Hacker News Reader

Being "uncomfortable" with somebody should not be enough to forever lock them out of society. What happened to "diversity and inclusion"?

> "That’s the dilemma - only one of these two people will ultimately work on the committee."

There's actually nothing preventing either of those people from working together on the committee. The individuals in question should be allowed to make their own informed choices, based on their individual situations. This should include things like the degree to which they would be cooperating together, the nature of the cooperation, and the practicalities - as long as they are within the boundaries of the law (which also includes anti-discrimination laws).

This person was convicted of raping someone. You feel safe interacting with them in person, but others might not.

It would be good to show a bit more empathy. Don’t dismiss them just because you don’t feel the same way.

> diversity and inclusion

Don’t misrepresent what this means. Inclusion is about including people who’ve been excluded through no fault of their own. Is your claim that a convicted rapist has done nothing to deserve to be excluded?

> "This person was convicted of raping someone. You feel safe interacting with them in person, but others might not."

The fact that some people may "feel safe interacting with them in person, but others might not" is exactly my point. We shouldn't be locking people out of society forever and ever based on feelings. We need to work locally to try and find optimal solutions to specific problems, and provide the tools needed for the individuals involved to make the best out of the situation (within the boundaries of the law, which includes anti-discrimination laws).

> "Don’t misrepresent what this means. Inclusion is about including people who’ve been excluded through no fault of their own."

That's your interpretation of this, but that's not the universal definition of "inclusion".

Also, do you actually know the specific people involved, and the specific details of what happened? People commit crimes due to any number of factors (experiencing abuse earlier in life, mental conditions, being a victim of a crime themselves at some point, different struggles, etc). You yourself just suggested that "it would be good to show a bit more empathy", so how about you actually follow your own advice?

> "Is your claim that a convicted rapist has done nothing to deserve to be excluded?"

No, that's not what I claimed at-all. It's always amusing to see the logical leaps a SJW will go through to try and get a point across.

First - when you say "excluded" - could you be more specific? Excluded from what exactly? From life on earth? From ever leaving home again? From ever interacting with other human beings? What exactly would be an appropriate life for a person in this position, according to you?

Second - this person, according to you, has been convicted. In a democratic, law-abiding society - this means they've been handled by the legal and correctional systems, which are the only two systems that have a monopoly on "judging" and "correcting" people. It's not up to a C++ conference to "judge" or "correct" people.

Third - this person may very well be trying their hardest to heal, move on, and start over. What are you doing to help such people come back and reintegrate into society?

Fourth - why stop at one specific class of crimes? Let's throw out everybody with a record. Tax issues? Stealing candy at a gas store when you were 12? Bad divorce?

How about speeding tickets? I don't feel safe working with people who drive recklessly. We must make sure there aren't any such people in CppCon 2022.

Got arrested by the police at a violent BLM protest? Too bad, you're locked out of society forever. Or... wait, that's not the people you're actually after here, are you?

> Fourth - why stop at one specific class of crimes? Let's throw out everybody with a record. Tax issues? Stealing candy at a gas store when you were 12? Bad divorce?

This is really disingenuous. When you're interacting with a stranger, and you find out they had a bad divorce, do you suddenly feel concern that they might divorce you?

Let's go in the other direction. Do you believe child sex offenders are suffering injustice when they are not allowed to interact with children? How about drunk drivers that are permanently banned from driving (hypothetical though that may be)?

> "This is really disingenuous. When you're interacting with a stranger, and you find out they had a bad divorce, do you suddenly feel concern that they might divorce you?"

I think you got the general spirit of my comment, and I don't want to play tit-for-tat over the examples I provided. Why should the bar for banning people from associating with C++ conferences only stop at one specific class of crimes?

> "Do you believe child sex offenders are suffering injustice when they are not allowed to interact with children?"

No, I never said that.

What we're seeing here is a coordinated social justice campaign (taking place on Twitter and other social networks) to ban an ex-con, who is an otherwise free human being, from associating with a C++ conference.

I think it's a good question to ask, because I agree the social justice cancel war feels a bit silly, generally speaking. But you equated one of the most violent crimes with misdemeanor petty theft of a 50 cent candy bar. That doesn't make any sense.

Dude is on sex offender list, every time he moves he has to inform neighbors about his rapist/child porn status.

"Megan’s Law refers to a collection of laws that mandate the notification of sex offenders in a particular community to the people that live there."

Here is how it looks in practice https://dailyvoice.com/new-york/yonkers/news/sex-offender-co...

Would you send your daughter to an event with knowledge organizers conspired to hide the fact one of the speakers, authoritative figure young people would look up to and trust, is a registered sex offender? More specifically the one from above link.

> On one hand we would like to support folks serving their time and coming back to society as full citizens. I don’t think any of us would support stripping ex-cons of the right to vote or support themselves.

The person in question is a registered level 2 sex offender. This means they are not a full citizen and are still serving their time.

So, no, we don't want to support allowing registered sex offenders to attend, present, plan, etc. a large conference and community, and this is less complicated than you describe. The community has been very clear and aligned in their dismay.

Yeah I mean, he's a pedophile rapist, so like, that's a bit worse than being an ex con. I'm not saying he shouldn't be allowed to work anywhere but he doesn't really need to be in a leadership role giving talks at a conference.

Ban everyone who responds to this situation with anything other than a "meh"

> On the other hand, we also recognise that we can’t force people to work with those they don’t want to.

If I don't want to work with a black person, do I have a right to demand they be fired?

(this is a theoretical question)

Is being a black person a crime? Can you serve time for being black?

Unless this is true, your comparison between being black and being a rapist isn't valid.

> Can you serve time for being black?

Well, in USA many people served lifetime sentence of forced labor for being black, so I guess the answer is "yes"?

It's not. Nobody in 2022 serves sentences for being black, according to the law (unless the justice system made a mistake). It was a rethorical question.

What if I was uncomfortable with a homosexual coworker (and homosexuality actualy is a crime in my country). Would that be OK?

You are mistakenly (or deliberately, I guess) conflating ethics with legality. Rape is different from homosexuality because homosexuality isn't harmful or morally wrong.

My parent post specifically used the word "crime" my response was to show that "being a crime" is not a good reason. Also morality is subjective. For example, the government of my country argues that homosexuality is immoral (obviously I disagree). So the question is whose moral are we considering? Your personal morality? Mine?

And is it moral to ostracize someone from society because of a crime they have been punished for?

> So the question is whose moral are we considering? Your personal morality? Mine?

The morals of the community in question. The laws and customs of unrelated countries or communities are immaterial to the decisions of this particular community.

> And is it moral to ostracize someone from society because of a crime they have been punished for?

It's one thing to ostracize someone from society entirely. It's much less extreme for one particular community to say that someone with a track record of abusing authority or positions of trust shouldn't be put in a position of authority or trust.

There are only a limited number of positions of authority in this community, and plenty of people who are perhaps more deserving of that position who don't have a track record of abusing such positions. It was noted that this person received financial support from the conference. Maybe that didn't need to happen, given there are others who were not financially supported?

> The morals of the community in question. The laws and customs of unrelated countries or communities are immaterial to the decisions of this particular community.

So it is OK for me to demand a homosexual co-worker be fired if the community of my workspace is homophobic?

In your country I guess it would be lawful, but I personally wouldn't say it's morally okay.

For instance, I have no problem with the Catholic church banning gay priests. But I'm not outraged because doing so isn't banning gays from society.

> homosexuality isn't harmful or morally wrong.

Who gets to decide that? For many religious people, it is both (and actually criminal when proven). We take our religion seriously.

it's the paradox of tolerance. a jewish person might be unwilling to work in a place that tolerates an open nazi, and a racist might be unwilling to work with a black person. The point is that you have to make a decision at the end of the day, because not making a decision is also making a decision. And usually it's not the people who hate black people who will choose to leave. So while this is an example where you would obviously not want to respect the wish of the person uncomfortable working with someone else, it's not the way this situation usually goes. usually it's the rape victim or marginalized person who will end up leaving.

According to the law in most places, there are no such places that tolerate an "open nazi" because being a nazi is a crime. There are law against antisemitic speech. There are also laws against racism. You don't have to make a decision at all, the decision has been made for you. Well, I guess you have to make a decision to follow the law or not but that's an extreme.

If someone in a conference is open about being a nazi or a racist, you call the police, maybe collect some evidence first, etc. Whatever is needed in your country to report an offense.

And yes, I agree... usually the victim will leave the place, not having enough energy to be an activist on top of dealing with their troubles and/or fearing the consequences. That's unfortunate. But that's where it gets complicated, for the victim. Not for the conference organizers.

i guess, i feel that's missing the point of the example, though. Like I could have said open racist (which is not against the law as you imply) instead, i just picked a random example.

But you are making the decision that this is something for the victim to deal with, not the organizers. That's not at all a given by default. As you yourself point out, the same standard is not applied to nazis, so why pedophile rapists? If you are in a position of power it is your job to make these decisions one way or the other, it's not a foregone conclusion.

I'm saying they should follow the law and refrain from doing more than that. I feel the law is currently sufficient to deal with this situation and we don't need a cancel campaign online.

It’s currently 100% legal (at least in America due to the first amendment) to be a nazi, anti semite, or racist and to express your opinions as such. So following the law doesn’t do anything for this community.

As far as I'm aware, organizations like the American Nazi Party or the National Socialist Movement (United States) are legal in the US. Even Germany failed to ban its neo-Nazi party (the National Democratic Party of Germany) despite the court acknowledging that its goals are anti-constitutional and similar in nature to historical National Socialism. As long as you color within the lines, it is possible to be an open Nazi in most places.

You're still allowed to exclude them on the basis of being Nazis in most places in the US. Political affiliation/ideology is generally not a protected class.

The claim was that, quote: According to the law in most places, there are no such places that tolerate an "open nazi" because being a nazi is a crime.

I was merely adding that even in a country where being an open Nazi is legal, it is still legal to exclude Nazis from your place of business, not arguing against you.

That's not really the paradox of tolerance. At least not the version attributed to Popper.

The relevant quote from The Open Society and Its Enemies is:

> But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

It's about the right to suppress those who leave the arena of debate and move to extra-judicial force, such as the extra-legal violence used to keep black people subdued during segregation (the work was published in 1945, segregation is very relevant).

What you described is people not wanting to work with people that hate them.