Sure, if the DjangoCon Africa organizers had a history of human rights abuses, maybe that would be a reason to not fund them. But having a conference in Tanzania seems like a non-issue.

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 would call that stupid because I don't agree with that view, but yes, he would have a right to not sponsor countries that have legal abortion. So what?

Is that the sort of world you want to live in though -- a world where people are constantly trying to impose their politics on others in this way?

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.

>a world where people are constantly trying to impose their politics on others in this way?

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

Polarization is not a constant across time/space: https://www.brown.edu/news/2020-01-21/polarization

>> Political pluralism should be the default.

> Agreed.

> But that doesn't mean that EVERY and ALL political view should be respected.

Exactly, the difference is called “relativism”.