Spineless? KubeCon uses a system of racial preferences when giving out free tickets [1]. The leadership isn't spineless, they're evil and they believe in this stuff.

(Hell, they also have preferences for gays, as if they're a marginalized or underrepresented group. That's batshit crazy.)

[1] https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/events/kubecon-cloudnat...

>Cloud Native Computing Foundation’s diversity scholarship program provides support to those from traditionally underrepresented and/or marginalized groups in the technology and/or open source communities (including, but not limited to: persons identifying as LGBTQ, women, persons of color, and/or persons with disabilities) who may not otherwise have the opportunity to attend CNCF events for financial reasons.

This is so confusing to me. What if you don't belong to an underrepresented or marginalized group but also don't have the opportunity to attend CNCF events for financial reasons? What if you do belong to such a group, do actually have the money to attend, but lie and say you don't so you can easily get a free ticket? If they're going to help people because of financial issues, why does it matter if they're, for example, homosexual or heterosexual? Just because you may face other difficulties in life due to being homosexual that you may not have otherwise faced if you were heterosexual doesn't mean your lack of money is somehow more real than a heterosexual person's lack of money.

If they want to provide support to such a person, why not donate a percentage of the proceeds to LGBTQ organizations, for example, instead of letting them attend when someone who didn't share their birth characteristics but is otherwise in the same position can't? To use an extreme example, a gay person born to poor parents in San Francisco probably has a big leg-up in life over a straight person born to poor, meth-addicted, petty criminal parents in Idaho (accounting for cost of living differences etc., so the poor SF family has more money in total). Why not make the scholarship uncontrollable-attribute-blind and just make it based on financial need, or a combination of financial need and open source contributions, or something?

To LGBTQ HN readers, how do you feel about policies like these?

(Also, I don't think is at all "evil", as the parent said. Just baffling and ideological.)

It's done while shouting about "post-meritocracy" too which makes me think it's a selfish way for unskilled people to insert themselves into projects and make claims about being contributors

at first it wasn’t clear if younwere talking about uncle bob inserting himself or the linux foundation insert thenselves.

What problem was Charles Max Wood going to cause at KubeCon?

Charles Woods was denied a pass for Kubecon on the basis of his podcasted support, at length, for Somnez's attacks on women in tech. It had absolutely nothing to do with MAGA hats.

Nevermind the fact that the women Somnez attacked were themselves harassing another woman in tech - even after she apologized (what her alleged offense was I'm not clear on).

These women, as can be seen from their histories, are not new to this kind of behavior, and indeed they have explicitly said that they see civility and discourse as something invented "by white men, for white men" as a means of oppression.

Somnez may have been excessive in his behavior, but he was doing it to draw fire away from an innocent individual.

It is not threatening at all, unless you consider the existence of people who hold different political views threatening. In which you case you are the one who should not be out in public not everybody else.

It's a bit disingenuous to suggest that devaluing women, minorities, and foreigners is merely a difference in political views. It's an outright abandonment of human decency that is central to the professional ethics of western society and more.

That's not a mainstream political view for anyone today.

Western society?

I wonder which venues such implicit denigration of non-eurocentric culture could get you banned from.

Your worldview is threatening to me and every other freedom-loving individual. That is my feeling.

For the record, I think modern politics is total garbage. Republican, Democrat, it's all the same coin. I believe in equality, not equity, and I believe in equal rights. This mindset that some people are more deserving of rights than others based on how marginalized they are, should be antithetical to modern progressive thought, instead it's become infected by it.

that's a misleading defintion of "progressive thought". If you're gonna disagree with it, at least disagree with what people are actually saying.

It's more defined by rectifying historical injustices rather than giving more rights to some over others.

"rectifying historical injustices"

This is a problem. History happened. Those people are long gone. We should focus on being fair and creating equal opportunity for people today, not discriminating because of some random sample of events at a time and place way beyond anyone currently living.

Yeah, I’m not sure those two things are very different. History happened, it’s still happening. The Republican Party is still disenfranchising black voters as they did in history. Black people with equal education and training still find it harder to get jobs than white people, as they did in history. You can’t chuck history out of the window if you wanna create equal opportunities because history is what’s created the unfair system we live in today.

I doubt your claims are true with record low unemployment across every category and voting participation increasing.

But if they are, then change the policies that affect people today. Making up policies based on what happened centuries ago fixes nothing.

Awwww... I don’t think I’ve ever met someone that’s eaten one of Trump’s talking points in the wild before.

So, firstly Martin Luther King was assassinated for fighting for civil rights only 51 years ago. So you might wanna get your time line sorted. When you say “centuries” I reckon you’re talking about slavery, which ended in America about 150 years ago, which also technically isn’t even a multiple of centuries yet, so maybe you wanna look into that also.

Secondly it is actually exactly the policies that MLK was fighting against that still have their effects on black communities today. Segregation, underfunded school districts, black disenfranchisement, these things are still going on. They don’t just disappear when the laws change, you know. The result of centuries (yes multiple) of mismanagement and mistreatment don’t disappear in decades.

Lastly, it’s great that the black white unemployment gap has closed a little bit, but it’s not clear that this is a result of directed policy to achieve that. Currently we’re living in a time of extremely low interest rates and decent public spending. Anyone who wants money can get money cheap right now, which has helped aid extremely low unemployment generally. It’s a risk though, because the national debt has ballooned and this policy if not properly regulated can easily precipitate a recession. Low unemployment is a nice side effect though.

I'm not saying that's what "progressive thought" is. I'm saying that it's become infected by this mindset, making today's progressive movement share a lot in behavior with fascists and with people like Joseph McCarthy.

"Rectifying historical injustices" is by itself a meaningless phrase, as there are many ways to do this, some of which unduly affect others, and some of which don't.

It’s only a meaningless phrase if you’re motivated to interpret it in ways that are unhelpful. In that sense every phrase is a meaningless phrase until you get some details added to it.

Then perhaps you should not go. I am not threatened, nor do I think any one else is really threatened at all, in any reasonable sense anyway. Why should your discomfort trump mine and the MAGA hat wearers desire to interact in this venue?

That right there is precisely why the organizers had to take action. They want to cultivate a conference where diverse attendees don't feel like they have to make a choice between participating in an important professional and staying away from hostile actors. It ruins the atmosphere of the event.

"hostile actors"

Seriously? What exactly are these actors going to do?

A MAGA hat is not dissimilar to a nazi symbol, albeit to a much lesser degree. You wouldn’t want Nazis around even if you knew they weren’t gonna do anything. Just having people around that devalue other human beings as lesser than them is enough.

Your stunning lack of intellectual charity aside, other people's discomfort is not an unlimited license to disrupt a individual's ability to conduct their business and participate in society. I am no lawyer, but I wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Wood (and Mr. Somnez, for that matter) has a case for something like tortuous interference.

As it happens, Charles Wood is by all accounts a very decent person, whereas the folks who complained to the Linux Foundation have a public history of abusive and bigoted behavior. That you would think so little of his character, while saying nothing of his interlocutors, is pretty ridiculous.

I didn’t say anything about his character. I don’t know anything about his interlocutors. Both of those things are kind of irrelevant to my post which is about the hat.

Oh, you've said plenty about his character. You've implied that he devalues other human beings, that he is lying about his (lack of) support for Trump, and suggested that he was "suspiciously" unaware of how taking a picture wearing a Trump hat would be perceived (whatever "suspiciously" is implying in this context).

Yet, if you actually look at his behavior, and the remarks of those who came to his defense, you might see that you were being presumptuous. You might then update your mental model of people who wear MAGA hats, and whether their presence would be a problem at a technology conference.

It also seems rather silly to analyze the symbolic significance and racist undertones of some guy wearing a MAGA hat once, when the people who complained about him to the Linux Foundation were openly attacking Mr. Wood on the basis of his race and sex.

For what it’s worth, there’s a picture of me wearing a MAGA hat out there on the internet too. Ironically, of course, but I do sympathise with the guy. I do think it’s out of order for the Linux Foundation to ban him for this (although they claim there are other reasons).

That aside, this doesn’t mean I think he’s a good guy. From what I gather he seems like a normalish dude, maybe a little troll-ish, but I mean we all enjoy a good troll every now and then. I can’t hold that against him. But there’s no chance he wasn’t aware of the symbolism of posting that picture when he did. He pretends he doesn’t, but you’d have to be a fool to accept that.

I doubt he’s a Trump supporter or a racist, but even if he was I don’t think that’s good enough grounds to ban him unless there was good reason to think he was going to be a disruptive presence.

I decided to put all my cards on the table here because I’m a bit disturbed by the idea that you think that he was banned because he’s a white man? Banned by an organisation that is run largely by white men? Just trying to figure out how this works in your head.

Is it the white men on the board that hate him for being white? Is it the Asian men on the board that hate him for being white? Or is it the white women on the board that hate him for being white?

If you could clear that up, it’d be cool.

"It ruins the atmosphere of the event."

That's exactly what was said of allowing African-Americans into white theaters and restaurants in the Jim Crow south.

Major difference here being that black people weren’t allowed in because the hosts had unfair predujices, while people with MAGA hats aren’t allowed in because the people wearing them have unfair prejudices.

Subtle but important difference.

Of course, some people might be wearing MAGA hats and be unaware of Trumps demonisation of immigrants, banning Muslims, alleged (and admitted) attacks on women and refusal (initially at least) to condemn the KKK, Nazis and white supremacists, but I’m gonna go out on a limb and assume most of them have an inkling of this.

The man had a picture taken once with a MAGA hat. That does not make him a danger to society. Most likely no one but the person who so venomously reported him would even know that he is a Trump supporter during the conference. This is all lunacy.

This is just so hilariously wrong. The man isn't even a Trump supporter, not that would in anyway justify this witch hunt, but read for your self:

https://twitter.com/cmaxw/status/800385886479323136?lang=en

Surely we reached peak SJW imperialism and its time to roll this crap back.

I mean, I suppose we’ll never know what’s in his mind, but he seems suspiciously unaware of how much people would find that picture disturbing. Almost like in 2016 no one thought there was anything weird about Trump at all.

He could be a Trump supporter, but is actually trolling. He could be trolling and not be a Trump supporter. Either way, it’s impossible to accept that he didn’t know that Trump was a controversial character in 2016.

> I mean, I suppose we’ll never know what’s in his mind, but he seems suspiciously unaware of how much people would find that picture disturbing.

Do you have any idea how many people would find your perspective disturbing?

I think you’ve lost the thread. I’m not pretending I don’t know how much people would find my perspective disturbing like he was.

That said, no. I don’t.

So the MAGA hat was just a prop for a Trump Tower picture?? The man didn't even vote for Trump! This whole debacle gets more enraging by the hour.

I mean, I wouldn’t take him at his word.

Wouldn't the MAGA hat wearer bring diversity to the meeting as well? I for one would be interested in learning why someone intelligent would support Trump.

Look, this sort of thing is unsustainable. If you interact with a large group, someone, somewhere, is going to wear, say or think something you do not approve of. It is a mathematical certainty and part and parcel of the human condition. Far from a problem, this is good, its through differences and debate that we grow, we learn and maybe come together.

This SJW culture on the other hand is all wrong. Its weak, fragile, authoritarian and self-righteous, even as it contradicts itself. It is profoundly un-American, and it does does nothing but weaken and divide us all.

SWJ is not even like a normal cancer that attacks the host, it is so incoherent that many times it even attacks itself.

Perhaps if you got to know the people you fear and disparage better, you might not feel so threatened?

As an opponent of Trump, I'd still consider it a fundamental right of anyone to openly advertise their support for a mainstream political candidate and not get banned from public venues for that.

If party A doesn't like party B, then that gets settled for a ballot box, but for any public event if voting for party A, openly supporting party A, and being in party A disqualifies you from participation - well, either it's a political convention for party B or the policy is simply unacceptably wrong.

I mean, there are two parties in the USA with a roughly comparable amount of supporters, with some shifting back and forth over the years. If the presence of a roughly half of population makes someone uncomfortable that's... interesting but inherently they have as much right to be there as you do. The right to swing one's fist ends at the other's nose; and the right to dislike members of an opposing party ends at the point where you kick them out from non-partisan events.

IMHO a simple test would be whether you'd consider the equivalent action appropriate for someone wearing an Obama CHANGE hat back in 2008. What's good for goose is good for gander - we can hate certain policies, we can hate certain politicians, but applying that hate and exclusion to all the supporters of these politicians crosses a line that puts it right in the same ballpark as hating a major group of our (!) population because of their race or gender or religion.

Active supporters of Trump are just as valid part of USA population as any other major group, like it or not. It's appropriate to try and convince them to change their opinion, but it's not appropriate to require them to change their opinion or try and exclude them from society.

> I'd still consider it a fundamental right of anyone to openly advertise their support for a mainstream political candidate and not get banned from public venues for that.

KubeCon is not a public venue, at least in the way I think you mean it. It's a private conference, with tickets and admission policies. It's not a government; presumably so long as it does not take discriminatory action towards a protected class of people, it is free to do as it pleases.

> it's not appropriate to require them to change their opinion or try and exclude them from society.

Ease off on the handwringing. KubeCon is hardly "society". It's a niche industry conference.

In this comment I meant a public venue in the sense of any venue not specific to a particular political party or some members-only closed organization.

Sure, it's legally free to do as it chooses, but I'm claiming that it shouldn't choose that way, that all such venues should explicitly allow also people who are advocates for the "enemy" party if this is not a political event. "The society", whether talking about the whole country or about the tech domain or about particular narrow industries, inevitably includes people of all parties, including active Trump supporters. They're part of the community. Where do we draw the line if supporting one of the major presidental candidates is not acceptable? Do we start labeling tech cons as "Democrats and other anti-Republicans only" events? That seems really wrong, that's putting way more politics in tech events than should be reasonable - IMHO they should actively choose to be politically neutral.

And I believe that it's important to underline that this is a symmetric thing. Yes, there's a polarization where many people believe that the active supporters of the other party are inherently unethical. That cuts both ways, and has done so many times in past. If you say that it's okay for niche industry conferences to kick out someone for openly supporting the presidental candidate they like, then it means that it's okay for niche industry conferences (now or after a couple elections) to kick out people like you for openly supporting the candidate that you prefer. And I don't think that this is where we want to go.

> Ease off on the handwringing. KubeCon is hardly "society". It's a niche industry conference.

This kind of thing is occuring with some degree of regularity across the tech industry. KubeCon is hardly the first (nor the last) such incident.

I agree that active supporters of Trump are just as valid as any other group like white nationalists, KKK etc, but I disagree with the idea that is implied by your text that a group’s size makes them more valid as a group.

Half the country are not Republican. About half the electorate is. Voter turn out Was about 55%. 46% of the people voted for Trump. So about 25% of the citizens in the country voted for him. Even less currently support him and this is not even counting undocumented immigrants.

None of this should even matter anyhow because the size of the group doesn’t make it okay. I shouldn’t have to invoke Godwin’s law to justify this, but I will at the slightest provocation.

In ordinary times, this would make sense. But we're living in extraordinary times, where the mainstream political candidate of the American Right has more in common with despot authoritarians around the world than he does with the traditionally conservative ideals of the Republican party. This issue transcends politics, and is more directly about ethics and human decency.

As for the problem this poses to conferences, it's not merely academic. We know that any involvement of people from diverse backgrounds leads to a more creative environment. When a few bad actors threaten the stability and civility of that environment, conference organizers have not only a moral duty, but a professional obligation to address the situation. Whether or not political extremists are bothered by that is frankly irrelevant.

> This issue transcends politics, and is more directly about ethics and human decency.

False. Politics is how we work out how to live together given conflicting value systems.

> When a few bad actors threaten the stability and civility of that environment, conference organizers have not only a moral duty, but a professional obligation to address the situation.

This type of response is not going to change anyone's mind, and is only going to make the problem worse.

It's not about changing that persons mind. It's about maximizing the value of the event for the rest of attendees.

And no, on politics. Differences of opinion on how to run a country, where to put resources, what policy makes sense. All fair game. Whether or not a gender or minority has access to the same rights as everyone else? Not political. That's a matter of human decency. The very bare minimum to begin to enter professional ethics.

Rest of the attendees includes many other Trump supporters, who have all right to be there and shouldn't have to fear getting kicked out for admitting it. You seem to imply that Trump supporters either don't exist or don't matter - whether or not people of some political party affiliation have the same rights as everyone else is just as much part of professional ethics as the equivalent thing for gender or race. This political filtering seems a bit like a repeat of McCarthy's Red Scare.

Nonsense.

Regarding the event: the mere discomfort of some people does not grant unlimited license to disrupt an individual's ability to conduct business and participate in society. As I've said elsewhere, I am not a lawyer but this looks an awful lot like tortuous interference.

Regarding politics: Whether abortion is the murder of a most innocent human life or the expression of women's sacred bodily autonomy runs right to the core of morality, ethics, and human rights (the mother's and the child's). And yet, it is also obviously a political issue. Trying to play word games isn't going to solve the problem that you share a society with people who may profoundly disagree with you.

Can you link where Trump has acted or said something against people of different genders or minorities not being allowed to have the same rights.

> This issue transcends politics, and is more directly about ethics and human decency.

Yeah I mean, that's just, like, your opinion, human.

There have been civil wars and world wars. These are not extraordinary times. They are a time of record peace and prosperity.

I feel many people use these descriptions because they have had relatively comfortable lives and never experienced true violence, political upheaval, or authoritarian regimes.

>> where the mainstream political candidate of the American Right has more in common with despot authoritarians

Citation Please... I would love to know what actual policy, law, or procedure in place from 2016 to 2019 that is that starkly different from the policies and actual policy, law, or procedure that were in place by the US Federal government from 2008 to 2016.

List them...

Trump is a buffon, and is boorish with his speech and loves to piss people off on twitter, but the American president (thankfully) is limited in power, as such in reality not all that much has changed from one president to the next.

So you are either ignorant of the policies that have been in place for probably decades that many people think are "new" (especially around immigration which those policies have been in place for decades now)

>We know that any involvement of people from diverse backgrounds leads to a more creative environment

As long as they are not republican right?

>Whether or not political extremists are bothered by that is frankly irrelevant.

Does that extend to Left Political Extremist (for example people wearing support for communist messaging ) or only what you consider "Right Extremism" which is most likely normal republican policies. It funny to me when people call Trump (a former democrat) "Extreme Right" when in reality is left of what the Republican party was just 15 years ago, he has pulled the Republican party more "left" on social issues. The problem is not that the republicans have gotten "more right" it is the Democrat have pulled their steering wheel all the way to the left and stomped on the accelerator peddle.

I am outside observer to both parties, the Republicans have not gotten more right, it is the left that has shifted WILDLY in the last 4 years.

I prefer tha assholes walk around with giant "I'm an asshole" signs, personally.

me too

So, just ask him not to wear it at the conference ?

You seem to have your facts confused. Wood wasn't publicly planning to wear a provocative hat to a conference or anything like that.

If he would have? We should kick this guy out of the Linux Foundation because he hypothetically might disagree with us at a conference?

> But if he would do it on Twitter, what is to say he wouldn't feel empowered to do it at KubeCon?

Because KubeCon isn't held at a Trump Hotel?

The only reason he is wearing a MAGA hat on Twitter is to pose in front of a Trump Hotel in NYC. He says right in the Twitter post he didn't vote for Trump and that the hat is a prop.

> It is saying to everyone in the vicinity, I agree with all the hate that Trump has put out there.

Um, it isn't. It really isn't. Unless you 100% subscribe to that maxim "you're either with me or against me", of course. But if you actually think Trump is being hateful, you should perhaps leave open the possibility that even those who agree with his broad political stance might object to his actions in pursuing it, and perhaps some of the specifics he sometimes advocates for. That's exactly what we've been seeing from many people in the current administration who are, broadly speaking, Trump supporters.

loser is a hate word now?

Can you provide me with a list of all the words I am not allowed to say?

I've seen plenty of people unironically wear Che Guevera T-shirts, Socialist t-shirts, etc. even at conferences. If that's not at least at little bit threatening to some people, let me introduce you to my friend who helped people escape over the Berlin wall.

Whether you like it or not, plenty of people who voted for Trump are probably in attendance. Telling them that they're unequivocally not welcome is hardly going to change their minds.

So anyone that supports Republican policies or the current elected president of the US should be banned from Linux Foundation events?

Do you have be a Democrat to be a part of Open Source now

//for the record I am neither Republican nor Democrat, i am Libertarian, and I voted for Gary Johnson in 2016 so don't burn me at the stake please...

current gop behavior is pretty bad, i hesitate to associate with anyone still aligned that way if i don’t have to. it was not this way 10 years ago.

The current policies and positions of the GOP are the exact same as they were 10 years ago (slightly to the left actually)

it is progressives / liberals that have moved, not the GOP

Child separation policy was new. Building a concrete wall across the border is new. Banning Muslims is new. Refusing a president the right to nominate judges and having the senate vote on them is new. I could go on.

Well, I've already got the wood and gasoline...

What else should we do to people who wear those hats? Refuse to hire them? Refuse to bake them a cake, or sell them groceries? Cancel their Paypal account, or deny them banking services?

You just said that...

MAGA is support for Republican Policies.

if you believe wearing a MAGA hat is "threatening" and you believe in banning people that "threaten you" then you are saying you want to bann everyone that supports Republican Policies.

You can not say "I just want to bann people that wear MAGA Hats not republicans"...

Republicans where MAGA Hats and Support the President, Donald Trump

So does wearing an Obama shirt mean you agree with everything Obama did including drone strikes? So in essence, an Obama bumper sticker is a statement that you agree with murder?

I'm not stating a personal opinion here but, for many people wearing a MAGA hat is equivalent to supporting this kind of speech:

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best, they’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” - Donald Trump, 2015

If for instance you were from Mexico, it could be discouraging to attend the presentation of someone who believes that your ethnicity implies you are, most likely, a criminal.

I personally wouldn't ask a question to someone who believes I am a rapist based on my ethnicity. Would you?

Didn't he say "their rapists" not "they’re rapists"?

Subtle difference but it does significantly shrink the group being called rapists from the entire country of Mexico to only immigrants.

Weirdest bit of apologetics ever. Making small tactical adjustments that reduces the spread of statements target, but has little effect on its meaning or effect.

"there are rapists"

Not even immigrants, just the illegal ones.

And yet, for a Republican, he has record high support among the Hispanic population.

What's your point?

That perhaps Hispanic people are not necessarily going to be off put by people in MAGA hats.

Sure, perhaps some wouldn't, but it seems that from the point of view of the Linux Foundation what the majority would provably feel was more important.

Regardless of what they might feel (which, contrary to your assertion, has yet to be proven) the actual threat posed by a middle-aged man who once wore a MAGA is essentially zero.

Protecting participants against actual harm and harassment is a legitimate reason for revoking a person's ticket to an event. Trying to pretend that you don't have to share a country with millions of people who voted for its sitting president is not.

I personally share this sentiment of yours; I particularly dislike how "cancel culture" is increasing divide and lack of dialog in our societies. In my opinion though this was still a dilemma, which was obviously poorly handled (Twitter is in no way the correct place for this sort of things).

My initial post simply attempted to answer your question by explaining the rationality I believe the Linux Foundation followed here.

That last sentence in your post is an incorrect assumption and isn't true. Also wearing a hat is not the same as speech.

All this offense before understanding and flinging crazy associations around does nothing but cause more divide.

> That last sentence in your post is an incorrect assumption and isn't true.

I believe you have misread that last sentence as I didn't make any sort of assumption.

> Also wearing a hat is not the same as speech.

I never said that, but wearing an iconic hat created, used, and sold by a person who said what I previously quoted can obviously be interpreted as supporting such speech. This however, as I have already said, is not my personal view.

Could you clarify what "crazy associations" I made?

> "someone who believes that your ethnicity implies you are, most likely, a criminal"

> "believes I am a rapist based on my ethnicity"

This is your assumption. Nobody said this. Nobody believes this.

The stretched association is then calling anyone who wears a hat to also be a supporter of this incorrect assumption. That's the problem. It's creating outrage against a made-up position that nobody holds.

You are clearly misreading what I wrote, please read it again: I do not believe that all people who wears a MAGA hat believes in those ideas, what I said is that many people do (since that's the sort of rhetoric Trump often uses).

> Nobody said this

Yes, Trump said that Mexican immigrants bring drugs and crime, that's literally what he stated in that speech. In a similar fashion he also wanted "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering" the US:

https://web.archive.org/web/20151208051322/https://www.donal...

It is extremely disingenuous though to say that "nobody" who wears that hat associates Mexican immigrants (and other demographics) with crime.

The statements you are making now are already retreating from your initial position. "Bringing in drugs and crime" is not equivalent to "every immigrant is a criminal", which was your initial interpretation. I think it's reasonable to disagree with Trump on matters of degree and relevance, but not to wholly twist his statements or rely on divining his state of mind.

One, his statement is not qualified wrt other populations. A strong defense against a similar statement about immigrants in Germany was that the crime level of immigrant populations was of a similar magnitude to natives. Trump's argument could easily be challenged the same way.

The second way would be relevance. It's trivially true that some of the immigrants may bring in crime. Is this important to the discussion? Many decisions have adverse consequences but are still taken as a measure of overall good or moral fortitude. An example would be giving free speech to people with reprehensible ideas - while it may lead to offense and actual harm, it is argued as both a net positive good and a show of moral fortitude, that the societ is secure enough in its beliefs that it ia willing to entertain arguments striking against its core. Similarly, one could argue that Mexican immigrants bring in a net positive(it is a common trope that they are hardworking and willing to take on otherwise undesirable jobs). You could also argue that American society should have(within reason) the fortitude to accept immigrants and give them a chance to integrate and enjoy the benefits of Amercian society.

You don't need to strawman Trump to argue against his rhetoric. By far Trump's strongest political weapon has been to bait people into emotional outrage and theb turn around and use that as ammo.

I am not retreating my initial position. It would be generous if instead of just accusing me of doing so, you could point out what exactly made you believe that.

> "every immigrant is a criminal", which was your initial interpretation

If by "every immigrant" you meant "every Mexican immigrant" then yes, that was sort of (and still is) my interpretation: to say that Mexican immigrants bring drugs is equivalent to say Mexican immigrants are criminals. I beg anyone who disagrees with this interpretation to clearly state why. I honestly want to understand how else the aforementioned speech could be interpreted.

Well, lets look at the exact quote that you are referencing.

"When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

I got this from RealClearPolitics and I'll ignore the fact that they quoted it as "they're" instead of "their", even though those words sound identical when spoken. His very next sentence is "And some, I assume, are good people."

So my interpretation is that Trump believes that a disproportionate number of the people illegally crossing the US Mexico border are involved in drug or human trafficking, but some are just people trying to find a better life.

I think Trump is a very poor orator and is kind of dumb, so this didn't come off very well and I can see why people were offended by it, but it is also not fair to leave out the context of his very next sentence when it refutes your agenda.

For some people, sure. For some people, support for Bernie Sanders is support for the communist ideology that murdered millions of people, and as a person who personally suffered under a socialist regime I would certainly be uncomfortable in the presence of the socialist or communist symbolics. Does it mean Linux Foundation has an obligation to exclude anybody who ever proclaimed sympathies to Sanders and other socialists, to create safe space for me (in case I'd ever want to visit Linux Foundation sponsored event) and people like me who, personally or through their family and relatives, suffered under socialist and communist regimes?

Of course, singling out communism is not fair - I could name many other ideologies that some people may be very uncomfortable with, especially if you pick out the worst statements you could find, interpret it in worst and most uncharitable light possible and pretend that anybody who have ever agreed with anything in that ideology also fully agrees with that maximally uncharitable interpretation. It would be rather sad safe place if that policy would be carried to its logical conclusion.

But of course it would never happen. I can't imagine anybody being kicked out of a conference for ever wearing (even outside of the conference context) Che Guevara t-shirt or being photographed in presence of hammer-and-sickle flag (and I'm not even talking about religious symbols, most Abrahamic religions at least having very dark pasts and rather ambiguous present). It would be carried out arbitrarily and capriciously, following where current political winds are blowing and what tribal pressure groups happen to be more vocal and scare the organizers the most. That makes it not only a bad policy, but also a hypocritical one.

I am not sure that I understand your point: as you probably know, Bernie Sanders is not a communist, so why would anyone associate his persona with the horrors of authoritarian communist regimes?

The difference between "communist", "socialist" and "democratic socialist" is mostly marketing branding. Same ideology, different wrapping. But my point is not about Sanders but about the fact that people disagree on a lot of things, and if open source organizations start excluding people because somebody could disagree with them on political questions we'll get into a bad place quite fast.

Which problems exist that would be addressed by this?

What specific problem are they fixing here?