[amdavidson]

Just because a person uses the words "What about" does not make their argument whataboutism.

Their argument is 100% relevant to the sentiment that was expressed. If the stated benefit of excluding one group to allow for the free expression of the other is increased scientific discourse, how do we balance that against the loss of discourse from the excluded?

[fvdessen]

Sam is asking people to be more inclusive of different ideas, not excluding one group for the benefit of the other.

I don't quite get how one jumps from 'we have to tolerate different ideas' to 'people will be excluded'. How does tolerating different ideas excludes people ?

[amdavidson]

It's trivially easy to imagine this from the opposite perspective.

Imagine you worked in a 90% gay office, and it was tolerated to disparage you and remark on the vile nature of your heterosexuality on a daily basis.

Only an exceptionally strong willed person would stay very long and it still probably would reduce their output of novel ideas.

The argument is not, and should never be, that we should fire people for their thoughts. If someone is strongly socially conservative, that's their right. But is is perfectly reasonable to require people to leave those conversations at home when they head into the office.

[carapace]

"allow people to say disparaging things about gay people"

tolerating [this] different ideas excludes [gay] people