PrlConf 2016 is cancelled

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.

If you really want someone's ideas to be discredited, let them express them and then refute them in a debate like format. Let them get exposure and if their ideas are wrong or bad it will be evident to anyone who is listening.

Silencing people because "I don't like what they say" is wrong.

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.

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.

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?