5 ms·

> [He] shows up at another tech conference and goes, "Wink wink nod nod I think black people make good slaves but we can be patient about that and passively do

> [He] shows up at another tech conference and goes, "Wink wink nod nod I think black people make good slaves but we can be patient about that and passively do it." ... this is a really unfortunate way to carry a discussion. And I'll remind you that he's not carrying his ideals to the conference. That'd be against the Pledge, as well as against his public statement in the article. > There is no threat to his speech. I'll say it again. "I don't recall saying anything about censorship." I didn't say anything about free speech or censorship. > [...] a devout racist. > Why do you keep bringing [his code] up? What does race have to do with it? What doesn't his code have to do with it? It is indeed a tech conference, and I believe that anyone who has an interest in tech and is willing to follow the rules should be able to attend. He has given every indication of those two things. It does take place between people, you're right. But do you think he's going to be an awful person in person? And I'll quote back again to my previous post: "is his mere presence such an affront to you? Are you really unable to exist in the same space as a racist? I understand that those views are fundamentally wrong and really awful. But what does his presence have to do with it? Can you explain to me a scenario where his presence is a factor in the equation?" It does not dis-serve the attendees of the conference for him to be able to go. > I loathe that this is my responsibility. This is your responsibility? What? > [...] morally baseless and intellectually bankrupt. Can you explain to me why you feel this to be the case? And I agree that criticizing bad actors is a perfectly okay thing to do, within reason. I disagree with the idea that the shitstorm surrounding this is reasonable. This is totally excluding someone from a community. And as much as I agree with your right to have your opinion, I disagree with the idea of taking action on such an opinion. I just can't fathom it. I don't get it. And I don't think that his racism in a totally different context precludes him from being able to participate in a conference.

KirinDave 11y ago
> ... this is a really unfortunate way to carry a discussion. And I'll remind you that he's not carrying his ideals to the conference. That'd be against the Pledge, as well as against his public statement in the article. Why exactly is it that a short written statement can somehow absolve someone of the social responsibility of a multi-year career of hate speech? > What doesn't his code have to do with it? It is indeed a tech conference, and I believe that anyone who has an interest in tech and is willing to follow the rules should be able to attend. No one has said he can't attend. Why would yous suggest this? > But do you think he's going to be an awful person in person? And I'll quote back again to my previous post: "is his mere presence such an affront to you? Are you really unable to exist in the same space as a racist? I understand that those views are fundamentally wrong and really awful. But what does his presence have to do with it? Can you explain to me a scenario where his presence is a factor in the equation?" It's not his presence. It's his authority figure as a speaker while being an outspoken member of the pro-racism community. Do you actually know what he writes about? > And I agree that criticizing bad actors is a perfectly okay thing to do, within reason. I disagree with the idea that the shitstorm surrounding this is reasonable. How is this unreasonable. "We will not support your conference if you give the podium to a famous and vocal racist who calls for the enslavement of black people." This is a boycott. No one is suggesting they be made to comply by force. And the amount of pressure brought to the sponsors is minimal. Tiny. People are choosing not to support LambdaConf because the notion of handing the microphone to a prominent and vocal defender of racism is a vile notion. Why is this so hard to grasp? > This is totally excluding someone from a community. And as much as I agree with your right to have your opinion, I disagree with the idea of taking action on such an opinion. Why should an intolerant bigot be included in any community? Don't these communities have a right and a duty to control their attendance as they see fit?
- striking 11y ago
  > Why exactly is it that a short written statement can somehow absolve someone of the social responsibility of a multi-year career of hate speech? It doesn't. I agree that what he said was unacceptable. But just because what he said was unacceptable, does that mean we shouldn't accept him and everything he does? > No one has said he can't attend. Why would yous suggest this? Right, sorry. He can attend for sure. I meant that he should be able to speak, since he'll be following all the rules and has an interest in tech. > It's his authority figure as a speaker while being an outspoken member of the pro-racism community. He doesn't identify himself by his racist beliefs. He keeps them separate from his technology. It has nothing to do with his tech. If he walked up to someone from a minority group and talked about his views at the conference, or if he said any of them from his podium, I wouldn't care as to what happened to him. But it looks like he'll make every effort to follow the rules. > How is this unreasonable. "We will not support your conference if you give the podium to a famous and vocal racist who calls for the enslavement of black people." It's not far from being reasonable, except you seem to be forgetting that he's never made a call to action. And the fact that his views on race, in the way that he holds them, have nothing to do with tech. Actually, it is kind of far from being reasonable. > And the amount of pressure brought to the sponsors is minimal. Look, I don't really care about pressure to the sponsors. The possible damage here to them is minimal. What I do care about is how this affects LambdaConf. It's really sad that there is damage done to LambdaConf just because of this. You even said that they're "taking the expensive road." You realize how much this one issue is hurting them. > Don't these communities have a right and a duty to control their attendance as they see fit? Who is "these communities"? On my post with the text "This just in", I have more than 30 upvotes. Your posts are going gray. You are trying to control the attendance of the community as you see fit. And there are people in the community that disagree with you. > Why should an intolerant bigot be included in any community? If you exclude bigots, they will be bigots forever. Imagine if someone hadn't included you into their community when you were, as you described yourself, "a hyper-right self-denying religious racist as a child." If you were shunned by the community, wouldn't you still be that way today? I believe in including bigots because I believe that people can change. I believe in including racists because I believe in working with people to achieve something great, regardless of who those people are. You're not just intolerant of racism (which is an understandable thing), you're being intolerant of an entire person. And you're taking action on it. You yourself are acting in an intolerant manner. And that's a shame, because you're a well-reasoned person, you're clearly intelligent, and I'm enjoying this discussion with you.

KirinDave 11y ago

> ... this is a really unfortunate way to carry a discussion. And I'll remind you that he's not carrying his ideals to the conference. That'd be against the Pledge, as well as against his public statement in the article. Why exactly is it that a short written statement can somehow absolve someone of the social responsibility of a multi-year career of hate speech? > What doesn't his code have to do with it? It is indeed a tech conference, and I believe that anyone who has an interest in tech and is willing to follow the rules should be able to attend. No one has said he can't attend. Why would yous suggest this? > But do you think he's going to be an awful person in person? And I'll quote back again to my previous post: "is his mere presence such an affront to you? Are you really unable to exist in the same space as a racist? I understand that those views are fundamentally wrong and really awful. But what does his presence have to do with it? Can you explain to me a scenario where his presence is a factor in the equation?" It's not his presence. It's his authority figure as a speaker while being an outspoken member of the pro-racism community. Do you actually know what he writes about? > And I agree that criticizing bad actors is a perfectly okay thing to do, within reason. I disagree with the idea that the shitstorm surrounding this is reasonable. How is this unreasonable. "We will not support your conference if you give the podium to a famous and vocal racist who calls for the enslavement of black people." This is a boycott. No one is suggesting they be made to comply by force. And the amount of pressure brought to the sponsors is minimal. Tiny. People are choosing not to support LambdaConf because the notion of handing the microphone to a prominent and vocal defender of racism is a vile notion. Why is this so hard to grasp? > This is totally excluding someone from a community. And as much as I agree with your right to have your opinion, I disagree with the idea of taking action on such an opinion. Why should an intolerant bigot be included in any community? Don't these communities have a right and a duty to control their attendance as they see fit?

striking 11y ago
> Why exactly is it that a short written statement can somehow absolve someone of the social responsibility of a multi-year career of hate speech? It doesn't. I agree that what he said was unacceptable. But just because what he said was unacceptable, does that mean we shouldn't accept him and everything he does? > No one has said he can't attend. Why would yous suggest this? Right, sorry. He can attend for sure. I meant that he should be able to speak, since he'll be following all the rules and has an interest in tech. > It's his authority figure as a speaker while being an outspoken member of the pro-racism community. He doesn't identify himself by his racist beliefs. He keeps them separate from his technology. It has nothing to do with his tech. If he walked up to someone from a minority group and talked about his views at the conference, or if he said any of them from his podium, I wouldn't care as to what happened to him. But it looks like he'll make every effort to follow the rules. > How is this unreasonable. "We will not support your conference if you give the podium to a famous and vocal racist who calls for the enslavement of black people." It's not far from being reasonable, except you seem to be forgetting that he's never made a call to action. And the fact that his views on race, in the way that he holds them, have nothing to do with tech. Actually, it is kind of far from being reasonable. > And the amount of pressure brought to the sponsors is minimal. Look, I don't really care about pressure to the sponsors. The possible damage here to them is minimal. What I do care about is how this affects LambdaConf. It's really sad that there is damage done to LambdaConf just because of this. You even said that they're "taking the expensive road." You realize how much this one issue is hurting them. > Don't these communities have a right and a duty to control their attendance as they see fit? Who is "these communities"? On my post with the text "This just in", I have more than 30 upvotes. Your posts are going gray. You are trying to control the attendance of the community as you see fit. And there are people in the community that disagree with you. > Why should an intolerant bigot be included in any community? If you exclude bigots, they will be bigots forever. Imagine if someone hadn't included you into their community when you were, as you described yourself, "a hyper-right self-denying religious racist as a child." If you were shunned by the community, wouldn't you still be that way today? I believe in including bigots because I believe that people can change. I believe in including racists because I believe in working with people to achieve something great, regardless of who those people are. You're not just intolerant of racism (which is an understandable thing), you're being intolerant of an entire person. And you're taking action on it. You yourself are acting in an intolerant manner. And that's a shame, because you're a well-reasoned person, you're clearly intelligent, and I'm enjoying this discussion with you.