PrlConf 2016 is cancelled
jonprl.org
jonprl.org
However, the views were written under a pseudonym years ago and has no bearing on technology.
Basically, these were anonymous talks jotted down somewhere.
It is shocking that this person John Sterling canceling this talk thinks it's a good idea to permanently sentence a person for what the wrote UNDER A PSEUDONYM years ago and may or may not longer think the thoughts.
This is the height of intolerance I have ever seen. Left to this guy, thinking absurd stuff today about various issues (not even acting on it) should banish on from society when it is discovered in 2 decades.
I unreservedly condemn such intolerance and declare it far more dangerous than folks who think Africans are a lower species. One is an uneducated thought the other a dangerous totalitarian action.
I believe you are operating under the same principles of censorship AND punishment for ideas you do not agree with.
I'm sure you you strongly believe his are "obviously bad". But that's how people in the places above think too.
Now, it would have been very different if his political views were a topic of conversation at the conference but to the best of my knowledge aren't. So how do both of them tie up.
I do not know what your religion or denomination is (or if you have one) but I know a lot of people who will not let you work for them (say develop a website) if you do not in private believe that Jesus is your personal Lord and savior.
You are acting alike sir.
PS:
1. Would you act the same if it was a black dude that wrote the same thing/has the same ideas he has?
2. To what extent should he be ostracized? Can he get investment in your VC firm for a photo app? Get a job at your company managing servers? Open a bank account?
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
PPS: What he wrote is very very insulting and reprehensible to me and I'm sure many others.
I decline to answer your questions about hypotheticals (a black person who says the same thing, or a hypothetical VC firm, etc.). I believe these are interesting questions, but I do not believe that anyone can come up with a set of rules or laws that captures precisely the outcomes we wish to see; as a result, I retreat to a far less ambitious perspective, where I intend to deal with things like this on a case-by-case basis using empathy and common sense, taking the unique circumstances into account.
I hope that this helps, and I recognize that you may not agree with the choice that I made. But I did my best.
(I find slavery and support for such reprehensible. Such ideas should be openly confronted and countered directly by expressing superior ideas. For example, the idea that all human beings have inherent value and should not be subject to the use of force inherent in slavery.)
(While I'm criticizing ideas, I'll criticize a couple more: 1. It is deceptive to imply there is was some threat to the safety of attendees. (The linguistic sleight of hand of "physical and emotional safety" is the giveaway. It combines and attempts to equate two unlike things.) 2. The repeated references to "solidarity" are a dressed up form of tribalism, placing loyalty to "us" or "our team" over clear thinking. (It's the left's equivalent to how some on the right use "patriotism".))
The article in question mentions agreeing to willing slavery, i.e. without the use of force:
> Once we get this far, we are almost all the way to Carlyle on slavery. We have not agreed that a man can be born a slave, but we agree that he can sell himself into slavery. That is: he can sign a contract with a master in which the slave agrees unconditionally to obey and work for the master, and the master agrees unconditionally to protect and support the slave.
On HN you're more likely to get told that choosing to make your group more inclusive and accessible to people of color is tantamount to supporting blacklists and suppression, but rest assured that there are a lot of people who appreciate this kind of thing.
We have to get past this notion that there's something virtuous and inclusionary about protecting bigots by giving them the ability to benefit from your platform. This perpetuates the culture of disinclusion we're already saddled with... it shows that more people are willing to speak up for those beliefs than of any person of color who might feel uncomfortable with the presence of a person who thinks they are biologically inferior and entitled to less status as a human being.
And speaking up about that doesn't make you in support of doxing, quote decontextualizing, online harassment, threatening the employment of others, blacklists, criminalization of expression, pogroms, etc. The irony of the slippery slope argument is how often its wielded to make the community less friendly to real diversity.
"My belief is that the nature of Sterling's public statements disqualifies him from acting in good faith with the broader community, at least until he has withdrawn them. I do not believe someone can leave something like: "then you will enjoy hard labor in the North, after we send all the counterrevolutionaries there!" [1] at the door. Even if he could, it wouldn't do anything for our speakers and attendees who are not comfortable sharing a stage or a room with him. The job of an event organizer is to make sure that conditions are comfortable for the people who have entrusted the organizer with their safety."
The presence at a tech conference of an overt, unrepentant promoter and apologist for the brutality of Communism, is offensive, demeaning, and endangering to:
- Victims, and descendants of the victims, of Stalin's "Great Purge" [2]
- Victims, and descendants of the victims, of Mao's "Cultural Revolution" [3]
- All other victims of the failed experiments in Communism; which is to say: all experiments in Communism.
- All "counterrevolutionaries" who oppose further experiments with this irreparably broken ideology.
[1] http://imgur.com/rlqa73W [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution
[0]http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything...
USSR:
"[We call for] painless but full liquidation of the monasteries, as chief centers of the influence of the churchmen, as nurseries of parasitism, as powerful screws in the exploiting machine of the old ruling classes."
USA:
"We will not knowingly employ a Communist ... In pursuing this policy, we are not going to be swayed by hysteria or intimidation from any source. We are frank to recognize that such a policy involves danger and risks. There is the danger of hurting innocent people. There is the risk of creating an atmosphere of fear. Creative work at its best cannot be carried on in an atmosphere of fear. We will guard against this danger, this risk, this fear."
"... We request Congress to enact legislation to assist American industry to rid itself of subversive, disloyal elements."
China:
"Although the bourgeoisie has been overthrown, it is still trying to use the old ideas, culture, customs, and habits of the exploiting classes to corrupt the masses, capture their minds, and stage a comeback."
"[Our] objective is to struggle against and crush those persons in authority who are taking the capitalist road, to criticize and repudiate the reactionary bourgeois academic “authorities” and the ideology of the bourgeoisie and all other exploiting classes"
If failing to preemptively blacklist ideologically unacceptable attendees carries with it this degree of negative response, then a preemptive Hollywood-style industry blacklist is exactly what we'll get.
It's already the case that defending someone like Moldbug carries with it the risk of being branded as supporting the popular perception of his views, which in turn means you too can be on the receiving end of mob wisdom.
Like this?
https://twitter.com/justkelly_ok/status/713222987537756163
"In case you think it's just LambdaConf: Google continues to employ one of Moldbug's most devoted followers."
"Tech employees: it's time to hold your execs accountable for lack of action. My tweets aren't gonna do it alone."
There's a lot of hypothetical rabbit holes to go down with this, but ultimately this is a distraction from what's being discussed, which is a person choosing to withdraw their workshop group from a conference because of the opinions of a speaker. Boycotting, protests, or simply declining to not participate are fundamental methods of democratic action. It's laughable to me that anyone would equate what's being talked about here with a suppressive measure.
I won't even discuss this subject non-anonymously due to the risk of the mob setting on me by association, not because I agree with Yarvin, but because I disagree strenuously with their use of intimidation to suppress people with whom they disagree.
Attempting to paint this as anything other than intimidation and suppression strikes me as a great irony as I sit here responding, necessarily for the well-being of myself and my family, anonymously.
There's a time and a place for that discussion, if you seriously want to spend time making sense of Yarvis' views in the first place. However, evaluating his proposal for a technical conference is not an adequate venue for reviewing and passing judgement on someone's broader world views.
I'm also not comfortable attempting to define exactly what degree of "unacceptable" Yarvis inhabits, or what line(s) exist that justify exclusion from professional conferences, but that's exactly what you're asking us to do.
Furthermore, you're asking us to accept a precedent of excluding those that hold views that the majority finds unsavory, as if there's not significant consistently negative historical precedent demonstrating the volatility and danger of doing exactly that.
From reading the link, I would assume that no "racist and fascist views" will be aired or otherwise expressed at the conference: it's a technical conference, it's against the pledge of conduct, and in addition the organizers sought out a public statement from the speaker "clearly stating the speaker’s views on violence," which they duly got. Do you not believe them?
One of the results of holding and espousing deeply racist views should be exclusion from society.
Thanks for nothing
The argument was that the speaker's presence would threaten the "physical and emotional safety of its attendees and speakers." This appears to be completely unsupported by the facts.
for reference: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/4bxf6f/im_curtis_yarv...
The courts have not been involved, so there is no sentencing going on.
> This is the height of intolerance I have ever seen.
Then you haven't really seen much. See, for example, any instance where intolerance has been enshrined in the US legal system. That's way worse than somebody cancelling a programming conference.
It's almost comical that you call this "the height of intolerance", given how trivial it is to find worse examples of intolerance.
> One is an uneducated thought the other a dangerous totalitarian action.
I don't think you understand what "totalitarian" means. It means "a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible" [0]. None of that is going on here: the government isn't even involved. You're just using "totalitarian" as a vague insult, like "fascist".
In a non-totalitarian society, you are free to organize your own conference wherein you invite (or disinvite) whomever you please. The same applies to the organizers of PrlConf (or indeed LambdaConf). That's exactly what's happened.
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.fr/2009/07/why-carl...
I personally feel that LambdaConf could have reached out to the many brilliant minds in the functional programming community and chosen a speaker more reflective of their values. Yarvin's assured us all he's going to give a technical talk, not chat about the merits of entering into a contract of slavery. But LambdaConf has taken a risk by giving him a pulpit to speak from, and it's up to each attendee to decide whether that sits well with them.
It still wouldn't sit well with me, nor were the PrlCnf organizers willing to tolerate it. They're making a conscious choice to answer Yarvin's invitation with a boycott - another form of free expression. Other LambdaConf attendees may do the same, if they feel Yarvin is sufficiently extreme in his views.
And that's freedom of speech in action.
In this case, an individual has opted not to participate in an event that a racist is speaking at; not because he thinks the racist will spout racist things during his talk, but because being involved with racists is repugnant to him. That's his right. Are you going to force people to participate in events against their will to protect the feelings of a racist and proponent of slavery? Who's being overly sensitive now?
Lambda Conf made a choice that they're willing to work with the racist proponent of slavery. That's their choice. It's the choice of everyone else to say, "Nah."
No one is exerting force against anyone else in this story. No one is threatening violence. No one is calling the cops. This is literally a free speech story on all sides. Individuals are making choices about the kind of community they want to be a part of, and a lot of people are voting with their feet that they don't want to be part of a community that welcomes a self-proclaimed racist and proponent of slavery.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism.
And, for the folks who say, "This was years ago, under a pseudonym!" Did I miss where he has renounced his earlier writings? Did I miss the apologies? Did I miss where he owned up to the incredible amount of bullshit he spouted for years? I'm not saying he has to do those things; he can say and believe any thing he wants. But, time passing does not mean he's changed his mind on these subjects, and given the extremity of his views...I think it requires more than mere silence for me to believe he has changed.
In short: I wouldn't want to participate in a community that tolerates racist proponents of slavery. It doesn't make me "sensitive". It means I choose my friends and peers with care.
“Sorry, you wrote this and we don’t like it, therefore you’re not invited to this conference on an irrelevant topic” or “… therefore we’re not going to a conference to which you were invited” is not valid criticism of an idea.
Conferences are private entities that choose their speakers using a variety of metrics. No one is entitled to a speaking spot at a tech conference; the organizers look for speakers that will attract attendees, generate (positive?) buzz, provide good talks, etc. If the people attending the conference and helping with the conference don't want to hear someone who has written in favor of white supremacy speak at length on some topic unrelated to his white supremacist beliefs, why should conference organizers offer him a speaking spot? Who decides who gets to speak, if not the conference organizers?
And, in this case, the conference has decided to ignore the history of the speaker, and the opinions of some conference attendees, and have him speak. That is, again, their choice. I think it's gross, but I'd never suggest they should be prevented from allowing this person to speak. I would not attend a conference with this person as a speaker; not because I'm afraid he'll infect my mind with his peculiar and anachronistic brand of racism (I've read a number of his essays, it would not be exposure to some novel idea), but because I think white supremacists should be shunned. Literally. They should be ignored so hard in our communities that they opt out of them, seeking spaces more friendly to their positions.
Lambda Conf has every right to have someone who thinks slavery is a rather nice idea speak at their conference. Other people have every right to criticize that decision and opt not to participate in that conference.
The LambdaConf people are aware of Yarvin's political writings, do not agree with them, but decided to let Yarvin speak anyway if he agreed to their terms, which he did (these are Yarvin's own words to LambdaConf[1] on the subject):
> One: I’m a writer, not an activist. I’m neither a leader nor a member of any kind of organization. I promote only one kind of action: reading old books. I’ve explicitly denounced any other form of “direct action,” violent or otherwise. Instead I promote passive unresistance, or “passivism.” Frankly, any “follower” who needs me to explain this is a dangerous fool and hasn’t read enough old books.
> Two: Politics of any sort is out of scope at a functional programming conference. I pledge to treat other LambdaConf guests as if they were colleagues at a large company or fellow students at a university, and neither utter nor show any content that’s out of scope or otherwise disturbing. My pen name has been “doxed,” but professionally I behave as if it was a secret.
> Three: violence is unacceptable and frankly preposterous at a functional programming conference, even over an issue as charged as strict versus lazy evaluation. The strongest possible pledge is to not respond with verbal or physical violence even if assaulted myself. I have no hesitation in making this pledge.
EDIT: I have been informed that Jon Sterling may have read an out-of-context quote in which Yarvin may have been summarizing 19th-century philosopher Thomas Carlyle, whom Wikipedia describes as a "satirical writer", and not had his dog run over after all. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11363159) But also he might really believe it, and I'll only have to read about 1.5*10^5 words to be sure.
Quote: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CGr9pDjW8AA23uT.jpg
Source: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.be/2009/07/why-carl...
I forced myself to read that entire article, and by the end of it, I still had no idea whether Moldbug held the views he ascribes to Carlyle.
Yarvin's writing is... rather too voluminous for me to feel confident that I know what he believes, in so little time, but I did see a few things in that seven-year-old post which made me question the interpretation given:
> "Lifetime employment and slavery are, of course, practically synonyms, and indeed the same phenomena of reciprocal loyalty and dependency were said - repeatedly, in my memory, in the '90s on NPR - to emerge."
> ...
> "Carlyle is in fact ready to be as indignant as anyone over these abuses. He reasons: since slavery is a natural human relationship, this bond will exist regardless of whether you abolish the word. And it does - if only in broken and surreptitious forms."
This leads me to think that he's using words in a non-standard way. An unwise way, given the response it's gotten him, and I certainly wouldn't invite him to speak anywhere if I thought he was going to say things like that. But I'm really not okay with seeing someone attacked for beliefs I'm not sure they actually hold, in domains unrelated to those beliefs, by people who don't appear to be trying to be charitable.
Ummm, none of those views are to be expressed at LambdaConf. There is no threat to anyone's physical safety, and the only threat to anyone's emotional safety is solely self-originated.
Under the circumstances, I cannot have anything to do with Jon Sterling, because I can't trust that he will behave like an adult in a pluralistic society.
>The controversy had nothing to do with the talk, which by all accounts was a great fit for the eclectic topics served up every year by the conference. Rather, the controversy surrounded the speaker’s political views, which were penned under a pseudonym years prior.
Can we please stop this? If I read right, this guy decided to kill a conference because he didn't like the political views (repeating that: political views, not actions)
..of someone else who was supposed to be at a parent conference.
Continuing on from the OP link:
>we cannot possibly organize a workshop under the umbrella of a conference that values the free expression of racist and fascist views...
Unless the person in question was expressing those views at a technical conference, this is a shockingly disingenuous and dishonest statement.
>..over the physical and emotional safety of its attendees and speakers.
And the appeal to "safety" is the cherry on top. Words are, by themselves, harmful to this person? What the FUCK is "emotional safety"?
These kinds of knee jerk reactions are more harmful to the free exchange of ideas than ten thousand /pol/'s.
Is their belief system so fragile, that letting a person speak will destroy it???
Was that actually the content of his talk? If so.. okay, this makes perfect sense.
If not, it's crap.
There's a different between "allowing someone to speak (anywhere, at all)" and "providing them a platform." The parent org has decided to provide a platform, which has consequences.
You can disagree about the decisions made, but your "belief system so fragile" is a strawman.
And yes, fragility I believe is the right word to describe killing a technical conference because he doesn't like another speaker.
No ones rights have been abridged, and everyone's freedoms have been preserved.
“When you cut out a man’s tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you’re only telling the world that you fear what he might say.”
Thought policing is bad because it violates the rights of individuals. Jon Sterling withdrawing from a conference does not violate the rights of any individuals. You are very wrong to call it "thought policing."
Regardless of whether or not you think a racist should or should not present (be paid to speak? Edit: they are not paid to speak at this conf although some expenses are covered) the founder of a pro slavery, pro facist movement speaking at your conference is a different sort of thing.
Unless he is speaking about pro slavery and pro fascism, I have absolutely no reason to care.
Can we please learn to separate technical concerns from nontechnical concerns? And before anyone starts replying with "they're one in the same!" - only under certain circumstances. If the subject of the talk is garbage collection in a programming language, what the speaker believes about anything other than garbage collection in a programming language is IRRELEVANT.
And then Karunamon comes in and asserts that no, they can't have freedom of association and they must judge others by Karunamon's standards only.
So cancelling whatever Prl is seems like yet more internet outrage culture that we would be better off with less of.
Generally, PRL is a mechanism for proofs which varies slightly but significantly from the "proof calculus"-oriented provers like Coq/Agda by including at its very core an unbounded notion of untyped computation. This allows more interesting, exotic things to be expressed in PRL even if the proofs about them must ultimately be finite.
One clarification—we called it PrlConf intending to talk about proof assistants, but as our program came together, it turned out that most of the talks were about category theory, type theory and denotational semantics. I think these things are even more interesting than proof assistants!
I hope that we can find a way to put it back on somehow.
In some sense, speaking at a conference or even a subconference is an act which builds the platform of that conference. If one wishes to not give energy to a platform which supports people who one believes should not have a large platform... then I can't really see what's wrong with canceling PrlConf.
Is it possible this isn't a real problem faced by the software community?
Font choice: "propagandaregular". Are we being trolled?
In programming languages, closures (also lexical closures or function closures) are a technique for implementing lexically scoped name binding in languages with first-class functions. Operationally, a closure is a record storing a function[a] together with an environment:[1] a mapping associating each free variable of the function (variables that are used locally, but defined in an enclosing scope) with the value or storage location to which the name was bound when the closure was created.[b] A closure—unlike a plain function—allows the function to access those captured variables through the closure's reference to them, even when the function is invoked outside their scope.
Silencing people because "I don't like what they say" is wrong.
I agree with the commenter that he does seem to be trying to deflect as he avoided using the word 'intelligence' or 'character' and carefully used an anecdote hiding behind a third-party in response. His own response suggests that he lost respect for the Native Americans for not making good slaves -- I wonder if he really means that, I honestly rolled my eyes at it.
I think the paragraph that people are angry about is just stupid. Even if you believe that the brain/character/intelligence can be affected by our genes, it doesn't immediately follow that 'slavery' is therefore due to character or intelligence. When I read that paragraph a few thoughts ran through my head like "this person needs to think about people's feelings before writing his thoughts down" and "are you sure well-adaptedness is the right frame to use when looking at slavery?" and "why does slavery have to be such a slippery concept to you? could it be that you're trying to build a motte-and-bailey in advance."
That said, I still do not think that the wrong beliefs warrant no-platforming. This is a tech conference and not a political one, and even if he was to speak politically informally it is better that reprehensible political views are said out in the open where they can be deconstructed and quashed.
Of course left-leaning people have every right to remove themselves from the room if they do not want to be near him; as are libertarians allowed to bow out from events like Strange Loop.
Either way the Streisand Effect [2] is at full force here. It's surely great for Urbit and Curtis Yarvin's weird politics. Maybe next time we can avoid giving him free publicity?
Edit: It looks like he responded to that comment, and his response is actually pretty decent. He thinks of talents as distributed and none of them carry special mystical significance to him (even intelligence.)
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/4bxf6f/im_curtis_yarv...
[1] http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/why-c...
To say, "Well, as long as he is not advocating slavery at the con, that's fine." is ridiculous.
Throw the racist evil nasty bum out and let someone else who actually deserves the timeslot talk.
Whoever gets to define Bad Think is in a position of incredible unchecked power.
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.
Either:
- It is wrong to denigrate any group (religion, race, ethnicity, etc); or
- It is okay to denigrate any group (religion, race, ethnicity, etc); or
- It is wrong to denigrate certain groups (religion, race, ethnicity, etc) but not others.
It appears that we're in the third category. Therefore, whoever gets to define that list is in a position of great power to punish some while excusing others for the same action. And - as we've seen - since the stakes seem to be the livelihoods of the people involved, it's an important conversation to have.
The programming language conference is just the setting.
- It is wrong to denigrate any group (religion, race, ethnicity, etc); or
- It is okay to denigrate any group (religion, race, ethnicity, etc); or
- It is wrong to denigrate certain groups (religion, race, ethnicity, etc) but not others.
It appears that we're in the third category."
Because someone has said that supporting slavery is deeply, possibly unforgivably, wrong?
Your third category is "religion, race, ethnicity, etc". Where does "believes some people were born to be slaves and others were born to be their masters" fit into that?
Again, you're making a slippery slope argument, in what you call a "different way", but it looks the same to me. Perhaps I'm still not understanding you.
Am I understanding that you believe no groups should ever be denigrated? So, we shouldn't denigrate white supremacists and neo-Nazis? Why not? We shouldn't denigrate mass murderers? Why not? We shouldn't denigrate dictators? How about religious fundamentalists who prevent girls from getting an education because they are girls? Can I denigrate them? They aren't physically hurting anyone, they aren't "violent". But, I think the civilized world should shun them.
There are, in fact, groups that most of us denigrate. I don't think repugnant beliefs should be considered sacred or free from criticism. Who makes those decisions? Well, I do, you do, organizations do, sometimes governments do.
"Therefore, whoever gets to define that list is in a position of great power to punish some while excusing others for the same action."
You're begging the question, and not answering mine.
"And - as we've seen - since the stakes seem to be the livelihoods of the people involved, it's an important conversation to have."
I have not seen that. Has this person lost their job because someone doesn't want to go to a conference with them? Though I would be entirely comfortable with overt racism and support of human slavery being a firing offense at any company.
Again, slippery slope is a fallacy. Supporting slavery is not a religion, a race, an ethnicity, an age, a gender, a sexual preference, or any other protected class.
This is not some slippery slope, and it's not about opinion.
It is not an "opinion" to advocate slavery. It is madness.
This is not about some group saying "we're all one" and some other group saying "no, the darkies should be enslaved" and it being some difference of opinion or something. This is about humanity versus bestial cruelty and psychotic violence.
Gay people aren't doing anything wrong.
Slavery advocates are doing something very wrong.
This isn't confusing and it's not a matter of subjective opinion.
It must be super convenient that who should be barred aligns exactly with your morals and sensibilities.
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.
I disagree with everyone on at least one topic... throw them all under the bus because of that?
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.
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...
--------------------
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.
Apparently more openly racist than "wrote things under a pen name 17 years ago".
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.
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?