[HCIdivision17]

I respectfully note that their conclusion is the opposite: that you can separate the person from the talk. That an informative talk well spoken by an asshole is still informative. And, well, the speaker may still be a jerk. But the conference wants to have an air of professionalism, and therefore you should go to be informed, not as a vote in a popularity contest of any kind.

They also seem to have a strong intolerance of the practice of assholery. So should anyone overstep, it sure seems like retribution will be swift. So if people behave, then there should be no worry: people are expected to behave. And if anyone bullies - in any way - expect moderation with extreme predjudice (that is a great phrase in English).

There may be many closet assholes out there, but we don't bar them, since we expect people to behave by default. Expect the best of people and prepare to be temporarily impressed or disappointed.

[d_t_w]

"But the conference wants to have an air of professionalism"

There is very little chance Yarvin would get past the HR department of any client I can think of, are there professional environments you can think of where his reputation wouldn't cause significant difficulties to participation?

I'm not sure an argument from professionalism is the appropriate one. More if you have a club you can invite whoever you like, and if others are not comfortable with the members they can choose not to attend.

I'm sure John De Goes is earnest, the risk is that his conference may be attended solely by similarly earnest people who look precisely like John De Goes, and for whom emotional assault is unverifiable and incomparable, hypothetical.

[tomp]

> There is very little chance Yarvin would get past the HR department of any client I can think of

I really don't understand how personal opinions aren't protected in the same way as religion (i.e. that they can't be a reason not to hire someone). Religion is just as much a choice as any other personal belief/opinion, and it has caused at least as much, if not much more, harm as e.g. racism and sexism. In addition, it's a signal that the person is fundamentally irrational or immature (cf. an adult that believes Santa or unicorns exist).

[tjic]

> There is very little chance Yarvin would get past the HR department of any

I think this is an intended as an attack on Yarvin, but it makes much more sense to me as an attack on HR departments.

If HR departments are filtering out tech ically astute candidates bc of what they do out of the office , they are harming the corporation.

[greenrd]

It depends. I wouldn't hire Yarvin, because his record of alleged racist writing and speech suggest he would be a lawsuit waiting to happen. But Lambdaconf appear to have decided that explicitly muzzling his alleged racist and political views for the duration of the conference is likely to work, or at least it makes sense to give him the benefit of the doubt, and I agree on that. Also, similarly, my standards on who I would wish to work with are stricter than who would deter me from attending a technical conference. Calling supporters of Nelson Mandela mother f*ers is not a good culture fit.

[d_t_w]

It's a statement of fact, not a judgement.

You're welcome to your opinions of HR departments, and of Yarvin.

[lukev]

Yep. I certainly disagree with that conclusion. There are a wealth of awesome talks by awesome people out there. If Yarvin was excluded, his slot would have been filled by an equally interesting, equally informative talk not by a racist.

[st3v3r]

One could say that, by letting a known asshole speak, they are not showing a strong intolerance of the practice of assholery.

[stcredzero]

not showing a strong intolerance

So everyone needs to show the proper intolerance towards the prescribed things? I'm glad you are coming out and saying that you are engaging in what you think is righteous intolerance.

However, I think taking such a stance misses the point.

[Frondo]

Well, pretty much, yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

[thescribe]

This is exactly why tolerance as called for in this thread is not a virtue.

The only people I see being tolerant in any of these threads are the ones saying "I find his views disgusting but I think he should speak".

[stcredzero]

Doing unto others how they would have done to you, had your side not won -- how is that a virtue? That's like taking prisoners and violating the Geneva Convention, because they would have behaved that way to you. Unfortunately, this is the kind of nation the United States has become. (Really, nations, plural, because we've forgotten how to be a loyal opposition and hang together.)

Everyone thinks their side is just. The lesson of history is that one can recognize the truly just and enlightened through their magnanimity. Those who did wrong should be punished. Sure, but going around bullying those who thought wrong? There's something really shortsighted and twisted about that. How isn't that simply McCarthyism through legal socially-enforced means?

[thescribe]

>Doing unto others how they would have done to you, had your side not won

This is such an elegant and concise summary.

[mcphage]

Well, if he can't tolerate you either, then you'll both be fully tolerant!

[st3v3r]

Why should I be tolerant of people who clearly are not tolerant of others? I mean, we're not talking about some benign disagreement, like whether you like PHP or Ruby. We're talking about someone who has flat out said that slavery should return, and certain classes of people are not deserving of basic human dignity.

I'm sorry, but I see nothing wrong with not being tolerant of those views. Tolerating them sends the message that they are acceptable views that have merit.

[HCIdivision17]

In a similar way, letting a known something person speak means they're not intolerant of something. I mean, yeah, you could make that argument, but it sure doesn't seem substantial or useful. That's the point of Xyism at the end: it doesn't have much to do with functional programming , and functional programming is what the conference is explicitly about.

And there is an explicit threat against assholery: perform it and you'll be excluded. Don't and you'll have the same protection any other person has.

It is implicitly not about a very large range of things, namely mostly stuff that isn't functional programming.

[st3v3r]

"And there is an explicit threat against assholery: perform it and you'll be excluded"

Yet, this guy has performed it. And he's not being excluded.