Hacker News Reader

Comment by Bostonian | Hacker News Reader

It appears that someone who wore a pro-Trump MAGA hat to a software conference is being punished for violating an event Code of Conduct. Unless there is a general ban on hats and clothing with political statements at software events, this is clearly discriminatory.

"The Linux Foundation received a public tweet sent to the @KubeCon twitter address. That tweet recommended that Kube Con discontinue their association with Charles Max Wood. The reasons given in this complaint were his request for an open and civil phone call, and a picture of Mr. Wood wearing a MAGA hat.

The Linux Foundation publicly replied from the @linuxfoundation twitter account as follows:

Hi all, We have reviewed social and videos and determined that the Event Code of Conduct was violated and his registration to the event has been revoked. Our events should and will be a safe space."

View on HN

That's what Uncle Bob is insinuating, but is that what really happened? I can't even see the tweet he's talking about. He mentions an @KubeCon twitter account. That account is not associated w/ the event.

I think he's talking about this tweet:

https://twitter.com/nebrius/status/1191821800302206976

https://twitter.com/KimCrayton1/status/1191697390799130624 is the tweet that got him 86ed from the convention. In addition to the hat photo, there's also a 30 minute video where he talks about diversity, twitter, etc

> general ban on hats and clothing with political statements

In some schools of thought, a MAGA hat is a hate symbol like a swastika armband. They view it differently than they would a Republican National Convention hat. Whether they're right or wrong, these are the people writing and enforcing codes of conduct these days

> In some schools of thought, a MAGA hat is a hate symbol like a swastika armband.

Excuse me, but what could ever be hateful about making America great again? Doesn't this rather suggest that these schools of thought themselves are being quite hateful towards America? It's sure convenient that "these are the people writing and enforcing codes of conduct these days", because if they weren't, the case for banning them as CoC violators would be pretty clearcut.

>Excuse me, but what could ever be hateful about making America great again?

The belief that what has weakened America is multiculturalism, immigration, feminism and racial diversity, and that what is needed to make America great again is reversing the aforementioned trends, and restoring to heterosexual, Christian white males their former status of cultural and political hegemony.

The Trump campaign has never made such a claim, though. They pushed "draining the swamp" in Washington D.C., nothing much about reversing "multiculturalism, immigration, feminism and racial diversity".

I don't necessarily approve of the pitchforks coming out at the sight of a MAGA hat, but it's either delusional or just intellectually dishonest to deny the racial component to Trump's rhetoric.

Just like everything in California causes cancer, everything Trump says has racial components.

Sheesh - for a racist spouting rhetoric full of racial components Trump is pretty awful at actually being a racist. Just look at his immediate family! He's not only an incompetent politician he's an incompetent racist!

I'm not asserting that Trump is personally racist, nor that all of his platform is racist. I think the term 'racist' as a concept has such divergent meaning across society that it's rarely useful. I'm saying he is leveraging the dimensions of the current political landscape to his advantage (something he has bragged about having no scruples in doing), which includes exacerbating racial tension. Is it more a projection of his followers than himself? Probably.

It's either delusional or just intellectually dishonest to impute "racial components" to Trump's rhetoric. He, and MAGA types in general, is not racist nor has anything he's done explainable by "racism". The persistence of imputing "racist!" belies projection, lacking an objective basis. We really, truly, don't care what race anyone is; what matters is hard work, abiding by laws (including immigration laws shared by most nations), and earning your way. Alas, those seeking racism everywhere see racism everywhere, especially in designated opponents.

But enough of his supporters have that the culture of support for Trump has been conflated with support for those other, far more toxic ideals.

Trump supporters can pretend that American white supremacists and neo-reactionaries didn't flock to him like moths to a flame and turn his campaign into a referendum against the loss of white male political and cultural relevance and the advance of progressivism and feminism, or that they aren't tainted by association, but that is what happened.

Trump supporters were perfectly aware of the racial narrative forming around him, and they chose to embrace it, rather than fight against it, because they found common ground with the racists in their hatred of the left and Hillary Clinton. They don't now have cause to complain about being tarred with the same brush.

If it's OK to exclude people thanks to 2nd degree taint like that, does this mean it would be fine for a conference to exclude everyone who supported Bernie because of his association with AntiFa?

"white supremacists and neo-reactionaries" are practically non-existent. Try actually understanding your designated opponents, instead of slapping nasty labels on them. We did NOT "choose to embrace a racial narrative", it was imputed on us and we don't know how to fight it effectively (a la "I don't believe X!" "well, that's surefire proof that you believe X!").

That "belief" is what you want "them" to believe, so you can degrade & oppose them as inherently evil. Pardon the mind reading; it's the conclusion I come to when subjected to such bad-faith & ignorant labeling. It's baffling to accuse Trump of such bigotries, when he specifically hires immigrants from around the world, married an immigrant, has such a high percentage of women on staff, and has long been lauded & awarded for promoting racial diversity - and his followers share & support his mindset thereof. Seems opponents want MAGA types to be racist, sexist, xenophobic, etc and go to great lengths to impute such labels thereon - when such labels absolutely do not apply.

I, and many others, are seriously outraged at this chronic & intentional libel of our sociopolitical positions - especially by those touting the banner of "tolerance & diversity".

That has got to be the biggest strawman I've ever seen in my whole life!

You're misled, that's a political ideology driven by hate, not a "school of thought".

> It appears that someone who wore a pro-Trump MAGA hat to a software conference is being punished for violating an event Code of Conduct.

Check the date on the picture...

It appears that someone who wore a pro-Trump MAGA hat in 2016. And is thus banned from a conference in 2019.

Are you saying there is evidence to suggest this was the reason they revoked his conference pass? I believe that this was just a part of his character that has come out since then.

> It appears that someone were a pro-Trump MAGA hat to a software conference is being punished for violating an event Code of Conduct. Unless there is a general ban on hats and clothing with political statements at software events, this is clearly discriminatory.

You don't know (and this letter's author doesn't know) that wearing a MAGA hat was what they considered a violation of the code of conduct.

In fairness, the letter's author seems more concerned about how the complaint was handled in public regardless of what it was about.

> The reasons given in this complaint were his request for an open and civil phone call, and a picture of Mr. Wood wearing a MAGA hat.

It is the only possible conclusion given this information. Is there more?

This is what they said:

> We have reviewed social and videos and determined that the Event Code of Conduct was violated

It could have been "he wore the wrong hat" but it also could have been "we looked and he was harassing people on Twitter".

The whole exchange was public. LF might not have banned Mr. Wood for wearing a MAGA hat (the true reason they banned him was probably to avoid a confrontation with Code of Conduct zealots), but it sure looks like it based on the public tweet exchange.

Literally the only evidence presented was a polite call for discussion, and a picture of the guy wearing a MAGA hat. Then the org directly responded, saying they reviewed the evidence and found he violated the code of conduct. Regardless of what they may claim or of how much anyone may try to dissemble, the MAGA hat picture was clearly the impetus for the decision.

I've observed that there is often more to the story in these sorts of cases. Not always, but >50% of the time. The little thing everyone is reacting to is usually the last straw.

The same often holds true with outbreaks of political protest, like the ones in Chile right now. The mainstream story is that the protests are over a subway fare hike, but the reality is that this was just the lightning rod event.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com