They said "We will also be removing Douglas Crockford from our keynote speakers list to help make the conference a comfortable environment for all."

Imagine saying that about anyone, to any group (here it was to the whole world).

Let's say the invite you to a gathering publicly then wrote a tweet about "We will also be removing eli from list of invited guests, to help make the venue a comfortable environment for all".

That is just insulting, because it insinuates something terrible has happened, or you did some shameful unspeakable thing and they are just being considerate and not disclosing it publicly.

But is it true that other guests have complained about me making them uncomfortable?

So? Those other guests might just hate my gut.

Or they might prefer their pal to come speak at the last few open entries, and Douglas got invited instead.

Or they might be idiots.

Or insane.

Or "professional" touchy-feelers....

You really don't see how indirect insinuation can be very damaging? Here is like an ultimate example:

"We have asked John Doe not to attend the party as we have heard word that many parents would not be comfortable having him around their children".

Claims nothing, insinuates obvious reputation destroying behavior.

The insinuation made in the actual example with Douglas Crawford isn't exactly this clear cut, but it is still very damaging while lacking documented basis in reality.

You make me uncomfortable.

Clearer now?

That's all it takes huh? Do you not see the power in that?

The fact that they've disinvited him so publicly and so strangely is itself an insinuation. Quite a strong one, in fact.

Imagine your child was expelled from your local school and the reason given was "she made others feel uncomfortable". And that was the end of the discussion.

That's what these diversity groups do, they insert themselves into the process and then act as the new gatekeepers.

"We have deleted eli's messages from HN because he made others felt uncomfortable."

If the HN moderators wanted to do that after reviewing complaints against me, it's certainly within their rights.

You are missing the point... It does not matter if you feel comfortable or not. If you dont like something someone says, you dont have to attend. Instead of ruining a conference for people who dont care that someone uses normal language to describe things. Heck, I like speakers to be a bit raw, including people like Linus etc. So what if they are a jerk, I value them on their work, not their language. Of course I also have a personal limit of what i can classify as "acceptable", but if someone goes over that limit, i just ignore and move along. Why would i try to change the speaker or event to cater to me? Even if it was a slur or comment directed at me, it would be so much easier to just ignore it. I dont understand what gives these people the balls too try to publicly shame someone who have produced so much more value to society and tech then most of these guys combined.

>If the HN moderators wanted to do that after reviewing complaints against me, it's certainly within their rights.

What's legal/within one's rights and what's right is not the same thing.

To be also right, those HN moderators should also have thoroughly investigated (reviewed) those complaints, not just knee-jerk reacted to them (as seems to be the case here).

And even then, they should publicly state the reasons, not just leave an insinuation open.

And if this did had happened to you personally, with all the possible implications in your reputation, job etc, you'll be also demanding this of them too.

> after reviewing complaints against me

you'll have gotten better treatment than Mr. Crockford did, because clearly there wasn't much reviewing done by Nodevember. Otherwise, they could surely fill us in on what they reviewed?

That could be because he has smelly feet or because he threatened someone with a jackknife. That's kind of a huge range of insinuations to make.

This comment makes me uncomfortable.