ETA: ignoring racial bias in policing @ https://dev-to-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/i/aaoswq5bzdpptrtd7s...
Plus a good take on his "Thought Police" post https://medium.com/@BradleyHolt/what-uncle-bob-gets-wrong-c0...
Some people don't want to share a platform with him and the conference decided they'd rather have those people than him.
If, on the other hand, I myself were disinvited in such a manner, my first thought would be to reassess my recent behavior rather than suing the house owner.
> Of course, when <...>, you would never consider <...>
Presented without comment.
To answer your particular hypothetical question: I can't say for certain, but I sure hope that yes, it would bother me to disinvite that person in that situation. But I don't see how your post relates to the topic at hand.
On the race situation, I disagree with Uncle Bob (link: https://dev-to-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/i/aaoswq5bzdpptrtd7s...), and I think what he's written is ill-advised and ill-thought through. At the same time I don't see disinviting him or deplatforming him to be a worthwhile approach. Dialogue would be a better option.
On the sexism situation (link: https://medium.com/@BradleyHolt/what-uncle-bob-gets-wrong-c0...), maybe I'm tired, but I couldn't quite get my head around what the piece was saying. There seems to be a paragraph quoted from Uncle Bob in there that suggests he's not being sexist. Frankly neither Uncle Bob nor the author rebutting him seem like the clearest communicators in this situation. I find the whole thing a bit unseemly but it also seems like it's not strong enough evidence to say Uncle Bob is definitively sexist.
It's also worth pointing out that prejudice is not binary. People who are sexist or racist in some aspect of their psyche or attitudes don't always manifest that in the same way, to the same degree, and to the same "out groups".
At the moment our response seems to be that anyone who's even a little bit prejudiced, or even appears like they might be prejudiced, about any "out-group" should be absolutely crucified without mercy. That's ridiculous and is a product of corrupted thinking.
There is a clear and significant difference between the murder of George Floyd, for which the perpetrator will rightly be tried according to due process, and somebody saying something online that's naive, somewhat ignorant, and hasn't been thought through properly (and is therefore tone-deaf).
At the moment our tendency seems to be to want to treat both of these extremes as the same. All that's doing is deepening the divisions, mistrust, and alienation within our societies. This is not a good outcome for any of us.
--------
MY ORIGINAL COMMENT:
Well this, right here, is the problem.
Some weeks back I became tangentially aware that Uncle Bob had become persona non grata and I tried to find out what he'd actually said[0]. I'll grant you I didn't spend that long on it, but I did spend a good 5 minutes Googling when I arguably had better things to do, and didn't find anything.
However, if you're going to make vague allegations somebody's behaviour the ABSOLUTE LEAST YOU CAN DO is cite some examples (with links) of where this person has behaved as alleged. Not second-hand accounts: what they've actually said on their blog or social media or wherever.
If the content has been deleted then a credible news source that includes screenshots of the original content is fine. But what you shouldn't be doing is posting nothing to back up your allegations.
[0] I've never been a close follower of Uncle Bob's because he's mostly known (as far as I'm aware) for being a huge proponent of agile and I'm... well, let's just say that like a lot of people I'm somewhat over it and have been for many years.
The woke movement is about power. It’s like “Anonymous” with better PR/public perception (good initial purpose, then it becomes a nom-de-guerre that anyone can take up)
People who choose to perform its language claim it’s about racial or gender outcomes. “Saints” lead the way in pursuing meaningful change, “believers” follow them.
Then, when “sociopaths” figure out how to use the blessed language to for _personal_ (or in-group) power grabs (and destory livelihoods in the process), one should call the followers “useful idiots”.
I see Uncle Bob doing a poor job of sympathetically articulating potential (or realized) issues with the moment*. And using words that aren’t from the right tribal dictionary. But I see respondents avoiding substantive responses and trying to tar and feather him for word choice. Cardinal Richelou’ing him.
> If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him. [1]
Your claim is bold and your proof is lacking.
You won't be spared because you agree (or claim to). I hope your performative martyrdom here satisfies you, because your imagined allies Do. Not. Care.
People acting like bad NLP software. Finding banned words instead of constructing parse trees.
Thank you for being clear about the backing of your claims. I find them thin.
This response is hardly site-guidelines worthy. Sorry.
[1]: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Cardinal_Richelieu#disputed
And now when he was told he had said some things that make people uncomfortable, his public reaction was threatening to sue. He'd rather attack, than stop and understand why he is becoming persona non grata.
Co-opting the language of victimhood (in the blog post, but also for Sonmez https://twitter.com/unclebobmartin/status/118636551396805017... ) to support and perpetuate toxic behaviour in himself and other people in the software industry is just one reason why "Uncle" Bob Martin shouldn't be given a platform by any conference. There are plenty more deserving people who can talk instead.