What a cheap shot. You don't need a safetyometer or something to determine that a country where same sex relationship is punishable by life imprisonment is unsafe for homosexuals or bisexuals.
Still, there are some things that should be avoided in public, out of respect for the local population. Kissing and holding hands for example is not well seen, even for heterosexual couples. Despite this, even if you happen to do it in public you will never face verbal or physical aggression from anyone, maybe just some frowns but even that is rare.
Pushing our views to countries that are still developing is Neocolonialism at its best. We take our progress in the West for granted, but it took us time to get there. Give the tools for Africans country to develop on their own, they will get there in their own time, there are many other pressing matters to address first.
And there can be huge variations within countries, and nuances in what is and isn't considered "bad". There are 61 million people in Tanzania, and it's three times the size of Germany in terms of surface area. It's a big place.
A few charts is not a "fact". Or I mean, it is I guess, but that doesn't automatically mean it describes reality in any meaningful way.
Obviously Tanzania is not the best place to be gay, but details and nuance does matter, and can make huge differences.
I agree with the people saying that this is in-effect a wholesale rejection of conferences in Africa, and that we should be mindful of that and work on a compromise. But how is it sensible to expect organizations to act on so-called "facts on the ground"?
If those facts haven't already been leveraged to meaningfully affect policy, then there's a burdening question of "why not?"
Is the law actionable? Is it enforced? What do the courts do? How does the police act? There's a million factors that radically change what "the law" says.
Weed is illegal in the Netherlands. Always has been. Never been legalized. Going by the "facts" of the law would lead to some views of the country that do not align with any sort of meaningful reality.
> But how is it sensible to expect organizations to act on so-called "facts on the ground"?
If you don't know the reality of the situation then maybe you shouldn't act at all because you're ignorant about the entire thing?
I'm ignorant on this topic too; don't really know anything about Tanzania. But I'm also not claiming things about it, or think I know anything meaningful from ten seconds of scanning a website.
Yup. I'm pretty willing to defer to what human rights organizations and the country itself say about their laws.
> Weed is illegal in the Netherlands.
Which:
1. is something that should change if it's an inaccurate reflection of the country
2. is nonetheless a far discussion from (what should be) a fundamental human right
> If you don't know the reality of the situation then maybe you shouldn't act at all because you're ignorant about the entire thing?
The Python Software Foundation didn't act on enabling this conference; that's precisely why the OP exists. Your argument, if you're defending the OP, is instead that we should act on our supposed "ignorance" in the face of laws which say one thing and internet people say another thing.
I really think this is a view that only makes sense in stable countries with strong rule of law, which I don't think is the case for most of the world. And even in the First World. Are Americans in states that legalized marijuana afraid of a random cop arresting them due to it being federally illegal? Is the average European concerned of being arrested for movie piracy? Seriously there are a lot of unenforced laws around the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unenforced_law
Not meant to be an argument for either side of this specific case, just a general opinion. Only looking at vibes is not enough but only looking at the law in the books is also not enough.
If the law is ineffectual: the persuasive burden rests on the people saying so, not on the people reading the law as it exists on the books. Strong/weak rule of law could act against either side here.
Yes. Not from street cops, but you better believe I'm concerned about airport security. You'll probably be safe, but I would not recommend a non-US person to test this. It's unreasonable to expect outsiders to understand which laws are enforced, particularly when the consequences of being wrong may include life imprisonment or death.
As a straight, white, young adult male, I noticed a strong correlation between the frequency of "pretextual" traffic stops in neighboring counties and the then-current length of my hair.
Racial minorities have it much worse:
Before Brainard took office, employees of then Carmel[, Indiana]-based One Call, many of whom were minorities living outside of Carmel and working late into the night, complained of being pulled over by Carmel police.
The city’s solution, which [Carmel mayor] Brainard called “terrible,” was to give employees car tags so police knew they belonged there, implying that if you were Black and didn't work there, the assumption might be that you didn't belong there. There was, however, no systemic change within the police department to stop ticketing Black people passing through." [2]
As for marijuana possession,
In Indiana, all but 13 counties are above the national average for racial disparities [in marijuana arrests]. And while Marion County’s rate of disparity is below the national average, there seems to be an alarming trend for surrounding counties to have disproportionately high arrests of Black community members. For example, Hancock, Hamilton, Shelby and Boone counties, all donut counties, have a racial disparities rate of greater than 10x. [3]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana%27s_7th_congressional_...
[2] https://www.indystar.com/story/news/local/hamilton-county/ca...
[3] https://www.aclu-in.org/en/news/racial-disparities-indiana-m...
The author of the open letter says that adopting a "human rights plan" (quotes in the original) would "pose a significant legal and personal risk to [the] organisers". Assuming this is true, we have a situation with no easy answer.
I think most people in the python community would agree that an event in a country where making a pro-equality commitment would not pose significant risks to the organisers, absolutely must make such a commitment.
If the choice is between events in Tanzania with no pro-equality statement, and no events in Tanzania at all, I agree that it's a question worth discussing. Should the PyCon policy be "your event must have an equality policy unless you have a good reason not to?"
that's exactly what differentiates developed from developing countries: the rule of law. Not saying that it's perfect in developed countries (far from it), but at least you don't have to fear being arrested and face life imprisonment for something that's "generally tolerated", but in your special case wasn't because the police officer didn't like how you looked, or you didn't pay the customary bribe.
People from the countries that implemented progressive policies sometimes show unreasonable arrogance by expecting the whole world to change instantly according to the freedoms they're used to at home.
I feel like this discussion is going places where it was never supposed to go.
"the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of sodomy laws in Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986. However, in 2003, the Supreme Court changed opinion and reversed the decision with Lawrence v. Texas, invalidating sodomy laws in the remaining 14 states: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Virginia."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_St...
With all due respect, mostly the US sees the US as the most advanced country
Cool. So you live at the whims of a bunch of corrupt officials and police, who can decide if you should be imprisoned or not.
That’s not the same as being free.
Taking a quick glance at the Wikipedia page about LGBTQ rights in Africa[0] (going for the broad continent page here to see if there are other, less likely to cause problems, candidates for hosting locations), Tanzania is explicitly listed as "Punishable by prison" on the map, which the article text confirms. More broadly speaking, it would seem most of the countries in Africa have a poor track record on LGBTQ rights except for South Africa (although I'd not be surprised if any of the countries listed in grey on the map would've caused less problems with the grant approval, with "no laws either way" not being amazing but at least not inherently discriminatory). This begs the rather obvious question: why not organize in South Africa (or again, any of the more lenient countries), why does it have to be in Tanzania once these issues were brought to light.
The PSF clearly has standards they wanted to adhere to for these things and wanting a guaranteed safe space for contributors of all walks of life seems to be an important one. I understand the complications on this one and why the usual process resulted in it being kicked upstairs.
Which yes, does suck for the organizers, but again, Tanzania was chosen here and they even admit in the post that preliminary feedback caused a negative response surrounding event safety, so moving the event ought to have been considered with that in mind.
As a local you know how to stay safe. Visitors from other places, other countries, even other cultures lack this knowledge. And you can't except someone who has only third-party-knowledge[1] to trust in the claims of locals with unknown agendas. Taking time to investigate is legit. I mean, it took them only one month to figure it out, and we don't know how much time they had before that september-meeting.
Now read this again and imagine yourself in the shoes of someone who needs to suppress who they are in public, just so they don’t get stoned to death or make local narrow minded folk get a headache.
You're a guest, there are some cultural do's and dont's and holding hands in public is one of the latter, even for heterosexual couples. I don't hold hands with my girlfriend in public even though it'd be totally safe to do so, it's disrespectful because it's not the local custom to do so.
In contrast, many of my LBGT friends in European capitals fear to show affection with their partner in public, with most having faced harassment and some even assault. According to our European values it should be normal and safe to express affection to our partner in public regardless of our genders, but the reality is sadly different.
I hope you see how ridiculous this "just don't show it" is, especially coming from folks who think LGBTQ+ is all about kissing and holing hands.
A global event should not be hosted in a country, state or a city where even the organisers are unable to make adequate arrangements for the safety of all attendees and speakers.
Don't abuse their tolerance and respect their customs. The same way you'd expect someone to respect you and your house rules if you invite them home. You just have to accept that people live differently in different parts of the world, maybe it's not them that are intolerant.
I'm convinced a global tech event can be hosted in Zanzibar where everyone is welcome and safe.
I don't really think so.
And the rulers of said country do not give a flying fuck about it. They're also protected from the revolt as they have police / army in their pocket to deal with the people.
This seems excessively reductionist. An organized state, borders, a system for generating revenue, an armed force, and other infrastructure seems necessary for a proper country to exist. All of these militate against treating the country as merely a collection of people, or using the people as the fodder to "punish" the country.
But going along with it, allowing the conference to happen should then be considered a punishment against the people who are by law prevented from attending. And now it's not so simple anymore since no matter what the PSF does they have to "punish" somebody.
An event like DjangoCon in Tanzania is most likely going to be a tiny step forward for LGBT rights there. The organizers are probably more liberal than the average Tanzanian. Organizing a Python event is going to bring liberal westerners to the country, and generally import a bit of the culture of the international Python community, which is LGBT-friendly. I don't see a plausible story for how this DjangoCon could be a step back for LGBT rights.
If I was a leader of the PSF, my approach would be to not worry about this issue by default. If I heard a story through the grapevine about LGBT Pythonistas feeling unwelcome at the conference, I would have a friendly conversation with the organizers to see if there's anything which can be done. If it keeps happening, or if the organizers don't seem to care, that's the point at which I might suggest they seek funding elsewhere.
The board is accountable for relating their mission statement to their budget. The highest bang for their buck might not be an on-prem conference.
But did they actually do so? If not, it seems a little suspicious that the standard may have changed now that the event is in Africa? Perhaps holding everyone to the same standards means staying consistent with the previous precedent, that a few unjust laws shouldn't cause you to abandon an entire country?
In fact, it isn’t just posh foreigners. Many Senegalese people go to work in Nouakchott for a few years, save up money, and then return home. They aren’t worried about being enslaved because, again, the slavery system isn’t about them.
[0] https://www.trufi-association.org/projects/public-transport-...
You went off on a wild tangent about slavery when they were making a point about python conference organizers.
Just because someone says the word 'slavery' while emphasizing their point doesn't mean it makes sense to unload some unrelated slavery facts.
This is like someone reading a wikipedia article and clicking on a single word, then going to the wikipedia page that has no relation to the original article. (Please don't respond with a history of wikipedia, that isn't the point here)
At the same time, heck, the issue of 'regular safety' should not be downplayed.
Yes, some places in the west are worrying as well, but not usually at the same level. (And yes at a certain point I wouldn't advocate for a conference "anywhere" in SF without a certain risk management)
You probably can't have a perfect convention under these circumstances, but having a convention at all can improve the situation in the long term. Helping the local coding community will, sooner or later, provide them with additional income and knowledge.
Why not? I mean, software is a product like any other. I for example wouldn't like if a group like ISIS was using my software, especially if they were using it to actively help them in commiting their crimes. If I could prevent that from happening, why shouldn't I?
Ok, it isn't. So what?
You have the right to hold you own political views, however you don't have the right to impose those on users of a particular software or participants in a software conference.
See also the licence giving the right to IBM to use the software for evil. https://gist.github.com/kemitchell/fdc179d60dc88f0c9b76e5d38...
and that already happened by allowing them to call it pycon, as doing so requires permission from the PSF trademark workgroup. and one of the conditions is having a code of conduct.
But that doesn't mean that EVERY and ALL political view should be respected. You can have political pluralism in some restricted spectrum, but not accept things that are too extreeme. Not tolerating human rights abuse doesn't automatically lead to every aspect of life being overtaken by "us vs them" mentality. Claiming that it does is nothing more then a slippery slope fallacy
Imagine Tommy Tuberville was on the PSF board, and he stonewalls PSF funding for any conference held in a place where abortion is legal. (According to Tommy, legal abortion is a gross human rights violation.) Do you think this is going to be an effective or compassionate form of pro-life advocacy?
I think we're all better off if we seek a little more compromise than that. It's like a prisoner's dilemma -- sure, you have the "right" to defect, but we're collectively better off if everyone cooperates.
Imagine the warm fuzzy feeling of bonding over a shared love of Python with someone from a different country who looks different from you and may even have different values from you. That was the world the Internet was supposed to create. I think we can still work towards that world, if we decide it's the world we want.
You know that this is happening from the dawn of human societies, right? There are always some laws and some views that are imposed. It always has been that way, and it always will be
> Agreed.
> But that doesn't mean that EVERY and ALL political view should be respected.
Exactly, the difference is called “relativism”.
However care for human rights (maybe based around the UN's human rights charta or the European Charta on Human rights) might be a worthwhile foundation.
But somehow it's the people pointing out that the environment isn't safe who are getting accused of being against pluralism? And not the government that is literally saying, "we reserve the right to prosecute and imprison you if you come here and we don't like your identity/politics."
Taking politics out of Python should mean that whoever you are and whatever you believe and whatever your identity is, you are at least safe at a Python conference because Python conferences are not the places where we debate identity, they're places where we talk about Python. So it is not LGTBQ people who are injecting politics into Python when they point out that they can be imprisoned for their identity, that they can't go to a Python conference and just focus on the tech. It is not them who are abandoning the notion of "live and let live together."
If this was a conversation about avoiding Tanzania just because some of the attendees might be anti-gay, sure, maybe we could talk about pluralism and decorum. But that's not at all the conversation. You want to take politics out of the equation, politics is the thing that throws people in prison for an aspect of their identity that they don't even control. Politics is the thing that decides that people going to a tech conference need to be on their best behavior to avoid being prosecuted by the government.
Taking politics out of Python and embracing pluralism means saying, "if somebody wants to give a technical talk in drag then you don't get to complain about it as long as the tech talk is good." You can dislike it, you can have a political disagreement about it, but a global, officially sanctioned Python conference should be open to everyone. Of course it's not the fault of the organizers that their government won't allow them to put on a conference that meets that criteria. But it's also not the fault of the Python Software Foundation, they don't have any special input into Tanzania's laws.
And while it's definitely important to try and be as inclusive as possible to global contributors and to recognize that they are not their government, ultimately if you want to have an apolitical inclusive conference for people from all walks of life, the Tanzania government will not allow you to do that. The Tanzania government (not the African organizers and not the PSF) is saying that the political will rule the technical and the Tanzania government is saying that a politically pluralistic conference is not allowed in Tanzania. The Python Software Foundation is simply recognizing that fact.
Of course, if the Tanzania government wants to allow for a pluralistic apolitical tech conference, it could at the very least pass explicit legal guarantees for attendees that they will be at no risk for their orientation or gender identity. But I suspect it's not willing to do that for a tech conference, and I suspect (however good their intentions are) that the organizers do not have the political sway necessary to get that kind of concession from the government.
Pointing out that it's unsafe is one thing, denying funding is another
>Taking politics out of Python should mean that whoever you are and whatever you believe and whatever your identity is, you are at least safe at a Python conference because Python conferences are not the places where we debate identity, they're places where we talk about Python.
I agree. So I don't see why you are talking about giving a tech talk in drag. Drag is a costume, worn voluntarily, in the context of LGBT entertainment. A Python conference is not an LGBT entertainment venue. LGBT entertainment wasn't what the attendees signed up for.
Political pluralism means give and take. Seems like you want LGBT people to do all of the taking and none of the giving.
>So it is not LGTBQ people who are injecting politics into Python when they point out that they can be imprisoned for their identity, that they can't go to a Python conference and just focus on the tech.
I mean, they pretty much can? Just don't advertise your LGBT status?
Isn't it true in general that African countries tend to be homophobic? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Africa
Most attendees are going to be from Africa anyways, so this situation is sadly pretty much expected for many of them.
Question: Is there even a single LGBT African who is complaining about this conference situation? Seems like you may be working very hard to save people who didn't ask to be saved?
In any case, in line with my "give and take" point from earlier, I think a reasonable conference policy would be as follows: Don't worry about this problem until an LGBT African person makes a complaint about it. At that point, talk to the organizers about whether the next conference could be organized in one of the few LGBT-friendly African countries, for the sake of LGBT Pythoneers in Africa. If you make that request, recognize that it may increase expense and inconvenience a lot, and be willing to foot the bill for the extra expense.
Is it? Since when does anyone have a fundamental right to funding?
> A Python conference is not an LGBT entertainment venue.
A Python conference is not the place to have a conversation about that at all. If someone shows up in drag, the question is, "what technical topic are they going to discuss?" If you have a dress code in mind for a Python conference, I would suggest that is a political ask. Code does not care if someone is wearing drag, it will compile the same.
> Political pluralism means give and take. Seems like you want LGBT people to do all of the taking and none of the giving.
"The government shouldn't be able to throw me into prison" is not "all of the taking". Again, if we were talking about the presence of anti-LGBTQ rhetoric or about people attending who were known to be anti-gay, maybe we'd have a conversation about give or take. But that is very much not what we are talking about.
Political pluralism is about give and take in order to allow people to coexist. And the scenario we are discussing is explicitly one in which one side has said, "you do not get to coexist and if you try to we will throw you in prison. Hide from us." That's not give and take.
Give and take is "we don't like each other but we'll live together and do our best to make this work." In contrast, "stop existing" is the opposite of give and take, and "stop existing" is what the Tanzanian government is asking for.
> I mean, they pretty much can? Just don't advertise your LGBT status?
If the risk of you letting slip that you're gay is a prison sentence, then that is not a reasonable ask, period.
It's also explicitly not a pluralist notion. Pluralism means living together; if someone needs to hide who they are, you're not learning about that person or getting to know them or being exposed to new viewpoints. People going undercover about something as fundamental as their gender is not pluralism, and if someone demands that of them, then they are not actually asking to live alongside people who are different. They are asking for everyone who is different to pretend that they are the same.
> Most attendees are going to be from Africa anyways, so this situation is sadly pretty much expected for many of them.
The conference was not turned down because of an assumption that the conference organizers were anti-gay, and I haven't seen any reason to label them that way. The conference funding was also not denied because of an assumption that African people would be homophobic.
I have no doubt that a lot of the people who were trying to organize this conference are great people who have no problem with LGBTQ attendees. This isn't about the African people, it's about laws.
> Is there even a single LGBT African who is complaining about this conference situation? Seems like you may be working very hard to save people who didn't ask to be saved?
What part of "you can be thrown in prison if you're outed as gay" do people not understand here? Do you think gay people in Africa like that situation?
And in any case, if you're throwing a worldwide conference and you want it to be pluralist, then it's not just your opinions that matter anymore, you have to be able to tolerate a global audience. Tanzania doesn't appear have the legal flexibility to do that.
No one has a right to funding, just a right to fair consideration. This sort of "no one has a right to funding" rhetoric gives the PSF license to discriminate in whatever arbitrary manner they please. Suppose Tommy Tuberville turns down your funding request because he doesn't like that an organizer is LGBT, and "no one has a fundamental right to funding" -- do you support that?
>A Python conference is not the place to have a conversation about that at all. If someone shows up in drag, the question is, "what technical topic are they going to discuss?" If you have a dress code in mind for a Python conference, I would suggest that is a political ask. Code does not care if someone is wearing drag, it will compile the same.
Suppose my girlfriend and I are into BDSM, and I'm planning to lead her around the conference naked on a leash. An organizer talks to me about this. I say: "A Python conference is not the place to have a conversation about this. Your only question should be what technical topic I am going to discuss. Your suggested dress code is a political ask. Code doesn't care about our kinks."
Should we treat a kink differently just because it happens to be disproportionately common among the LGBT population? Keep your kinks at home at a professional conference.
>"The government shouldn't be able to throw me into prison" is not "all of the taking". Again, if we were talking about the presence of anti-LGBTQ rhetoric or about people attending who were known to be anti-gay, maybe we'd have a conversation about give or take. But that is very much not what we are talking about.
Sorry this seems like a total non sequiter to me, you'll have to explain better. I don't see how it connects to the drag queen scenario. It seems like you're making a motte and bailey argument: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-bri...
>And the scenario we are discussing is explicitly one in which one side has said, "you do not get to coexist and if you try to we will throw you in prison. Hide from us." That's not give and take.
Indeed, homophobic laws are bad.
I'm glad you also believe in give and take. Can you give a specific example of a "give" that the LGBT community should be willing to make? See my statement from earlier "Seems like you want LGBT people to do all of the taking and none of the giving." I'm happy to be corrected!
>Give and take is "we don't like each other but we'll live together and do our best to make this work." In contrast, "stop existing" is the opposite of give and take, and "stop existing" is what the Tanzanian government is asking for.
>...
>If the risk of you letting slip that you're gay is a prison sentence, then that is not a reasonable ask, period.
Maybe there's a misunderstanding here. I agree that the Tanzanian government are being jerks. My position is I don't think it's fair to take our frustration about that out on African people.
>What part of "you can be thrown in prison if you're outed as gay" do people not understand here? Do you think gay people in Africa like that situation?
Has there even been an anonymous complaint? Let someone make an anonymous complaint, a trusted community member can verify their identity, then maybe we can think about a venue change.
>And in any case, if you're throwing a worldwide conference and you want it to be pluralist, then it's not just your opinions that matter anymore, you have to be able to tolerate a global audience. Tanzania doesn't appear have the legal flexibility to do that.
I agree if the conference name was "DjangoCon Global" as opposed to "DjangoCon Africa", Tanzania would not be an appropriate location. As things are, I think it is reasonable to weigh the cost of a venue change, vs a few gay Africans having to briefly live under homophobic laws that they're most likely quite used to if they travel around Africa.
I think it is reasonable for "DjangoCon Africa" to target an African audience and make decisions around what works best for that audience. For example, if a venue change means that some LGBTs can now attend safely, but a much larger number of other conference attendees aren't able to reach the new location, then I think it is reasonable to stay in the original location, in order to maximize overall accessibility for attendees. Even if Tanzania is the wrong venue, I think that is a discussion for next year's conference -- this isn't a sufficient justification to cancel the conference altogether or deny it funding. That'd be like if a college defunded their intro to computer science class because not everyone got an A. It's a toxic need for equality. Again, it's not fair to take out frustration with Tanzania's laws out on the people of Africa.
It sounds like they got consideration, problems of timing aside. I do wish the PSF had been clearer and faster in their response and I agree they deserve criticism for not handling the situation as well as they could, but they did consider funding. They gave the organizers consideration and it doesn't seem to me that the consideration was unfair.
> Suppose Tommy Tuberville turns down your funding request because he doesn't like that an organizer is LGBT, and "no one has a fundamental right to funding" -- how does that make you feel?
Is that what happened here? Were they turned down for an identity, or were they turned down because the physical location they selected, independent of anyone's political beliefs, had logistical problems that made it unsuitable for an internationally sponsored community event? Because those are two different things.
> Should we treat a kink differently
We're going to get to this "kink" brush you're painting the LGBTQ community with in a second, but also in the interest of speaking up for kink I'll ask: do you want a truly apolitical, pluralistic conference, or do you want one that makes you feel comfortable? It's okay for you to say that you want some political boundaries on a conference, I would probably feel uncomfortable at a conference with kink as well. Just don't say that you want it to be apolitical or pluralistic then. You can not be simultaneously arguing for pluralism and for people to be invisible. Invisibility is not pluralism.
> just because it happens to be disproportionately common among the LGBT population?
That being said, I would be remiss if I didn't mention that wearing drag is not inherently sexual. And before you get too caught up on drag, we should also acknowledge that of course a trans person not wearing drag but merely wearing appropriate clothing for their gender is obviously not sexual or kink. And to be clear, when you ask attendees to keep their identity under the radar, you are asking for transgender people to misgender themselves, you are denying them agency to wear clothing that would be perfectly acceptable for other people to wear at a conference, and you are denying them that agency based entirely on a political designation of their identity.
Funding was not denied for this conference because they weren't going to allow kink. Funding was denied because the government has threatened to imprison LGBTQ people, and in the defense of "pluralism" you are asking LGBTQ attendees to refrain from behaviors and actions that would not raise a single eyebrow from anyone if performed by someone of another gender. You are asking for invisibility and pretending that it's pluralism.
> Sorry this seems like a total non sequiter to me, you'll have to explain better.
It is not a reasonable cultural compromise to throw someone into prison, and laws that explicitly rule that people can be thrown into prison are the reason why funding was originally denied.
I'm not sure... how to say that more clearly. It doesn't strictly relate to drag in except that drag is yet another thing you could be thrown into prison for. But if you're under the assumption that funding was denied over drag, it wasn't. It was denied over tangible laws and government policy. Accommodation of that policy is not "give and take" and it is completely unreasonable to ask LGBTQ people to tolerate that situation.
> I'm glad you also believe in give and take. Can you give a specific example of a "give" that the LGBT community should be willing to make? See my statement from earlier "Seems like you want LGBT people to do all of the taking and none of the giving." I'm happy to be corrected!
Sure. Suppose we held a conference where people were allowed to attend that were gay, and also people were allowed to attend that were anti-gay. A conference organizer might decide, "yes, we have a position on this, but we're going to tolerate someone who is known to be anti-gay attending, provided no one is making anyone else feel unsafe."
That would be an example of give and take; two communities of people with disagreements temporarily deciding not to be at each others throats or temporarily deciding to tolerate someone's involvement even though they find them detestable. It doesn't require an anti-gay person to stop denying the existence of LGBTQ identity, and it doesn't require LGBTQ people to believe that the anti-gay person is any less of a bigot. But... we live in a pluralistic society and in the interest of keeping that society running we have collectively all agreed that we are going to do our absolute best not to kill each other.
In contrast, suppose we held a conference where people were allowed to attend that were gay, and then some other people said, "what the heck, no, I'd better not even be aware that there are gay people here, if I catch them they are going to be in physical danger." That is an example of one side doing "all the taking." The Tanzania government's position is not compromise. It gives nothing, it is a physical threat.
> Maybe there's a misunderstanding here. I agree that the Tanzanian government are being jerks. What I'm saying is I don't think it's fair to take that out on the Tanzanian people.
I disagree that this is being taken out on the Tanzanian people. The Python Software Foundation did not write the laws. I don't understand why you are looking a situation where a government has forced a tech conference to grapple with political issues to the harm of both the Tanzanian people and the general Python community, and your response is to blame the Python community.
This can stink for the Tanzanian people and that doesn't mean it's the Python Software Foundation's fault that the government makes it impossible to hold a pluralistic or inclusive conference in the country.
> Has there even been an anonymous complaint? Let someone make an anonymous complaint, a trusted community member can verify their identity, then maybe we can think about a venue change. As things are, I think it is reasonable to weigh the cost of a venue change, vs a few gay Africans having to live under homophobic laws that they're most likely quite used to if they travel around Africa.
If this complaint was about a specifically local event or about an exclusion from the community rather than a denial of funding as an official event, I would agree. But it wasn't a local event and it's not an exclusion from the community. I just don't think your characterization here is accurate, this was planned to be an international event, the linked open letter describes it that way. I'm not saying there can't be Python conferences in Tanzania, I'm saying they should not be funded by the Python Software Foundation as officially endorsed, international events -- or at the very least it is not unreasonable for the PSF to be extremely careful about funding those events and to carefully consider them.
> Again, it's not fair to take out frustration with Tanzania's laws out on the people of Africa.
Deciding after consideration not to proactively sponsor an event is not the same thing as taking out frustration on the people of Africa. It is not blaming the people of Africa, it's not punative, it's just acknowledging that unfortunately the Python Software Foundation is not in a position to change the reality on the ground about where it is and isn't safe to hold an international conference.
This seems like the motte and bailey thing again, where if you're not allowed to be a flamboyantly gay in drag at a conference, people are forcing you to be invisible.
By pluralism I mean compromise, not "danShumway gets his way on everything".
>That being said, I would be remiss if I didn't mention that wearing drag is not inherently sexual.
"My dom/sub relationship with my girlfriend is 24/7, it's not inherently sexual. She's my permanent pet and personal servant." Does that mean no one is allowed to complain about our public leash setup?
>And to be clear, when you ask attendees to keep their identity under the radar, you are asking for transgender people to misgender themselves
Again this pretty much seems like motte and bailey, ascribing a position to me that I don't hold, pretending distinctions don't exist. This style of rhetoric may be fashionable; that doesn't mean it's at all thoughtful or reasonable.
>Sure. Suppose we held a conference where people were allowed to attend that were gay, and also people were allowed to attend that were anti-gay. A conference organizer might decide, "yes, we have a position on this, but we're going to tolerate someone who is known to be anti-gay attending, provided they no one is making anyone else feel unsafe."
Thank you for giving an example.
In the same way you think a flamboyantly gay guy in drag is A-OK, I assume you also think a "flamboyantly straight" Christian would also be A-OK? ("Straight Pride", big crosses, maybe even bible quotes about gay sexuality?) After all they're just expressing their identity, it would be oppressive to force them to be invisible? ("God told me to speak my truth, you're going to send me to hell!")
Can you see why people might choose to agree on a norm of more subtle identity expression for a professional conference? And how a Christian who is asked to remove an "I Trust Leviticus" shirt would be acting like a diva if that Christian complained that you were "forcing him to be invisible"? Or if that same Christian says that gay people are oppressing him with their subtle rainbow jewelry because gay sex is gross and disgusting and causes him to involuntarily vomit, activating his gut condition?
Or are we going to define identity expression such that when gays do it, that's just an irrepressible part of their identity, but when Christians do it, they are oppressing others? It seems to me like you're pretty biased in terms of making these judgements, but for pluralism they need to be made in an unbiased way.
I guess what I'm trying to get at here is just, don't be a diva, and try to see things from the perspective of others. That's what's necessary for pluralism. I probably won't reply further here -- the conversation is not seeming especially fruitful to me.
The Tanzanian law is not that flamboyantly gay people get thrown in prison, it is that gay people get thrown in prison.
You are also letting the word "allowed" do a lot of work here. This is not about conference policies, this is about people getting thrown into prison, something that you seem to be extremely reluctant to acknowledge. There is no evidence that conference organizers here were anti-gay or had any disagreement with the PSF policies or dress codes. There is no evidence that conference organizers endorse homophobia or transphobia in any form, and no reason to believe that there was ever a disagreement between conference organizers and the PSF about what kinds of expression are suitable at a Python conference. We're not talking about conference organizers asking you to wear a different shirt, we are talking about political and legal consequences for an identity.
There is no mott and bailey happening here, you just don't seem to be understanding what LGBTQ attendees in Tanzania are being asked to do or what the risks actually are.
> By pluralism I mean compromise, not "danShumway gets his way on everything".
Throwing people into prison is not compromise. By all means, if your standard of compromise is that gay people get thrown into prison, then yes, I want my way on everything. I think our standards for collective tolerance in society should be higher than that. I believe that the baseline of tolerance is that nobody kills each other or throws each other into prison, and I believe anything less than that is not compromise or pluralism or give and take.
> "My dom/sub relationship with my girlfriend is 24/7, it's not inherently sexual.
This is a disingenuous comparison. If you believe that a trans woman wearing a dress is inherently sexual or flamboyant, then you could save us all some time by just saying that at the start. Please do not equate completely normal, reasonable gender expressions with kink.
On the same note, drag is not inherently sexual. If you believe that drag is inherently sexual, just say that. Don't do these weird wink-wink insinuations, say what you believe.
> Again this pretty much seems like motte and bailey, ascribing a position to me that I don't hold
You could fool me. You don't get to keep on doing this weird run-around where you accuse gay people of "flaunting" themselves just by being visible in public and then back off and ask where you ever asked people to keep their identity under the radar. Either you are ignorant of what Tanzania's laws on LGBTQ expression actually are, or you are asking people to be invisible when you ask attendees to respect those laws.
> In the same way you think a flamboyantly gay guy in drag is A-OK, I assume you also think a "flamboyantly straight" Christian would also be A-OK? ("Straight Pride", big crosses, maybe even bible quotes about gay sexuality?) After all they're just expressing their identity, it would be oppressive to force them to be invisible? ("God told me to speak my truth, you're going to send me to hell!")
It would be oppressive for a conference to ban Christians or to ban someone from wearing crosses. Yes, a conference might have policies about someone walking around with a giant "Straight Pride" shirt, but once again, please remember the context here: there is a difference between a dress code and throwing someone with a straight pride shirt into prison.
> Or are we going to define identity expression such that when gays do it, that's just an irrepressible part of their identity, but when Christians do it, they are oppressing others?
Explicitly no, people should feel safe identifying as Christians. I am a Christian. I want to feel safe at Python conferences. I should feel comfortable going to a conference wearing a cross pin or mentioning that I am a Christian at a conference, and I should feel confident that doing so will not get me thrown into prison. I should also feel safe flying into a conference with a Bible in my luggage even if I'm not planning to bring it to the actual conference. I shouldn't have to worry that going to a church later that week is a criminal offense. And if a location for a conference has laws on the books saying that if you're found wearing a cross pin or visiting a church you can be thrown into prison, then it is not a safe place for an international conference.
Similarly, if wearing a pride pin or packing a dress in their luggage or sharing a room with their partner can get someone thrown in prison, then it is not a safe place for an international conference, regardless of any other dress code or standard within the conference itself.
Of course, an expression of Christian identity is not inherently at odds with LGBTQ identity or LGBTQ acceptance/affirmation. Plenty of Christians are LGBTQ affirming, and the assumption that expressions of Christian identity are inherently bigoted does harm to both Christian and LGBTQ communities. But even if saying "I am a Christian" was inherently hostile to the LGBTQ community, and even if a conference in the interest of keeping its members safe decided not to allow Christian expressions that made LGBTQ attendees feel unsafe -- at the very, very least, that expression of Christian identity or opposition to gay rights should not get you thrown into prison.
This is genuinely not hard to understand.
> and try to see things from the perspective of others.
Seeing things from the perspective of others is incompatible with putting them in jail.
Politics should not overshadow the technical aim, but when you have three or more people, politics are inevitable.
I can make a cli tool to deploy something faster and with the boilerplate logging/monitoring.
What political stance am I taking? Do you think I intentionally made one?
Or is this the same as "silence is violence"- by NOT making a statement that I am making a statement?
Honestly, it's exhausting. I just want to help where I can personally and have fun, it's not deeper than that.
> What political stance am I taking?
That this thing should be made more efficient for any of multiple reasons like "boss told me to and I should obey him in this". And you'd just have to find someone arguing technological deployment should be restricted to protect jobs to confirm this is political.
> Do you think I intentionally made one?
No.
> Or is this the same as "silence is violence"- by NOT making a statement that I am making a statement?
It can be so. You're still making a choice to ignore the situation and that has consequences too.
> Honestly, it's exhausting. I just want to help where I can personally and have fun, it's not deeper than that.
Yeah.
To add to grotorea's already very good points in response to your boilerplate CLI program: you're writing it on a computer built by certain modes of production endorsed by interweaving political frameworks (industrialisation, neoliberalism, globalisation, capitalism, etc.) You're probably writing it in English which by the very fact of its use situates it as anglocentric, but also brings further attendant ideologies and assumptions with it about its uses/users. You're communicating about it over the internet (hopefully I don't need to explain the historical and contemporary ideological roots here.) I want to be clear that these aren't criticisms, but trying to chase some purity of intent by ignoring them doesn't make them go away. All of your actions are governed by and in response to these structures and unless you try to understand them, you'll always take them for granted.
Your position seems to be "I don't want to be bother ever by the problems of others if they don't affect me and my close ones directly". And that's a political position. A RIGHT WING political position.
I am not saying that I will not take on the worlds issues, I am saying that I am not always making a statement with action or inaction.
characterising everyone who doesn't toe the line to your ideology with every single action is a very easy way to see the entire world as your enemy. Let me know how that goes.
could you help me understand?
No, it's not, you just want it to be so you can constantly bring up your political issues where they're not welcome.
This sounds like an apolitical position, but it is a highly political position.
Software is and always will be tied to politics whether we like it or not. It can't be insulated from it.
If you truly, really want to be apolitical, then it shouldn't matter whether an attendee is openly gay or not. If it's really separated from the politics, then gay or anti-gay, trans or anti-trans, they should at the very least be able to participate while feeling like they're physically safe. And if they're not safe, then it's not apolitical.
If someone feels unsafe participating because of their identity, that is a political conference, it is a conference where people are being excluded on account of someone else's political views.
The PSF is not asking for everyone in Tanzania to say that they're fine with LGBTQ rights. But regardless of someone's political views about LGBTQ rights, LGBTQ people should still be able to participate safely in the conference. We're not talking about whether people can take part in a software conference while holding anti-LGBTQ views. We're asking whether or not it's reasonable for the political environment to threaten LGBTQ people and through that threatening environment prevent them from participating.
An apolitical conference is one where it's safe to give a tech talk regardless of whether or not you're openly trans, because regardless of whether or not people are offended about your gender, ultimately the technical content of your talk is the part that matters. A political conference is one where in addition to the tech, you also have to think about how you look and what clues you're letting slip and whether or not you're doing a good enough job pretending that your partner isn't your partner and whether you're using the bathroom people expect -- all just so you can avoid legal consequences from the government.
Whether or not LGBTQ+ people should be arrested and potentially executed is not at all comparable to holding disagreements about tax policy, or whether bridges should be funded over tunnels. There is no spectrum of possible resolutions, and there is no moral ambiguity. No one should associate themselves with evil, and homophobia is evil.
Do you mean things that are against the law?