[carapace]

It is correct and proper to shun and revile a person who actually advocates slavery.

To say, "Well, as long as he is not advocating slavery at the con, that's fine." is ridiculous.

Throw the racist evil nasty bum out and let someone else who actually deserves the timeslot talk.

[thescribe]

Where is the line though? Should radically conservative parts of the south bar anyone who has advocated for gay marriage from speaking at tech conferences?

[caseysoftware]

I think this and the growing list of similar circumstances establishes "she/he/it offended me" as a valid reason to blacklist anyone.

Whoever gets to define Bad Think is in a position of incredible unchecked power.

[SwellJoe]

I'm curious how much power you believe a programming language conference can exert on someone? You've called it "incredible unchecked power", but what does that mean here? Power to do what? Ask someone not to speak? Is there some other "power" being wielded that I'm not grasping?

You seem to be making a "slippery slope" argument; I guess on the basis that you're afraid any unpopular opinion can get one ostracized. But, slippery slope is generally considered a fallacy, and this is a great example of why. The conference organizers themselves have gone to great lengths to talk about all of the various and wildly differing beliefs held by participants that no one considers controversial and worthy of mention; right, left, religious, atheist, gay, straight, black, white, brown, all of these things are OK with everybody (by some reasonable definition of "everybody"). No one is suggesting Republicans/Libertarians/Democrats/Socialists shouldn't be allowed to speak or participate. We can all agree to disagree on those concepts and have civil conversations about other subjects without it being a big deal.

Civil people can disagree without suggesting some people are genetically predisposed to being slaves and that others (conveniently, the person making the suggestion among them) are naturally predisposed to be their masters. And, there's where the problem lies. One can't reasonably "agree to disagree" with someone who considers an entire race to be subhuman; at least, I can't. That's, frankly, a person I want to be as far away from as possible. I certainly don't want to be a participant in a community that welcomes that person.

[caseysoftware]

I'll describe it a different way:

Either:

- It is wrong to denigrate any group (religion, race, ethnicity, etc); or

- It is okay to denigrate any group (religion, race, ethnicity, etc); or

- It is wrong to denigrate certain groups (religion, race, ethnicity, etc) but not others.

It appears that we're in the third category. Therefore, whoever gets to define that list is in a position of great power to punish some while excusing others for the same action. And - as we've seen - since the stakes seem to be the livelihoods of the people involved, it's an important conversation to have.

The programming language conference is just the setting.

[SwellJoe]

"Either:

- It is wrong to denigrate any group (religion, race, ethnicity, etc); or

- It is okay to denigrate any group (religion, race, ethnicity, etc); or

- It is wrong to denigrate certain groups (religion, race, ethnicity, etc) but not others.

It appears that we're in the third category."

Because someone has said that supporting slavery is deeply, possibly unforgivably, wrong?

Your third category is "religion, race, ethnicity, etc". Where does "believes some people were born to be slaves and others were born to be their masters" fit into that?

Again, you're making a slippery slope argument, in what you call a "different way", but it looks the same to me. Perhaps I'm still not understanding you.

Am I understanding that you believe no groups should ever be denigrated? So, we shouldn't denigrate white supremacists and neo-Nazis? Why not? We shouldn't denigrate mass murderers? Why not? We shouldn't denigrate dictators? How about religious fundamentalists who prevent girls from getting an education because they are girls? Can I denigrate them? They aren't physically hurting anyone, they aren't "violent". But, I think the civilized world should shun them.

There are, in fact, groups that most of us denigrate. I don't think repugnant beliefs should be considered sacred or free from criticism. Who makes those decisions? Well, I do, you do, organizations do, sometimes governments do.

"Therefore, whoever gets to define that list is in a position of great power to punish some while excusing others for the same action."

You're begging the question, and not answering mine.

"And - as we've seen - since the stakes seem to be the livelihoods of the people involved, it's an important conversation to have."

I have not seen that. Has this person lost their job because someone doesn't want to go to a conference with them? Though I would be entirely comfortable with overt racism and support of human slavery being a firing offense at any company.

Again, slippery slope is a fallacy. Supporting slavery is not a religion, a race, an ethnicity, an age, a gender, a sexual preference, or any other protected class.

[carapace]

The line is right there: Slavery.

This is not some slippery slope, and it's not about opinion.

It is not an "opinion" to advocate slavery. It is madness.

This is not about some group saying "we're all one" and some other group saying "no, the darkies should be enslaved" and it being some difference of opinion or something. This is about humanity versus bestial cruelty and psychotic violence.

Gay people aren't doing anything wrong.

Slavery advocates are doing something very wrong.

This isn't confusing and it's not a matter of subjective opinion.

[thescribe]

I see.

It must be super convenient that who should be barred aligns exactly with your morals and sensibilities.

[carapace]

That wouldn't be convenient at all. It would be, like, three Amish. I'd be outside too.

[bronson]

Just because the line isn't clear, and shifts depending on societal norms, that doesn't mean that it can just be ignored.

If a radically conservative tech conference feels that attendees would fear for their safety around gay marriage advocates then sure, they should ban them. I'm guessing that they'll find this counterproductive and other tech conferences will take up their slack but it's their choice.

[bcook]

Condemn what the man says, not the man. He may have some interesting or insightful things to say about other topics like Computer Science.

I disagree with everyone on at least one topic... throw them all under the bus because of that?

[carapace]

The logical implication of someone advocating slavery is that they also advocate psychotic violence and cruelty. I do condemn him, indeed, he has condemned himself.

There are myriad other people who "may have some interesting or insightful things to say about other topics", yes? Let one of them have his spot.

You just don't get to advocate slavery and then walk around and give talks at cons like a person. That is just not how it works. This guy is scum. There ain't really anything controversial about that.

[bcook]

A complex topic. I see your point, and I even agree... but where do we draw the line where someone's words now wholly condemn the person?

In your final paragraph, replace the word "slavery" with "gay marriage" or "Trump for president". Can I draw the line at people who support these movements and condemn all of them? Or can I draw the line at anyone who has ever shopped at Wal-Mart, and therefore supports Chinese manufacturing, which gives money to a country with horrible human rights violations?

Where do we draw the line? I really dunno. As long as the man has no actual slaves himself, his words do not bother me that much...

[serf]

No one seems to want to say it in plain English.

Here's where the line is drawn : where your morality and ethics are different than the other person.

It's no more or less noble than that. There is no black and white. There is no inherent truth that should be followed unequivocally.

Scary stuff. Better make sure the pseudonym you use to post atypical content is far and away from your professional life, I guess.

A line I am more interested in knowing about : when does this all become thought-crime?

[carapace]

Draw the line at pain and suffering. Go ahead and draw it right there.

--------------------

I used to be really judgemental. I'm less so now.

But when this blew up I knew what I wanted to stand for, and I have, in however minor and insignificant a way.

(Yay me, look at all my shiny points!)

The thing is, lots of people are focusing on him and the admittedly terrible idea that he should be shunned "just for his words".

But I really am more concerned with the folks, people who have never deserved what they put up with daily, who might look at this situation and wonder, "Where do you draw the line? How openly racist does a person have to be before they are no longer welcome in polite society?"

Whatever the LambdaConf folks' intention (and it was good: tolerance and freedom of speech are GOOD THINGS) their decision was a bad one: it means choosing a racist over all the humans who aren't racist or white. They are "gonna have a bad time."

---

To be clear, if the fool in question came to his senses and repented of this foul illogical nonsense, I would be more than willing to extend forgiveness to him.

The whole logic of the situation is "What enhances wholeness?" As soon as you take that frame as the overarching stance of analysis of the situation things clear up and reconciliation can commence.

---

Which brings me back to reiterate my original point: The word "slavery" seems to hide the horrible truth from people. That doesn't surprise me, it is a thing which wounds the mind, sears the soul. It is hell on earth, an institution built on violence and cruelty that indicts our whole species for even being capable of conceiving such a horror and perversion.

Please, PLEASE, don't equate it to love (between two men or two women or whatever) or even to wanting to vote for a troll-clown.

The line can be drawn at pain, at suffering.

Someone who advocates horrific cruelty and psychotic violence has crossed the line.

[mcphage]

> How openly racist does a person have to be before they are no longer welcome in polite society?

Apparently more openly racist than "wrote things under a pen name 17 years ago".

[mchahn]

I don't understand why people here are granting some acceptance points because he wrote it under a pen name. How does that make him a better person?