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