behavior.

However, you're also free to discuss the technical details as much as you want! If that's what's relevant to you, that's perfectly acceptable as well, and it doesn't require you to defend his other writings.

Fair enough. I agree with everything you just said here. Thank you.

A community is defined by the people and views it accepts. I'm currently reading up on Curtis as much as I can and withholding judgment in his case. But I wouldn't want to be part of a community that lets racist views go unchallenged, no.

I understand and respect your point-of-view. I probably even agree with it, as stated.

After I came across Urbit, I heard allegations of Yarvin's writings under his pseudonyms. I went and found his writings - and to the degree I understood it - I didn't agree with the conclusions. At the same time, I found a lot of the quoted material that had allowed me to find his writing in the first place was taken out of context.

But more importantly -- I didn't see even a hint of bad behavior in any of the developer's group discussion. I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of taking what a person does "after hours" and putting it on display in the public square. If he were running some sort of "Boys From Brazil" project after hours, I'd probably feel differently, but that's not what he appears to be doing.

The norm of shunning people for having ideas you disagree with would result in the collapse of society.

This sentiment is selectively applied based on one's values. I am confident that there exists a set of principles that someone could espouse to cause you to shun them, it's really only a matter of where one draws the line.

This is absolutely silly.

Just to take it to absurdity, and I'm not claiming Moldbug is a member of the Nazi party, but society would not collapse if we shunned people who espoused, for example, the ideals of Hitler and the Nazi party.

"I'm not saying he's a Nazi, but if he was..."

-- Every post about Curtis Yarvin, ever.

Sorry for knee-jerking, but there is really no basis for equating Mencius Moldbug to a Nazi, and I think it hurts the discussion when you do! I have read some of the texts in question, on the insistence of people who say I should disavow this person who I consider to be a real pal. I read the post "Why I am not a White Nationalist" and I don't know how anyone without an agenda can come to the conclusion that this is a person with hate in his bones.

I am stating that there are plenty of beliefs that do not cause society's collapse if we shun them. The only reason I mentioned Moldbug was that he's part of the dialog here, and I wanted to make sure people did not misconstrue what I said as a claim about him.

Since you just misconstrued what I said, I was clearly unsuccessful.

I apologize, since you obviously did not come up with the idea to equate Yarvin to Nazis. Your point is valid.

No worries, I've tried to be precise but text is sometimes a difficult medium to get my point across.

The shunning policy had done quite contrary consequences. The Lambdaconf campaign drew a lot of attention to the very person they want to no-platform, more and more people begin to search the identity Curtis Yarvin/Moldbug, even come to read his articles and try to interpret his ideologies, no matter whether they gonna protest or support.

P.S. the nazi party was a frequent practitioner of this shunning policy.

Please try to follow the conversation. I was addressing the claim that shunning certain beliefs would cause society to collapse, and I've clearly demonstrated that to be false. Not sure how what you've ranted about here ties into that.

In an individualist perspective, I agree with you, shunning won't cause society to collapse.

But when people advocating it to an aggressive level-extensively campaigning the rejection of a certain person at social scale, this is dangerous and smells like politics, and was exactly the way how hitler shunned the jews.

I think you're having difficulty distinguishing the concepts of "shunning" and "genocide."

Seems you are so inclined to acknowledge what nazi had done before the 'genocide', or you simply don't know what had really happened.

that should be 'declined' in my last comment, my apologies

You aren't going to enforce your judgement to everyone else, right?