My Bad Use of Force Decision Shows You Shouldn't Second-Guess My Use of Force Decisions

The Blaze, Glenn Beck's tequila-sweat dream-diary, repeats a law enforcement talking point today. The talking point — "scrutinizing use of force will kill cops" — is rarely served this explicitly or uncritically.

The story's about a Birmingham police officer who got pistol-whipped at a traffic stop. A suspect from the car he stopped approached him aggressively, cold-cocked him, and pistol-whipped him. Cold-hearted bystanders took pictures of him bleeding on the ground rather than helping. Thankfully, the officer will recover. But he's saying that he didn't use force in time to defend himself because of fear of how the media might treat him:

"A lot of officers are being too cautious because of what's going on in the media," said the officer, who asked to remain anonymous for the safety of his family. "I hesitated because I didn't want to be in the media like I am right now."

The Blaze pointedly notes:

The suspect in question, Janard Shamar Cunningham, is a black man and was seemingly unarmed during the incident.

Police — eagerly quoted by The Blaze — are using this to complain about media coverage of their actions:

Heath Boackle, a sergeant with the Birmingham Police Department and president of the city's Fraternal Order of Police, said Thursday that cops are "walking on eggshells because of how they're scrutinized in the media."

Police Chief A.C. Roper sees the episode — as well as the reaction, including celebratory and vitriolic comments posted online alongside images of the wounded officer — as symptomatic of a larger problem, in which some don't respect law enforcement.

"The nobility and integrity of policing has been challenged," Roper said. "As a profession, we have allowed popular culture to draft a narrative which is contrary to the amazing work that so many officers are doing everyday across this nation."

Here the typical subtext is closer to plain text: reporting on, scrutinizing, and criticizing officer use of force puts officers in danger by making them hesitate and second-guess themselves.

This is monstrous gibberish.

A cop made a bad use of force call. Thank God he lived. But a bad use of force call is not a good argument for less scrutiny of use of force. "I have trouble making decisions because of fear of how I will be treated in the media" does not convey "I'm capable of good judgment about the use of force, so you should trust me more."

Chief Roper complains about "popular culture" drafting a "narrative." What he means is that he's mad that there has been a mild drift away from the existing narrative — the law and order (and Law & Order), thin-blue-line narrative in which the cop is presumed to be the good guy and force is presumed to be righteous, a necessary tool for discovering truth and punishing evil, thwarted only by dishonest lawyers and publicity-hungry politicians. That narrative has been — and remains — overwhelming.

Police work is not, contra Chief Roper, an occupation of nobility and integrity, any more than any other profession is. It's a profession made up of noble and ignoble people, honest officers and liars, decent folks and utter thugs. It does not deserve the cultural free pass we've given it. The complaints here show how extensive that free pass is. Consider: the officer and his supporters aren't saying that he hesitated using deadly force on a human being because using deadly force on a human being is something to be done with great care. They're saying he hesitated — and that other officers might hesitate — because of how it might look on the news.

If "maybe I shouldn't kill this guy unless I have a good reason" isn't an adequate motivator to govern deadly force — and our history suggests that it isn't — I'm okay with "maybe I don't want to be on the news" stepping in to help.

Edited to add: I took some shots at The Blaze here, but the CNN story linked above is just as cop-deferential.

Lead Us Not Into Temptation

Imagine a controversial feminist, much maligned for incendiary rhetoric about gender relations. Scheduled to make a speech to like-minded people in some bastion of conservatism, she is approached by male critics, doused with several drinks, and pursued down the street by an angry, shouting crowd, quite plausibly out to do her physical harm.

This scenario shouldn't be hard to imagine; outspoken women of all political stripes get death threats and abuse all the time. Most of us would condemn it. Most of us would be dismayed by the attack on our hypothetical feminist.

Yet too many of us are willing to cheer when the person doused with drinks and pursued down the street is saying things we find to be horrific and evil.

Take the oozing pustule Daryush Valizadeh, better known as Roosh V. Roosh — whom we have mocked before — is thoroughly awful in every way. He's a vocal anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist, a proud rapist of women too drunk to consent, and generally a grotesque dehumanizer of women. He wrote a piece suggesting that rape should be legal on private property. Though he now claims it was satire, it's a testament to his persona that it's perfectly plausible that he meant it literally. At the very least, it's satire in the Ann Coulter sense, meaning that he wrote what he thought and then just punched it up a little bit.

Naturally he's controversial. Just as naturally, he has fans. Nobody ever went broke telling folks they're right to hate the people they already hate, and that all their ills are the fault of the people their foes. Roosh planned a Canadian tour, which predictably was met with a petition to deny him entry to Canada. In other words, people used their free speech to petition the government to use force and state power to exclude someone based on his speech. That's a worthy subject of its own post, but put it aside for now.

While in Montreal, out in the city looking for women to whom he could be a repulsive tool, Roosh had several drinks thrown on him and was pursued down the street by an angry group shouting obscenities.1 Many responses have been amused, triumphal, or approving.

It's beyond my modest abilities to feel empathy for Roosh; I won't pretend to. There is in my gut, in my lizard brain, a visceral joy at seeing him humiliated and threatened.

But we try not to order society via our lizard brains, and that's a good thing. Now, if we were to govern by my lizard brain, that would be perfectly acceptable, because my deep-seated hates and fears and instincts are all reasonable and proper. The problem is all those other damn lizard brains out there, worn by lunatics with different hates and fears and instincts. Roosh has a lizard brain too, and so do the losers willing to pay sixty bucks to hear him talk about how evil non-plastic women are. When we unleash the lizard brains — when we give into the temptation to ignore the distinction between speech and assault, between insulting and attacking — we will find to our great regret that the majority of lizard brains don't work like the ones we see on our carefully moderated Twitter feed. Most lizard brains are really fucking scary. For every lizard brain cheering when someone we hate gets chased down the threat by a screaming mob, there's two our three lizard brains ready to cheer when that happens to someone we agree with. I am more afraid of the consequences of normalizing and condoning this behavior than I am gleeful about the humiliation of an awful person.

I'm not saying you shouldn't revile Roosh. I'm not one of the people saying we need to respond gently to Roosh so his speech won't be chilled. Quite the contrary. Revile away. But keep your hands to yourself. Drench people in words, not beer. Let your words pursue them down the street.

Yes, I know. This is "concern trolling" or "slippery slope fallacy" and lack of perspective and sympathy for the devil and so forth. But go out unto the internet and look around and see the freaks and scum and extremists. Then come back and look me in the eye and tell me it's a good thing to encourage that crowd to react to speech like this.

When Lightning Strikes An Utter Tool

Harry Vincent is a 19-year-old college student and kind of a dick. That's banal. Lots of 19-year-olds are dicks, and many of them are college students. Harry Vincent is notable because he has been struck by proverbial lightning — he offended someone online, and that person had the inclination and free time to complain about him to his university, and his university had the shitty values and utter lack of proportion or good sense to punish him for it. That's an unlikely chain of events. But do we really want it to be more likely?

Harry Vincent goes to Texas Christian University. In his spare time, he likes to say "beaners" and imagine people he doesn't like being "exiled" to the Sahara Desert, which he may or may not think is a country.




That's Harry — indifferently literate, choadish, kinda racist, and not particularly creative or good at any of it. The average 13-year-old on Reddit would school his sorry ass on being notably offensive in a hot second. Harry — who goes by @classypatriot, and probably not ironically — is just plain dull.

The internet is oozing with Harrys. But this one caught the attention of a some no-rocket-scientist-either woman in Maryland who encouraged her readers to complain to TCU about him. Harry wasn't speaking on behalf of TCU, or using their Twitter account, or talking to or about TCU students, and wasn't a TCU public relations official or anything. This person "Kelsey" apparently just felt that assholes shouldn't go to college. Ridiculous. Who would run our hedge funds?

Normally this wouldn't be a problem. If sensible people had received Kelsey's complaints of private-time toolbaggery by Harry, they would have shaken their heads and gone back to whatever it is that the hideously swollen academic-administrative class does all day. But apparently TCU lacks sensible people, because TCU suspended Harry Vincent and restricted him from dorms and campus activities. The FIRE has the story, and wrote TCU a stern letter. TCU is a private entity and not bound by the First Amendment — but, as FIRE points out, they claim to celebrate free speech, and ought not if they're going to act like this.

Does TCU, a private entity, have the right to suspend Harry without anything resembling due process for engaging in patently protected speech? Yep. Is its decision to do so worthy of our respect? No. It's ridiculous. First of all, it's arbitrary. I guaranfreakingtee you that a sizable percentage of TCU's student body routinely acts like assholes on the internet. Harry's being singled out because a petty and disturbed person ran across him — he's been struck by lightning. Second, it's unsustainable. Even the army of administrators that colleges support these days can't possibly keep up with policing and regulating the private online speech of students. It's a waste of money to try. Third, this runs contrary to what a college ought to be. TCU isn't some American madrassa openly advocating for uniform thought, like a Bob Jones or a Liberty. If you go to one of those places, you know what you're getting into. No, TCU is nominally a respected academic institution devoted to free inquiry. Suspending people for political expression, however uncreatively dickish, is thoroughly un-academic.

The appropriate American remedy for Harry Vincent being a bigoted twerp is (1) absent fatal alcohol poisoning, him growing up, and (2) more speech imposing social consequences. I suppose being suspended from a private institution is a form of social consequence, but it's a thoroughly disproportionate and disreputable one. Imposing official school punishments on the Harry Vincents of this world suggests that the TCUs of this world can't counter his oafish speech — that all the professors and administrators and earnest students cannot make a convincing counter-argument to some slackjawed dipshit saying "beaner." Doesn't inspire much confidence in the educational system, does it?

TCU deserves scorn for this. They deserve an object lesson as well. If TCU thinks that it ought to regulate its students' private speech when the fragile pussywillows of the internet object to it, why not take TCU at its word and help it along? I'm sure it will be easy to identify TCU students on social media and comment sections and blogs. Why not examine what they say, and write to the administration of TCU if it irks anyone? I'm not just talking about Harry Vincent's sophomoric twaddle. For every TCU student who says #blacklivesmatter, someone ought to write TCU protesting that #alllivesmatter, FOR FEELS. For every student who says something unflattering about Israel there ought to be an angry email. For every off-color joke, there should be a statement about the over-sexualization of society. For every student who makes a hurtful remark about political groups, TCU's administrators ought to get a missive from a Concerned Person. Maybe it's ridiculous to take personal offense at those things, you might say. Well, you might think so. But TCU is clearly interested in how random internet citizens feel about their students and their words. How can we not help them along? You can find email addresses here. Be polite.

Postscript: if you are inclined to write a comment complaining that I ought to be defending free speech without criticizing the speech or the speaker, kindly snort my taint, fool.

Popehat Signal: Please Help Mandy Nagy And Her Family

It's time for the Popehat Signal. I failed last time I lit it in this case, but I'm lighting it again, hoping that the community of civic-minded, speech-cherishing, evil-fighting lawyers will respond.

I need your help defending a stroke victim and her family against a domestic terrorist who has replaced his bombs with ongoing vexatious litigation.

[Read more…]

The Man We Need: Kickass J. Biteme, Presidential Candidate

I'd like you to meet Kickass J. Biteme, candidate for President of these United States.

Mr. Biteme — or Kick, as he prefers to be called — says what he thinks. And what he usually thinks is that American politics is petty, venal bullshit.

Kickass tells it like it is. He calls out the media for a pack of smug, entitled scribblers every day. He knows how we can deal with America's enemies: blow them right the fuck up, instanter. He kicks over the trough of slops from which Congress feeds and mocks their pretensions. He knows how to cure ever social ill, how to meet every challenge: do something fast and muscular, and stop talking. He has no truck with carefully crafted campaign statements.

"But why do I need Kickass Biteme?" you might ask. "Trump's my man."

Well, sure. Trump's got a decent shot at winning your id's vote. Trump's sure of himself. Trump's loud. But Trump's a real person, and therein lies his flaw. The realities of his past disrupt the sweet song of our viscera. Kickass Biteme's got no baggage. When Kick rants about government for sale, we won't be troubled by reminders that he's been a frequent buyer. When Kick vents against the target of the day, we won't have to remember that he was sucking up to them a moon's turn ago when it suited his purposes. When Kick blasts manufacturers for sending jobs overseas, nobody's going to be handing around polos with his vulgar insignia made by Laotian eight-year-olds. When Kick cuts a sneering interviewer off at the knees, we can be confident that it's robust American moral vigor, not just the latest thread in a tired pattern of childish petulance. Kick is pure. Kick isn't a poseur.

Since the ballot doesn't (yet) have a box for "none of the above," Kick is the word and the way — Kick is the guy we back to say "not a single one of you lying narcissistic motherfuckers deserves anything more than a boot in the ass." Kick is the way we ask "why should we pretend be happy that it's time to choose between the clap and a crowbar to the nuts again?" Kick's how we express our outrage at the naked emperor, at the sordid, venal pantomime of American politics — without the cognitive dissonance of endorsing someone who is, themselves, clearly full of shit, someone who is just clever and cynical enough to see our disgust as a distinct voting bloc.

Vote Kick in 2016. Accept no imitations.

Top Seven Things I Like About Internet Shame Mobs

7) Initial news reports are always completely accurate, so we know we've got the right guy.

6) Initial news reports are always full of nuance, so we know that we understand the situation and can distinguish sarcasm from seriousness, and being nearby from being the active participant.

5) Internet shame mobs weigh the evidence carefully and deliberately before attacking, so they only happen to people who deserve them.

4) Internet shame mobs use the rule of law and due process, so when they occur by accident or to the wrong person it's easy for them to make amends and restore reputations, jobs, and friendships.

3) Internet shame mobs always make sure that the punishment is proportional to the crime.

2) Every member of an internet shame mob is without sin, so any one of them is morally just in throwing the first stone.

1) Once the internet shame mob has done its job, the button will be be offered to someone whom you don't know.

What Charles Carreon could teach ICANN

Popehat is happy to offer a new guest post from Cathy Gellis.

There is no question that the right of free speech necessarily includes the right to speak anonymously. This is partly because sometimes the only way for certain speech to be possible at all is with the protection of anonymity.

And that’s why so much outrage is warranted when bullies try to strip speakers of their anonymity simply because they don’t like what these people have to say, and why it’s even more outrageous when these bullies are able to. If anonymity is so fragile that speakers can be so easily unmasked, fewer people will be willing to say the important things that need to be said, and we all will suffer for the silence.

We’ve seen on these blog pages examples of both government and private bullies make specious attacks on the free speech rights of their critics, often by using subpoenas, both civil and criminal, to try to unmask them. But we’ve also seen another kind of attempt to identify Internet speakers, and it’s one we’ll see a lot more of if the proposal ICANN is currently considering is put into place.

In short, remember Charles Carreon? [Read more…]

Gamer Gate vs Anti Gamer Gate A Civil Discussion on Inclusiveness

Consider this post a teaser trailer. Randi Harper, author of a Gamer Gate block bot and I will be debating discussing the thesis

"are the virtues of an open society / inclusiveness / debate best served by excluding those who are not in favor of full inclusiveness?"

(I think the answer is "no").

Randi's busy for a week or two (and so am I), but hopefully next week she and I will have the email discussion, which will then be tidied up for formating and posted here.

In Randi's words:

this is going to be fun. ;)

DoJ's Gag Order On Reason Has Been Lifted — But The Real Story Is More Outrageous Than We Thought

Last Friday the folks at Reason confirmed what I suggested on Thursday — that the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, after hitting Reason with a federal grand jury subpoena to unmask anonymous hyperbolic commenters, secured a gag order that prevented them from writing about it.

Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch describe how it all went down. Read it.

So, the truth is out — and it's more outrageous than you thought, even more outrageous than it appears at first glance.

What, you might ask, could be more outrageous than the United States Department of Justice issuing a questionable subpoena targeting speech protected by the First Amendment, and then abusing the courts to prohibit journalists from writing about it?

The answer lies in the everyday arrogance of unchecked power.

[Read more…]

Two Kinds of Freedom of Speech (or #Strangeloop vs. Curtis Yarvin)

Two kinds of freedom of speech

I've argued a few times (sometimes conveying my message successfully sometimes not), that freedom of speech is not merely a legal issue centering on the first amendment, but also a cultural issue, centering on our willingness to tolerate the presence and the words of those we disagree with – even when we know that those ideas aren't merely foolish (e.g. preferring Chocolate ice-cream over a good French Vanilla), but actively destructive to individuals, families, and nations (take your pick – abortion pro/con, immigration pro/con, etc.) ( I note in passing that I've been called an "Enlightenment fundamentalist" by one of my Popehat co-bloggers for my willingness to engage with people outside the Overton window, and, no, he didn't intend it as a compliment; quite the opposite.)

I've even argued for years something sillier – silly because it should have to be argued at all – that we should enjoy non-political products by people that we disagree with politically (I gave as an example how I read books by China Mieville – a member of the International Socialist Organization and Socialist Workers Party).

Culture considered more important than law

In my earlier Gamer Gate post I talked about "entryism":

As a poet once said: Cthulhu swims slowly, but he only swims left. Isn't that interesting?

The blue team has made amazing progress over the last three hundred years. Occasionally by force of arms, but usually by a much more clever strategy: entryism.

Entryism, for those not hip to the lingo, is "a political strategy in which an organization or state encourages its members or supporters to join another, usually larger organization in an attempt to expand influence and expand their ideas and program. In situations where the organization being 'entered' is hostile to entryism, the entryists may engage in a degree of subterfuge to hide the fact that they are an organization in their own right."

Since World War II the Blue team in the US has entered into the stodgy old universities (taking advantage of the GI Bill and the resulting explosion in size of secondary education institutions), and taken them over completely. It has taken over the media (now called the "mainstream media" or MSM by the red team), because of this. It has taken over many corporate boards (although not all attempts have succeeded).

Over the last few years blue team has been rolling up red team's flank in a new battle: the tech world (or, pace Scott Alexander, they're actually trying to roll up the flank of a minor Red faction / ally that should perhaps be called "Gray": techno-libertarians).

This is a really smart move for Blue, as much of the economy has stalled out over the last ten years, and tech is the only area of growth. Who wants to own 90% of a stalled boat, when you could own 90% of a boat that's going somewhere?

Entryism is not a political or legal or economic mode of warfare ; it is a cultural mode.

But what are politics, law, and economies other than cultural structures?

Once you control Harvard Law, you control the courts. Once you control the courts, you control the laws. Once you control the laws, you control the people.

Or, alternatively: once you control the technology conferences you control the team leads, once you control the team leads, you control the engineers, once you control the engineers, you control the tech industry, once you control the tech industry, you control the 21st century economy.

(Godwin lulz: you know who else tried to take over education?)

If enlightenment law is destroyed, but enlightenment culture survives, we can rebuild the law.

…but if enlightenment culture is destroyed, then law necessarily follows, and there is no foundation to ever rebuild the lost freedoms on.

Thus one mote in the eye of the culture of free speech bothers me more than a beam in the eye of the law of free speech.

An anonymous email

Perhaps because I've written about free speech, or perhaps because I've written about "Urbit" twice before, or perhaps because of both I received an email with a pastebin URL.

The timeline

As best I can tell the the timeline of events is this:

Some time on or before 1 June the Strangeloop tech conference threw open its submissions process and Curtis Yarvin of the Tlon corporation submitted a proposal about his Urbit network / functional programming language. (Note: the Urbit talk description is at, because it's been memory-holed at the StrangeLoop website).

On 3 June Alex Miller of the Cognitect corporation sent told Curtis that his proposed speech was interesting enough to be worthy of being heard by "the creators and users of the languages, libraries, tools, and techniques at the forefront of the industry."

Then around 1pm on 3 June @bobpoekert noticed, in a relatively calm way, that Curtis had some off beat politics.

The calmness didn't last; @aphyr declared

And @bodil perceives that an error – the error of tolerance – has been committed, and hopes that it occurred only by accident, and will soon be corrected:

@joescii wonders how such an error of tolerance could possibly have happened

And @kf suggests that the tolerance was accidental – perhaps the Party merely forgot to do its due diligence and failed to ask software engineers if they are now, or have ever been, a card carrying member of any party right of center:

And one social justice warrior, @steveklabnik noted that

…oh, that's odd … the tweet is gone and the account is protected.

I guess Steve didn't like his own words being quoted to show that he like violence? Anyway, no problem, I took screenshots:

Who is this Steve Klabnik, by the way? Oh, just your average rails coder and violent communist!

The point being: Steve really, really, really doesn't like fascism. But initiating violence against his political enemies? That's different, and ggggggreat! And up there with initiating violence is getting thought criminals banned from technical conferences, it seems.

So there was a bit of a tempest in an organic, fair-trade teapot, and after five or so tweets, Alex Miller realized that Strangeloop had invited someone to speak on functional programming languages who might not, in his heart of hearts, agree that Thomas Carlyle was a dead white man who should be forgotten.

And thus, Alex Miller "fixed the glitch": he emailed Curtis and said that even though Curtis thoughts on functional programming were interesting enough to be heard at the conference, because of Curtis's thoughts on Carlyle and such, he was no longer welcome to talk to decent people about functional programming:

From: Alex Miller
Date: Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: Strange Loop 2015 submission "urbit, a clean-slate functional stack"

Hi Curtis,

When your talk was posted on the Strange Loop web site today, I had immediate and vigorous feedback about the fact that you would be speaking at Strange Loop. I do not generally make any attempt to audit or care about the particular opinions or ideology of the people that I accept as speakers; I am generally focused on the content of the talks themselves.

However, in this case it is clear to me that your opinions in areas outside your talk are concerning enough for a significantly large number of attendees that those reactions are overshadowing the talk and acting as a distraction for launching the conference as a whole. Because of this, I am sorry that I must rescind your invitation and I will not be able to accept or include your talk at the conference. My apologies if this causes you any inconvenience.

Alex Miller

Or, to be a precise, it was alleged by an email I received that Alex had said this. Had Alex actually?

I reached out on 4 June and asked Alex if it was true:

Your circuit's dead, there's something wrong. Can you hear me, Alex Miller?

Despite several tweets asking for confirmation, Alex never responded to me. (Or at least that's my belief – I checked my mentions closely, but it's possible that a response slipped through.)

However the next day I saw a link being tweeted around; Alex, it seemed, had finally responded.

Strangeloop conference doubles down

Curtis Yarvin submitted a talk in the Strange Loop 2015 Call for Presentations. The talk went through the review process and was one of about 60 talks selected for the conference out of about 360. The subject of the talk was urbit (attached below). While we use a multi-stage review process, ultimately all final decisions are made by me.

Earlier this week we published the bulk of the 2015 Strange Loop session list, including Curtis's talk. I quickly received feedback that Curtis also has an online persona under the name "Mencius Moldbug" where he has posted extensive political writings.

A large number of current and former speakers and attendees contacted me to say that they found Curtis's writings objectionable. I have not personally read them.

I am trying to create a conference where the focus is on the technology and the topics being presented. Ultimately, I decided that if Curtis was part of the program, his mere inclusion and/or presence would overshadow the content of his talk and become the focus. This would not serve the conference, the other speakers, the attendees, or even Curtis.

Thus, I chose to rescind Curtis's invitation and remove him from the program…

Alex Miller

So there we have it: Alex Miller believes in the heckler's veto:

If several people contact him saying "person X will speak on topic Y, but is bad because of opinion Z which he will not speak on, but I – the emailer – dislike", then Alex will exclude person X from his conference.

I defend Strangeloop on legal grounds

Now, Strangeloop is a private conference, and if Curtis' speech was going to violate one of the Strangeloop policies, I'd entirely support the legality of their decision.

Heck, even though Curtis' scheduled speech was entirely in keeping with every single one of their policies, and Strangeloop blatantly made up policies ad hoc in order to achieve the desired result, I support their right to do so. I've long supported the legal right of free association. The law (i.e. the government monopoly on violence) should not force people to socialize, work, or do business with those they prefer not to.

So, while I might not throw myself in front of literal tanks to keep the government from forcing Strangeloop to accept Curtis, I'd surely throw metaphorically throw myself in front of some metaphoric tanks, while I sit in my easy chair and type.

Side note: Lefties are Ayn Rand Acolytes

I've noticed a fascinating phenomena: ask a stereotypical rightist about some private action he doesn't like, and he'll say "anyone who doesn't like it should take their money elsewhere". As in "if a baker won't make cakes for gay couples, gays should take their money elsewhere", or "if Starbucks doesn't allow open carry, gun owners should take their money elsewhere".

Leftists are often more nuanced than this. Instead of using just a few of the ethical bases that Jonathan Haidt identified, as conservatives do, they use more.

Thus, instead of only embracing the "exit" branch of the "loyalty, voice, and exit" fork, they also embrace the "voice" branch: Whole Foods should stop selling meat, stop carrying Eden Foods products, abjure security guards, and open a new location.

Well, they're nuanced up to a point. It's been my sad experience to run into a majority of lefties who, as soon as you suggest to a leftist that they might change how they're doing things to be more progressive and congruent with the goals of an open and freedom-loving society, turn into Ayn Rand acolytes: "this is my bakery, and if you don't like it, go somewhere else!"


But, still, I agree with them.

A call for consistency

I'll make a deal with lefties: I'll keep throwing myself in front of metaphorical tanks to defend their legal right to exclude Curtis and other wrongthink badfun people, if they'll defend a privately owned bakery, or a hobby craft store, or a –

Hey, wait, where are you guys going?

A few questions for Alex and the other conference organizers

Questions for Alex Miller (@puredanger), Ryan Senior (@objcmdo), Mario Aquino (@marioaquino), Nick Cowan (@notetoself_stl), and Bridget Hillyer(@bridgethillyer):

  1. Alex says that he does not "generally" consider political opinions, but – apparently – he does at least on occasion. What are the boundaries of acceptable opinions that one may quietly hold inside one's head while at Strangeloop ? May one hold a belief in a flat income tax? In no income tax? May one be a professed communist, wishing for the proletarians to rise up in armed revolution?
  2. If the organizers of Strangeloop have not read Curtis' political writings, how do you know that his beliefs are outside the bounds allowable at Strangeloop?
  3. If the answer is "significantly large number" of people complain, what is that number? One ? Two ? More ?
  4. Will that numeric threshold be applied in the future? If two or three conference attendees email you to say that some presenter's advocacy of, say, polyamory, or lesbianism, or whatever would make the conference something other than a "safe space", will you disinvite the speakers so that your conference attendees aren't forced to be in the same building as people they disagree with?
  5. Do you support the legal right of other conferences to discriminate against speakers based on characteristics that have nothing to do with their presentations?
  6. As adherents of the dominant (and growing!) ideology in America (Progressivism) do you think that diversity of opinions is our strength, or would you think that we would be better served by an ideological mono-culture?
  7. If you think "no", would that stance change if American society suddenly lurched to the right?
  8. Alex told Curtis that Strangeloop was canceling his talk because "reactions [ to his presence would ] act as a distraction for launching the conference". In light of the last few days, do you (plural) still think that banning Curtis was the most pragmatic approach to keeping attention focused where you wanted it?
  9. As your conference is intended to help curious and open-minded developers "make connections with the creators and users of new languages", and you've decided not to let them meet Curtis or hear about Urbit, where do you suggest they go for more information ?

A few questions for the conference sponsors

Questions for the corporate sponsors of Strangeloop, including Sparx, Machinezone, Cisco, Twosigma, Basho, Engineyard, Wolfram, Criteo, Mandrill, 8thlight, Asynchrony, Oreilly, Oasisdigital, Riotgames,, and Adzerk:

  1. In any of your HR documents do you describe your firm and workplace as "tolerant", "diverse", "welcoming", or "open"?
  2. Do you ask prospective employees about their personal beliefs, religion, or politics anywhere in the hiring process?
  3. Do you ask employees post-hiring about their personal beliefs, religion, or politics ?
  4. Have you ever found that excluding conservative candidates from your hiring process increases your pool of candidates?
  5. Would you fire an employee for personal beliefs, religion, or politics if you received emails complaining about opinions they held, but never mentioned at work?
  6. Do you think that your sponsorship and financial support of strangeloop is consistent with your corporate culture of tolerance?
  7. What message do you think your sponsorship of Strangeloop sends to conservative or libertarian engineers who are looking for their next job?
  8. What message do you think your sponsorship of Strangeloop sends to conservative or libertarian customers who are considering your products?
  9. Do you think that your sponsorship of a tech conference that excludes people based on their personal beliefs is a net win for your firm?


The legal right of free speech is important and worth defending.

The culture of free speech is important and worth defending.

We all profit in the long term if we tolerate – and even encourage – speech that we disagree with.

We all profit in the long term if we tolerate – and even encourage – non-disagreeable speech from people that we dislike for other reasons.

Tolerating everything except the outgroup is no sort of tolerance at all.

It is valid to use cultural means (e.g. this blog post) to pressure people and groups (e.g. Strangeloop) to advance from the Dark Ages to the futuristic year 1650 and accept Enlightenment ideas.

Further reading on Strangeloop vs Curtis Yarvin

A partial list of news articles and blog posts that have caught my attention:

and finally – and ironically – a blog post by Curtis himself two years ago that is hugely prescient: Technology, communism and the Brown Scare.