> "This person was convicted of raping someone. You feel safe interacting with them in person, but others might not." The fact that some people may "feel safe

> "This person was convicted of raping someone. You feel safe interacting with them in person, but others might not." The fact that some people may "feel safe interacting with them in person, but others might not" is exactly my point. We shouldn't be locking people out of society forever and ever based on feelings. We need to work locally to try and find optimal solutions to specific problems, and provide the tools needed for the individuals involved to make the best out of the situation (within the boundaries of the law, which includes anti-discrimination laws). > "Don’t misrepresent what this means. Inclusion is about including people who’ve been excluded through no fault of their own." That's your interpretation of this, but that's not the universal definition of "inclusion". Also, do you actually know the specific people involved, and the specific details of what happened? People commit crimes due to any number of factors (experiencing abuse earlier in life, mental conditions, being a victim of a crime themselves at some point, different struggles, etc). You yourself just suggested that "it would be good to show a bit more empathy", so how about you actually follow your own advice? > "Is your claim that a convicted rapist has done nothing to deserve to be excluded?" No, that's not what I claimed at-all. It's always amusing to see the logical leaps a SJW will go through to try and get a point across. First - when you say "excluded" - could you be more specific? Excluded from what exactly? From life on earth? From ever leaving home again? From ever interacting with other human beings? What exactly would be an appropriate life for a person in this position, according to you? Second - this person, according to you, has been convicted. In a democratic, law-abiding society - this means they've been handled by the legal and correctional systems, which are the only two systems that have a monopoly on "judging" and "correcting" people. It's not up to a C++ conference to "judge" or "correct" people. Third - this person may very well be trying their hardest to heal, move on, and start over. What are you doing to help such people come back and reintegrate into society? Fourth - why stop at one specific class of crimes? Let's throw out everybody with a record. Tax issues? Stealing candy at a gas store when you were 12? Bad divorce? How about speeding tickets? I don't feel safe working with people who drive recklessly. We must make sure there aren't any such people in CppCon 2022. Got arrested by the police at a violent BLM protest? Too bad, you're locked out of society forever. Or... wait, that's not the people you're actually after here, are you?