If personal politics and beliefs are not apart of the talk, I don't care.
Polarizing of personal beliefs, unless specific personal actions are documented, is comparable to a witch hunt.
At least for me.
My own beliefs waver on the spectrum of Silicon Valley, yet I have concerns for outside options I have.
But, no, at a technical conference, if personal idealogy isn't part of the talk, that is your own issue and you need to deal with it.
With tensions in the world PCism needs to stop and individual accountability is more inportant, at least to me.
You can't separate the two. Spouses invited to a speakers dinner? What if my spouse is also a man? What if my spouse is a different race? Should we give priority to people of color and women in the speaker selection process? Are trans people allowed in whichever bathrooms they want? Giving a talk on preventing fraud and abuse, where part of your belief system is "women should be free to give opinions online without bullying, trolling and harassment?" How are you supposed to give that talk without communicating a value system?
Having read a good deal of his unqualified reservations, I wonder if you can source this quote for me please?
>> "Not all humans are born the same, of course, and the innate character and intelligence of some is more suited to mastery than slavery. For others, it is more suited to slavery. And others still are badly suited to either. These characteristics can be expected to group differently in human populations of different origins. Thus, Spaniards and Englishmen in the Americas in the 17th and earlier centuries, whose sense of political correctness was negligible, found that Africans tended to make good slaves and Indians did not. This broad pattern of observation is most parsimoniously explained by genetic differences."
I'd imagine there's a solid overlap between Hacker News posters and people who might attend a functional programming conference, and judging by this comments section your position is in a distinct minority. So if it's OK to ostracize people based on their unpopular political opinions, you may find yourself in the hot seat you've been preparing for Yarvin.
How about this: perhaps we should instead strive for a system of pluralism and tolerance where we don't bring our political disputes into the professional sphere.
Well, if the discussion is about technical matters, that's easy. (As long as CY is willing on his own part to talk politely and respectfully to people he considers his racial inferior, of course, which is not a given.)
Even on the actual matter of contention: yes, that's harder (albeit utterly irrelevant to Lambdaconf). But why should even that be impossible? CY's 'contribution' to politics seems to consist entirely of taking the vulgar prejudices of certain degenerate corners of the internet and giving them a superficially erudite and sesquipedalian form, without actually strengthening the intellectual content. His arguments are laughable. I'd probably pay good money to see someone politely, respectfully leave the whole edifice in smoking ruins.
Just to clear any ambiguity, I don't accept the modern definition where you can call someone racist because you don't like their writings in sensitive topic. I'd like to see some hard evidence where said person has actively discriminated against someone with different racial background.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/2b/78/f2/2b78f2e25...
Similarly a fascist is someone that believes in the fascism ideology. That's just how these words work.
That _does_ matter; it makes large swaths of the potential talk audience (and other attendees) feel unwelcome. How can you engage in polite, respectful discussion with someone who believes that you're more suited to be a slave than a free man?