Call me crazy, but I believe that you don't have to actively champion and invite openly racist people to conferences to show that you tolerate difference of opinion.
If you're protecting personnel, even after a number of others in your community have shown disagreement with the person's actions (and protections afterwards), just admit you agree with those thoughts. If not, your entire organization is cowardly and hiding behind a scapegoat and mouthpiece.
Sure you don't have to, but if you do, it's a hell of a signal. (At any rate, Curtis Yarvin was invited for his semi-esoteric functional-based distributed operating platform, Urbit.)
> If you're protecting personnel, even after a number of others in your community have shown disagreement with the person's actions (and protections afterwards), just admit you agree with those thoughts.
Sorry, I don't. Of course, you'll believe that I do anyway, and that's fine. I do think it's a bit sad that you think that the only reason someone could want somebody to be included, is because they were your ideological compatriots.
In fact, the only reason I want anyone to be included in a conference is if they have contributions to the conference's topic.
It sounds like we just have a difference in moral standards.
Well - at least if I ever run a conference, you can be confident that you will be welcome to it anyways. :)
Even when it comes to unpleasant people like Moldbug I try to avoid talk of moral standards beyond the really clear-cut ones...