[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?

[mcphage]

Better? Maybe not at all. But I was responding to the question of how openly racist a person would have to be.

[bcook]

(Agreeing with mcphage) Regarding "openly"... it's kinda funny that we encourage people to keep their darker thoughts to themselves. Learning is harder when you do not know you are "different".

So racism is OK if nobody is aware of it?

Somewhat related to the recent article about the CEO being fired for making honest (but offensive) statements... Silence does not seem to solve as much as an open dialogue would.