6 ms·

> denying funding is another Is it? Since when does anyone have a fundamental right to funding? > A Python conference is not an LGBT entertainment venue. A P

> denying funding is another Is it? Since when does anyone have a fundamental right to funding? > A Python conference is not an LGBT entertainment venue. A Python conference is not the place to have a conversation about that at all. If someone shows up in drag, the question is, "what technical topic are they going to discuss?" If you have a dress code in mind for a Python conference, I would suggest that is a political ask. Code does not care if someone is wearing drag, it will compile the same. > Political pluralism means give and take. Seems like you want LGBT people to do all of the taking and none of the giving. "The government shouldn't be able to throw me into prison" is not "all of the taking". Again, if we were talking about the presence of anti-LGBTQ rhetoric or about people attending who were known to be anti-gay, maybe we'd have a conversation about give or take. But that is very much not what we are talking about. Political pluralism is about give and take in order to allow people to coexist. And the scenario we are discussing is explicitly one in which one side has said, "you do not get to coexist and if you try to we will throw you in prison. Hide from us." That's not give and take. Give and take is "we don't like each other but we'll live together and do our best to make this work." In contrast, "stop existing" is the opposite of give and take, and "stop existing" is what the Tanzanian government is asking for. > I mean, they pretty much can? Just don't advertise your LGBT status? If the risk of you letting slip that you're gay is a prison sentence, then that is not a reasonable ask, period. It's also explicitly not a pluralist notion. Pluralism means living together; if someone needs to hide who they are, you're not learning about that person or getting to know them or being exposed to new viewpoints. People going undercover about something as fundamental as their gender is not pluralism, and if someone demands that of them, then they are not actually asking to live alongside people who are different. They are asking for everyone who is different to pretend that they are the same. > Most attendees are going to be from Africa anyways, so this situation is sadly pretty much expected for many of them. The conference was not turned down because of an assumption that the conference organizers were anti-gay, and I haven't seen any reason to label them that way. The conference funding was also not denied because of an assumption that African people would be homophobic. I have no doubt that a lot of the people who were trying to organize this conference are great people who have no problem with LGBTQ attendees. This isn't about the African people, it's about laws. > Is there even a single LGBT African who is complaining about this conference situation? Seems like you may be working very hard to save people who didn't ask to be saved? What part of "you can be thrown in prison if you're outed as gay" do people not understand here? Do you think gay people in Africa like that situation? And in any case, if you're throwing a worldwide conference and you want it to be pluralist, then it's not just your opinions that matter anymore, you have to be able to tolerate a global audience. Tanzania doesn't appear have the legal flexibility to do that.

0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
>Is it? Since when does anyone have a fundamental right to funding? No one has a right to funding, just a right to fair consideration. This sort of "no one has a right to funding" rhetoric gives the PSF license to discriminate in whatever arbitrary manner they please. Suppose Tommy Tuberville turns down your funding request because he doesn't like that an organizer is LGBT, and "no one has a fundamental right to funding" -- do you support that? >A Python conference is not the place to have a conversation about that at all. If someone shows up in drag, the question is, "what technical topic are they going to discuss?" If you have a dress code in mind for a Python conference, I would suggest that is a political ask. Code does not care if someone is wearing drag, it will compile the same. Suppose my girlfriend and I are into BDSM, and I'm planning to lead her around the conference naked on a leash. An organizer talks to me about this. I say: "A Python conference is not the place to have a conversation about this. Your only question should be what technical topic I am going to discuss. Your suggested dress code is a political ask. Code doesn't care about our kinks." Should we treat a kink differently just because it happens to be disproportionately common among the LGBT population? Keep your kinks at home at a professional conference. >"The government shouldn't be able to throw me into prison" is not "all of the taking". Again, if we were talking about the presence of anti-LGBTQ rhetoric or about people attending who were known to be anti-gay, maybe we'd have a conversation about give or take. But that is very much not what we are talking about. Sorry this seems like a total non sequiter to me, you'll have to explain better. I don't see how it connects to the drag queen scenario. It seems like you're making a motte and bailey argument: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-brick-in-the-motte/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-bri... >And the scenario we are discussing is explicitly one in which one side has said, "you do not get to coexist and if you try to we will throw you in prison. Hide from us." That's not give and take. Indeed, homophobic laws are bad. I'm glad you also believe in give and take. Can you give a specific example of a "give" that the LGBT community should be willing to make? See my statement from earlier "Seems like you want LGBT people to do all of the taking and none of the giving." I'm happy to be corrected! >Give and take is "we don't like each other but we'll live together and do our best to make this work." In contrast, "stop existing" is the opposite of give and take, and "stop existing" is what the Tanzanian government is asking for. >... >If the risk of you letting slip that you're gay is a prison sentence, then that is not a reasonable ask, period. Maybe there's a misunderstanding here. I agree that the Tanzanian government are being jerks. My position is I don't think it's fair to take our frustration about that out on African people. >What part of "you can be thrown in prison if you're outed as gay" do people not understand here? Do you think gay people in Africa like that situation? Has there even been an anonymous complaint? Let someone make an anonymous complaint, a trusted community member can verify their identity, then maybe we can think about a venue change. >And in any case, if you're throwing a worldwide conference and you want it to be pluralist, then it's not just your opinions that matter anymore, you have to be able to tolerate a global audience. Tanzania doesn't appear have the legal flexibility to do that. I agree if the conference name was "DjangoCon Global" as opposed to "DjangoCon Africa", Tanzania would not be an appropriate location. As things are, I think it is reasonable to weigh the cost of a venue change, vs a few gay Africans having to briefly live under homophobic laws that they're most likely quite used to if they travel around Africa. I think it is reasonable for "DjangoCon Africa" to target an African audience and make decisions around what works best for that audience. For example, if a venue change means that some LGBTs can now attend safely, but a much larger number of other conference attendees aren't able to reach the new location, then I think it is reasonable to stay in the original location, in order to maximize overall accessibility for attendees. Even if Tanzania is the wrong venue, I think that is a discussion for next year's conference -- this isn't a sufficient justification to cancel the conference altogether or deny it funding. That'd be like if a college defunded their intro to computer science class because not everyone got an A. It's a toxic need for equality. Again, it's not fair to take out frustration with Tanzania's laws out on the people of Africa.

0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago

>Is it? Since when does anyone have a fundamental right to funding? No one has a right to funding, just a right to fair consideration. This sort of "no one has a right to funding" rhetoric gives the PSF license to discriminate in whatever arbitrary manner they please. Suppose Tommy Tuberville turns down your funding request because he doesn't like that an organizer is LGBT, and "no one has a fundamental right to funding" -- do you support that? >A Python conference is not the place to have a conversation about that at all. If someone shows up in drag, the question is, "what technical topic are they going to discuss?" If you have a dress code in mind for a Python conference, I would suggest that is a political ask. Code does not care if someone is wearing drag, it will compile the same. Suppose my girlfriend and I are into BDSM, and I'm planning to lead her around the conference naked on a leash. An organizer talks to me about this. I say: "A Python conference is not the place to have a conversation about this. Your only question should be what technical topic I am going to discuss. Your suggested dress code is a political ask. Code doesn't care about our kinks." Should we treat a kink differently just because it happens to be disproportionately common among the LGBT population? Keep your kinks at home at a professional conference. >"The government shouldn't be able to throw me into prison" is not "all of the taking". Again, if we were talking about the presence of anti-LGBTQ rhetoric or about people attending who were known to be anti-gay, maybe we'd have a conversation about give or take. But that is very much not what we are talking about. Sorry this seems like a total non sequiter to me, you'll have to explain better. I don't see how it connects to the drag queen scenario. It seems like you're making a motte and bailey argument: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-brick-in-the-motte/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-bri... >And the scenario we are discussing is explicitly one in which one side has said, "you do not get to coexist and if you try to we will throw you in prison. Hide from us." That's not give and take. Indeed, homophobic laws are bad. I'm glad you also believe in give and take. Can you give a specific example of a "give" that the LGBT community should be willing to make? See my statement from earlier "Seems like you want LGBT people to do all of the taking and none of the giving." I'm happy to be corrected! >Give and take is "we don't like each other but we'll live together and do our best to make this work." In contrast, "stop existing" is the opposite of give and take, and "stop existing" is what the Tanzanian government is asking for. >... >If the risk of you letting slip that you're gay is a prison sentence, then that is not a reasonable ask, period. Maybe there's a misunderstanding here. I agree that the Tanzanian government are being jerks. My position is I don't think it's fair to take our frustration about that out on African people. >What part of "you can be thrown in prison if you're outed as gay" do people not understand here? Do you think gay people in Africa like that situation? Has there even been an anonymous complaint? Let someone make an anonymous complaint, a trusted community member can verify their identity, then maybe we can think about a venue change. >And in any case, if you're throwing a worldwide conference and you want it to be pluralist, then it's not just your opinions that matter anymore, you have to be able to tolerate a global audience. Tanzania doesn't appear have the legal flexibility to do that. I agree if the conference name was "DjangoCon Global" as opposed to "DjangoCon Africa", Tanzania would not be an appropriate location. As things are, I think it is reasonable to weigh the cost of a venue change, vs a few gay Africans having to briefly live under homophobic laws that they're most likely quite used to if they travel around Africa. I think it is reasonable for "DjangoCon Africa" to target an African audience and make decisions around what works best for that audience. For example, if a venue change means that some LGBTs can now attend safely, but a much larger number of other conference attendees aren't able to reach the new location, then I think it is reasonable to stay in the original location, in order to maximize overall accessibility for attendees. Even if Tanzania is the wrong venue, I think that is a discussion for next year's conference -- this isn't a sufficient justification to cancel the conference altogether or deny it funding. That'd be like if a college defunded their intro to computer science class because not everyone got an A. It's a toxic need for equality. Again, it's not fair to take out frustration with Tanzania's laws out on the people of Africa.