Almost certainly not, but that is the way of people. That's a separate question from whether they are right or wrong though. I distinctly don't like the way things are going and believe me I have no sympathy for the political views of Curtis, but the talk isn't about that. If Brianna Wu could actually deliver a technical talk, I say let her. If he wanted to talk about neoreaction there are other places he can go to.

I'm not sure if you meant to imply that Yarvin wanted to talk about neoreaction, but he distinctly did not. His talk was about Urbit: https://github.com/urbit/urbit

I know, I was trying to contrast letting him speak on neoreaction with letting him speak on orbit.

Do you think there's now the slightest chance that urbit can win in the technology marketplace, or get any mind share?

I suppose others can copy its ideas without attribution, but if involvement in it potentially threatens your career....

Urbit was initally released into the Public Domain, and still retains that spirit even though circumstance compels the project to now bear the MIT License - I suspect non-attributed copying would not be challenged.

In the same vein I would love to see the people defending the talk arguing in favor of a Noam Chomsky presentation

I would absolutely defend Noam Chomsky's right to give a talk on, e.g., context free grammars.

Strangely, neoreactionary and libertarian types aren't so aggressive at shutting down debate. It's almost as if they feel they can win in the marketplace of ideas.

Meh, I'm pretty sure we won't hear from the same guys if the speaker were somebody else, but I can't prove it so I leave it here :)

If it was technically interesting and met the same standards that saw the Urbit talk selected as one of dozens out of hundreds, bring it on.

Do you think classical liberals don't read "Syntactic Structures"?

> Do you think classical liberals don't read "Syntactic Structures"?

Never doubted that

That's really the crux of the problem, isn't it? If the organizer of a conference decides not to give a platform to neofascists who want to end democracy, they MUST also bar women who are being harassed by *chan trolls.

There's simply no way that a conference organizer could possibly handle those situations differently without being a hypocrite.

If the dislikers were his customers -- if SL were a conference about [whatever] but primarily attended by GG sympathizers -- probably yes. (Note -- I'm not talking about A. Miller at all any more, just any conf organizer)

    > For example, suppose a bunch of gamergate types were to 
    > complain about Brianna Wu giving a purely technical talk 
    > about pathfinding and AI. Would all the folks who are so 
    > quick to defend Strangeloop also defend it in this case?
    >
    > Somehow I doubt it.

Of course you should doubt it -- gamergate troglodytes are in the clear moral wrong. There are such things as moral decisions, and people, organizations, and societies are free, indeed obliged, to make them.

Absolute and unfettered free speech isn't a moral imperative. Speech can be curtailed, in some circumstances, when it has moral justification.