Hacker News Reader

Comment by Xeamek | Hacker News Reader

You don't need LGBT hunt squads. All you need is the fact that a gay couple holding hands or kissing publicly is unsafe.

"Then just don't kiss publicly". Sure, hiding one's sexuality isn't that hard, especially for a short period of time. But that's the whole problem: they shouldn't have to hide it in the first place.

Home people might know you, but in home country you are against only bigoted individuals, not the entire state.

Objectively, will a python conference attended by an African be more dangerous than that person's everyday life? No. But that's not what it's about. What this is about is PSF's having no tolerance for places that are breaking human rights. And if you want to be part of that community and enjoy its perks, you have to adhere to cultural standards that PSF perceives are essential.

View on HN

Western countries should then stop giving their "perks" (grants, subsidies, volunteers traveling) to the entire Africa, because it's not up to any standards of culture or human rights. ...And proudly wait till Africa meets them.

As the joke says: "they promised to fill the pool as soon as we learn to swim."

> But that's the whole problem: they shouldn't have to hide it in the first place.

In Rome do as the Romans do. Cultural norms differ by countries and should be respected.

Also this kind of indignation is very selective, I've never read a software fundation complaining about it being unsafe to travel as a christian in Marocco (where owing a bible is forbidden by law) for example.

Based on limited research, owning and selling bibles is allowed there but missionary work is not allowed.

How many pounds of Bible do I have to have on me for it to count as intent to evangelize?

>In Rome do as the Romans do. Cultural norms differ by countries and should be respected.

Only to a degree where those cultural norms are acceptable.

Then don't go if you feel like the norms are not acceptable to you. In this day and age is not that hard do do a little research before going to a place you've never been before.

> where owing a bible is forbidden by law

That's not a great comparison. You can choose if you bring a Bible with you or not - this seems like a law about Bibles, not about being a Christian. You can't choose to not be gay/trans for some time - even if you hide it, the relevant records may be public and easy to find if some law enforcement.

Owning a Bible is not forbidden by law in Morocco. (If there is legislation, you are misinterpreting its scope and intent.) Morocco has its own Roman Catholic jurisdiction[0]. There are even Roman Catholic monasteries/convents in the country that do philanthropic work with rural communities, on the condition that they don’t try to openly convert locals, and of course they all possess Bibles and liturgical books for their services.

This is something that even tourists are often aware of, because in Tangier the Anglican parish[1] is a popular tourist attraction. The Agadir Roman Catholic parish is attended by also some of the loads of German/French/Italian pensioners who spend winters there.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_in_Morocco

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Andrew's_Church%2C_Tangier

>But that's the whole problem: they shouldn't have to hide it in the first place.

What does that have to do with Python? You can chose to respect the laws in the country you are in, or not.

You can also judge if a given law is moral or valid, and take actions based on that.

PSF has some moral views and they believe in some standards regardless of given country's law. Why are you so fixated on that?

>PSF has some moral views

I thought the reason PSF exists is to promote Python, not to have political views.

The main reason of some entity's existence doesn't prevent it from having an additional views, that can even shape the way they execute their primary goal

https://www.python.org/psf/mission/

> The mission of the Python Software Foundation is to promote, protect, and advance the Python programming language, and to support and facilitate the growth of a diverse and international community of Python programmers.

By prohibiting African Python programmers from taking part because of their political views, how does that promote "diverse and international communities"?

Are anti-LGBT Africans not diverse enough?

Nobody is prohibited from attending based on their political views. It’s only a question of whether those views cause someone to negatively impact other attendees that they have a problem. You can be completely anti-LGBT as long as you’re mature enough to only talk about Python at a Python conference.

They're not funding entire conferences because of how a country decides to vote, even though it has nothing to do with Python or programming.

It does have to do with people being free and safe to attend, however. If you see freedom as additive, that’s consistent: the PSF doesn’t want to be associated with conferences which are risky for some people to attend. That doesn’t mean that a different conference can’t be organized, only that they are uncomfortable supporting less free places. I’m fine with that as long as it applies to U.S. states which fail the same concerns.

Sure, that's totally fine.

However, what is the impact here?

Basically the volunteers for a Python conference needed to write an open letter as the conference didn't happen.

Like, if the PSF don't want conferences in places where same-sex relationships are prohibited, then they should just make that a policy. Personally, I would disagree with that policy as I don't see how Python relates to said policies, but it would be fine.

What's not fine is relatively poor volunteers being forced to guarantee major expenses for a conference because the PSF couldn't make a decision.

What does respecting a law have to do with Python?

The venue is safe for the international Python community, or it is not.

Hey now, just the other people day people on HN argued that forcing a person to adopt some norms is not censorship, because:

1. It is not the government doing it 2. It is not actually speech

You can't say you are free to express yourself in one sentence and forbid expression in the next. Either we all have to hide or we can all be free to express ourselves as we see fit.

You are free to say what you want, and I'm free to take what you are saying into consideration when deciding what in what interaction I will or won't engage with you. What's the contradiction here?

Simple. By preventing me from self-identifying as an asshole by forcing non-asshole behaviors -- you are infringing on my right to free speech, free association ( or non-association ) and many others such rights.

If you cannot see it, you yourself are not free.

my right to free speech

That's about government retaliation. You don't have a right to be free of consequences for anything you say. What you're looking for is a "safe space".

Oh? So what will you claim exactly when the situation is reversed and you are not free from consequences of your actions? Societal norms are fickle. Are you sure you want rely on those?

No one is free from any and all consequences for their actions. Is this a real question?

You may as well accept that your actions have consequences since it is reality. Usually this is a lesson taught to young children while they are still learning to talk.

It absolutely is a real question. I routinely see different standards applied when consequence are on the line and selective enforcement is made based on criteria that make one question the very foundations of the country that is not willing to live up to their espoused ideals.

Since you mention little children, I would be remiss not to point out that kids do pick up on that particular, shall we say, inconsistency rather quick usually to the embarrassment of the adults, who are, after all, in a polite company.

Where do your ideas that there are no consequences for what you say come from?

US constitution and major free speech cases.

By the way, I reject the consequences framing. Everything has a consequence. I breathe. Oxygen enters my bloodstream. The only question tends to be whether a busybody has too much free time on their hands to undermine basic foundations of this country. And there seem to be so many of those lately.

Related. What government thinks freedom of speech is and is not based on various rulings:

[1]https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-re...

Freedom of speech does not include the right:

To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).

It is mildly amusing isn't it. Not that long ago schools were kinda for trying to uphold freedoms of their students.

I do not want to presume too much, but I am assuming you are trying to make some sort of subtle point. If so, do not hesitate to do it and just play your cards. It is not like I can report you for anti-semitism or something.

I'm not trying to be subtle at all, I'm trying to tell you explicitly that "freedom of speech" has to do with the government and has nothing to do with you getting banned from websites or people blocking you. From your own link it doesn't cover being able to print whatever you want in college newspaper.

People not wanting to hear what you have to say, broadcast what you say or host what you say has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

Is it one of those weird moments where we push this conversation to it its logical conclusion with a response of blocking protected parties and immediate chorus of 'but you can't block like that!' You can only block the right people that we tell you can block. Blocking wrong people can be bad mojo.

FWIW, this was my last response. I am removing myself from this conversation.

That's for the best, I have absolutely zero idea what you are trying to say.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com