[th0br0]

There's one sentence that stands out:

  LambdaConf cannot live up to its goal of being a “friendly community of like-minded souls” when it does not protect current and potential members of that community who are vulnerable to those who would deny  their humanity.

I would love to know how those members of that community are supposedly vulnerable. In the end, it is one voice against many. That voice will, in a big group, be drowned out. And the speaker this statement is aimed against is at the conference for his technological/theoretical knowledge - not to spread his non-technical opinions. Therefore, any likely violation of the community members' personality(?!?) is simply an assumption.

Furthermore, the speaker was previously banned from another conference. I have yet to find accounts that such violations have actually taken place at a conference where he gave a talk. Shouldn't the basic assumption in a system based on the rule of law, that you're innocent until proven guilty be the case here as well?

[thescribe]

They're 'vulnerable' because they choose to believe that all opposite makes them unsafe.

Call me when they don't let "Death to capitalists" radical communists speak, and then we'll talk about excluding people who are pro-slavery.