Read on Twitter
This tweet has resulted in a lot of public and private correspondence. Some of it okay. A lot of it messy. Here's a long thread with some reflections. https://twitter.com/shajra/status/1293874282079158275
I participated in LamdbaConf in 2016 and also in 2017. The first year, I knew enough about Curtis's invitation to make an informed decision. The next year, I was totally caught off guard by Ed's, and felt misinformed. I issued complaint. Others did too. It's not resolved well.
In 2016 and 2017, I didn't get the exact sense that LambdaConf had completely dissolved into a world of tech bros that malign social progressives with sarcasm and dismissal. My experience was positive. But I'm also really privileged. I don't bear the brunt of prejudice.
My issue with LambdaConf is that John seems happy to have invited his friend Ed with strong MRA ties to give a non-technical motivational talk, under the singular clause that Ed not talk of his sexist proclivities during his talk.
That's fine, but needs to be on the tin!
That's fine, but needs to be on the tin!
And since it's not on the tin. I feel it's completely fair for Travis to remind people what the problem is. It's an important problem that doesn't just go away with time until addressed.
And that doesn't mean I'm calling John a Nazi or a Nazi sympathizer.
And that doesn't mean I'm calling John a Nazi or a Nazi sympathizer.
But I am definitely looking out for people who absolutely don't want to go to a conference where the organizer is proud to invite MRA activists to give motivational talks, even if sexists are capable of saying something good.
Ed has a self-help business, one that's very much framed around his thoughts on sex and masculinity. Those concepts have an implicit presence in his presentation. Just like they do in Tony Robbins talks, and other similar figures.
Ed's talk promotes Ed's business.
Ed's talk promotes Ed's business.
And that's not to say that companies need to be completely pure. No one's perfect. But Ed's invitation as a non-technical speaker on a subject such as motivation is extremely relevant to his beliefs on sex. It's not just an tie-in of something private.
And this is the issue that John really has to address in a very public way. Until then, I think it only makes sense to just raise this problem year after year after year after year. Because it's a serious problem.
And if he truly thinks that there's no change to make, then it should really be front and center in the conference messaging. Not buried as a loophole in the CoC.
In the meantime, with John doubling down on his original decisions, his following has gotten a lot more saturated with people who are genuinely hostile to progressive causes.
John could claim that people like me drive that polarization. But I just don't see it. John is participating in his fair share of snarky comments, and liking tweets that rise to his defense, even if sloppily.
And those kinds of people are absolutely drawn to LambdaConf, and will be there with some presence, and I'd argue even more so than at just normal conferences.
So the very premise that LambdaConf is "more inclusive" is upside-down. Attendees in all the other conferences were never screened. The speakers are barely assessed.
But active platforming of extremist speakers pulls in people who threaten the progress of minority groups.
But active platforming of extremist speakers pulls in people who threaten the progress of minority groups.
I think you could ask why I'm so worked up over the sexist, but not the racist authoritarian.
It's not great, but at least John had a reasoning I understood. It was a blind submission, and the selection was based on technical assessment alone.
This reason can't apply to Ed.
It's not great, but at least John had a reasoning I understood. It was a blind submission, and the selection was based on technical assessment alone.
This reason can't apply to Ed.
Even in Scalaz, which I know some people tie to LambdaConf, we may not have had a typical socially progressive CoC, but we didn't actively go out into MRA circles looking for contributors and users.
In that regard, I continued to support Scalaz, even as others left.
In that regard, I continued to support Scalaz, even as others left.
This is the longest thread I've ever written on Twitter. Sorry for any redundancies or verbosity.
I just feel some responsibility for being critical of a thing I find very wrong. But also to avoid lashing out with invectives and bad faith arguments. I want a sound argument.
I just feel some responsibility for being critical of a thing I find very wrong. But also to avoid lashing out with invectives and bad faith arguments. I want a sound argument.
