4 ms·
I'd say they have enough integrity to not support a parent organization that has made an odious decision. There's a different between "allowing someone to spea
by xsmasher 11y ago
I'd say they have enough integrity to not support a parent organization that has made an odious decision.
There's a different between "allowing someone to speak (anywhere, at all)" and "providing them a platform." The parent org has decided to provide a platform, which has consequences.
You can disagree about the decisions made, but your "belief system so fragile" is a strawman.
- Karunamon 11y agoThe author has chosen to make a public statement with arguments X Y and Z, everyone else is free to critically evaluate those statements. And yes, fragility I believe is the right word to describe killing a technical conference because he doesn't like another speaker.
- xsmasher 11y agoA is free to make or not make controversial statements, B is free to provide or not provide a platform for A, C is free to support or not support B. No ones rights have been abridged, and everyone's freedoms have been preserved.
- thescribe 11y agoIt reminds me of this quote, which I believe is attributed to GRRM. “When you cut out a man’s tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you’re only telling the world that you fear what he might say.”
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]