5 ms·

As an opponent of Trump, I'd still consider it a fundamental right of anyone to openly advertise their support for a mainstream political candidate and not get

As an opponent of Trump, I'd still consider it a fundamental right of anyone to openly advertise their support for a mainstream political candidate and not get banned from public venues for that. If party A doesn't like party B, then that gets settled for a ballot box, but for any public event if voting for party A, openly supporting party A, and being in party A disqualifies you from participation - well, either it's a political convention for party B or the policy is simply unacceptably wrong. I mean, there are two parties in the USA with a roughly comparable amount of supporters, with some shifting back and forth over the years. If the presence of a roughly half of population makes someone uncomfortable that's... interesting but inherently they have as much right to be there as you do. The right to swing one's fist ends at the other's nose; and the right to dislike members of an opposing party ends at the point where you kick them out from non-partisan events. IMHO a simple test would be whether you'd consider the equivalent action appropriate for someone wearing an Obama CHANGE hat back in 2008. What's good for goose is good for gander - we can hate certain policies, we can hate certain politicians, but applying that hate and exclusion to all the supporters of these politicians crosses a line that puts it right in the same ballpark as hating a major group of our (!) population because of their race or gender or religion. Active supporters of Trump are just as valid part of USA population as any other major group, like it or not. It's appropriate to try and convince them to change their opinion, but it's not appropriate to require them to change their opinion or try and exclude them from society.

jonbronson 7y ago
In ordinary times, this would make sense. But we're living in extraordinary times, where the mainstream political candidate of the American Right has more in common with despot authoritarians around the world than he does with the traditionally conservative ideals of the Republican party. This issue transcends politics, and is more directly about ethics and human decency. As for the problem this poses to conferences, it's not merely academic. We know that any involvement of people from diverse backgrounds leads to a more creative environment. When a few bad actors threaten the stability and civility of that environment, conference organizers have not only a moral duty, but a professional obligation to address the situation. Whether or not political extremists are bothered by that is frankly irrelevant.
- zozbot234 7y ago
  > This issue transcends politics, and is more directly about ethics and human decency. Yeah I mean, that's just, like, your opinion, human.
- ElijahLynn 7y ago
  Exactly, this isn't some "political" difference, this is a fundamental fight about decency and human rights. It is THE core of open source in a way. Thanks for this, " This issue transcends politics, and is more directly about ethics and human decency."
- lliamander 7y ago
  > This issue transcends politics, and is more directly about ethics and human decency. False. Politics is how we work out how to live together given conflicting value systems. > When a few bad actors threaten the stability and civility of that environment, conference organizers have not only a moral duty, but a professional obligation to address the situation. This type of response is not going to change anyone's mind, and is only going to make the problem worse.
  - jonbronson 7y ago
    It's not about changing that persons mind. It's about maximizing the value of the event for the rest of attendees. And no, on politics. Differences of opinion on how to run a country, where to put resources, what policy makes sense. All fair game. Whether or not a gender or minority has access to the same rights as everyone else? Not political. That's a matter of human decency. The very bare minimum to begin to enter professional ethics.
    - PeterisP 7y ago
      Rest of the attendees includes many other Trump supporters, who have all right to be there and shouldn't have to fear getting kicked out for admitting it. You seem to imply that Trump supporters either don't exist or don't matter - whether or not people of some political party affiliation have the same rights as everyone else is just as much part of professional ethics as the equivalent thing for gender or race. This political filtering seems a bit like a repeat of McCarthy's Red Scare.
zbentley 7y ago
> I'd still consider it a fundamental right of anyone to openly advertise their support for a mainstream political candidate and not get banned from public venues for that. KubeCon is not a public venue, at least in the way I think you mean it. It's a private conference, with tickets and admission policies. It's not a government; presumably so long as it does not take discriminatory action towards a protected class of people, it is free to do as it pleases. > it's not appropriate to require them to change their opinion or try and exclude them from society. Ease off on the handwringing. KubeCon is hardly "society". It's a niche industry conference.
- PeterisP 7y ago
  In this comment I meant a public venue in the sense of any venue not specific to a particular political party or some members-only closed organization. Sure, it's legally free to do as it chooses, but I'm claiming that it shouldn't choose that way, that all such venues should explicitly allow also people who are advocates for the "enemy" party if this is not a political event. "The society", whether talking about the whole country or about the tech domain or about particular narrow industries, inevitably includes people of all parties, including active Trump supporters. They're part of the community. Where do we draw the line if supporting one of the major presidental candidates is not acceptable? Do we start labeling tech cons as "Democrats and other anti-Republicans only" events? That seems really wrong, that's putting way more politics in tech events than should be reasonable - IMHO they should actively choose to be politically neutral. And I believe that it's important to underline that this is a symmetric thing. Yes, there's a polarization where many people believe that the active supporters of the other party are inherently unethical. That cuts both ways, and has done so many times in past. If you say that it's okay for niche industry conferences to kick out someone for openly supporting the presidental candidate they like, then it means that it's okay for niche industry conferences (now or after a couple elections) to kick out people like you for openly supporting the candidate that you prefer. And I don't think that this is where we want to go.
- lliamander 7y ago
  > Ease off on the handwringing. KubeCon is hardly "society". It's a niche industry conference. This kind of thing is occuring with some degree of regularity across the tech industry. KubeCon is hardly the first (nor the last) such incident.
PantsyMcPants 7y ago
I agree that active supporters of Trump are just as valid as any other group like white nationalists, KKK etc, but I disagree with the idea that is implied by your text that a group’s size makes them more valid as a group. Half the country are not Republican. About half the electorate is. Voter turn out Was about 55%. 46% of the people voted for Trump. So about 25% of the citizens in the country voted for him. Even less currently support him and this is not even counting undocumented immigrants. None of this should even matter anyhow because the size of the group doesn’t make it okay. I shouldn’t have to invoke Godwin’s law to justify this, but I will at the slightest provocation.

jonbronson 7y ago

In ordinary times, this would make sense. But we're living in extraordinary times, where the mainstream political candidate of the American Right has more in common with despot authoritarians around the world than he does with the traditionally conservative ideals of the Republican party. This issue transcends politics, and is more directly about ethics and human decency. As for the problem this poses to conferences, it's not merely academic. We know that any involvement of people from diverse backgrounds leads to a more creative environment. When a few bad actors threaten the stability and civility of that environment, conference organizers have not only a moral duty, but a professional obligation to address the situation. Whether or not political extremists are bothered by that is frankly irrelevant.

zozbot234 7y ago
> This issue transcends politics, and is more directly about ethics and human decency. Yeah I mean, that's just, like, your opinion, human.
ElijahLynn 7y ago
Exactly, this isn't some "political" difference, this is a fundamental fight about decency and human rights. It is THE core of open source in a way. Thanks for this, " This issue transcends politics, and is more directly about ethics and human decency."
lliamander 7y ago
> This issue transcends politics, and is more directly about ethics and human decency. False. Politics is how we work out how to live together given conflicting value systems. > When a few bad actors threaten the stability and civility of that environment, conference organizers have not only a moral duty, but a professional obligation to address the situation. This type of response is not going to change anyone's mind, and is only going to make the problem worse.
- jonbronson 7y ago
  It's not about changing that persons mind. It's about maximizing the value of the event for the rest of attendees. And no, on politics. Differences of opinion on how to run a country, where to put resources, what policy makes sense. All fair game. Whether or not a gender or minority has access to the same rights as everyone else? Not political. That's a matter of human decency. The very bare minimum to begin to enter professional ethics.
  - PeterisP 7y ago
    Rest of the attendees includes many other Trump supporters, who have all right to be there and shouldn't have to fear getting kicked out for admitting it. You seem to imply that Trump supporters either don't exist or don't matter - whether or not people of some political party affiliation have the same rights as everyone else is just as much part of professional ethics as the equivalent thing for gender or race. This political filtering seems a bit like a repeat of McCarthy's Red Scare.

zbentley 7y ago

> I'd still consider it a fundamental right of anyone to openly advertise their support for a mainstream political candidate and not get banned from public venues for that. KubeCon is not a public venue, at least in the way I think you mean it. It's a private conference, with tickets and admission policies. It's not a government; presumably so long as it does not take discriminatory action towards a protected class of people, it is free to do as it pleases. > it's not appropriate to require them to change their opinion or try and exclude them from society. Ease off on the handwringing. KubeCon is hardly "society". It's a niche industry conference.

PeterisP 7y ago
In this comment I meant a public venue in the sense of any venue not specific to a particular political party or some members-only closed organization. Sure, it's legally free to do as it chooses, but I'm claiming that it shouldn't choose that way, that all such venues should explicitly allow also people who are advocates for the "enemy" party if this is not a political event. "The society", whether talking about the whole country or about the tech domain or about particular narrow industries, inevitably includes people of all parties, including active Trump supporters. They're part of the community. Where do we draw the line if supporting one of the major presidental candidates is not acceptable? Do we start labeling tech cons as "Democrats and other anti-Republicans only" events? That seems really wrong, that's putting way more politics in tech events than should be reasonable - IMHO they should actively choose to be politically neutral. And I believe that it's important to underline that this is a symmetric thing. Yes, there's a polarization where many people believe that the active supporters of the other party are inherently unethical. That cuts both ways, and has done so many times in past. If you say that it's okay for niche industry conferences to kick out someone for openly supporting the presidental candidate they like, then it means that it's okay for niche industry conferences (now or after a couple elections) to kick out people like you for openly supporting the candidate that you prefer. And I don't think that this is where we want to go.
lliamander 7y ago
> Ease off on the handwringing. KubeCon is hardly "society". It's a niche industry conference. This kind of thing is occuring with some degree of regularity across the tech industry. KubeCon is hardly the first (nor the last) such incident.

PantsyMcPants 7y ago

I agree that active supporters of Trump are just as valid as any other group like white nationalists, KKK etc, but I disagree with the idea that is implied by your text that a group’s size makes them more valid as a group. Half the country are not Republican. About half the electorate is. Voter turn out Was about 55%. 46% of the people voted for Trump. So about 25% of the citizens in the country voted for him. Even less currently support him and this is not even counting undocumented immigrants. None of this should even matter anyhow because the size of the group doesn’t make it okay. I shouldn’t have to invoke Godwin’s law to justify this, but I will at the slightest provocation.