Well, the question is rather- what is a "fuck up" to them?
And to that- who knows? Certainly the point of a CoC is supposed to be to codify this, but I believe experience shows that its interpretation tends to be expansive, when the wording is not already expansive to begin with.
At the end of the day, events like Curtis Yarvin, a person who has never harmed a fly, almost getting banned from Lambdaconf over "safety" concerns, demonstrate that the fuck-up may just be having a political difference of opinion with the group in question.
(Analogously, and I say this as somebody who would vote Dems every time if they lived in the US, a moderation team that included at least one Trump voter would also assuage such concerns. Consider it a commitment to diversity.)
edit: To be clear, I am not asking for anything resembling quotas; just any demonstration of the ability of the team to coexist with a person they have serious ideological disagreements with.
I wasn't familiar with Curtis Yarvin, but in looking him up, you can't be serious, right?
>Yarvin's online writings, many under his pseudonym Mencius Moldbug, convey blatantly racist views. He expresses the belief that white people are genetically endowed with higher IQs than black people. He has suggested race may determine whether individuals are better suited for slavery, and his writing has been interpreted as supportive of the institution of slavery.
Curtis Yarvin is a bellwether - the sort of person that any group that starts excluding people for ideological disagreements, would probably exclude first precisely because his position is so problematic. So any group that accepts his technical contribution can obviously be trusted to tolerate any less-severe ideological disagreement. Conversely, any group that doesn't, especially when they have to make up nonexistent concerns to do it because their rules didn't cover this "obvious" reason to kick someone out and couldn't be hastily adjusted, must be viewed with caution.
I personally don't hold any beliefs nearly as objectionable as that. But I do hold objectionable beliefs - as I believe any halfway interesting person does. And those who don't, probably will eventually. Just stand by your convictions and give it time.
> Call me crazy, but I believe that you don't have to actively champion and invite openly racist people to conferences to show that you tolerate difference of opinion.
Sure you don't have to, but if you do, it's a hell of a signal. (At any rate, Curtis Yarvin was invited for his semi-esoteric functional-based distributed operating platform, Urbit.)
> If you're protecting personnel, even after a number of others in your community have shown disagreement with the person's actions (and protections afterwards), just admit you agree with those thoughts.
Sorry, I don't. Of course, you'll believe that I do anyway, and that's fine. I do think it's a bit sad that you think that the only reason someone could want somebody to be included, is because they were your ideological compatriots.
In fact, the only reason I want anyone to be included in a conference is if they have contributions to the conference's topic.
No, I think someone should be *excluded* from talking at a conference because they literally write Eugenics theory, regardless of the brackets, semicolons and spaces they write in a text editor.
It sounds like we just have a difference in moral standards.
I just disagree that standing in his presence is a matter of safety for anyone. It's possible to hold abhorrent views and still be a useful contributor.
Yes? They might have other useful ideas or opinions that I may benefit from being exposed to. People are multidimensional.
If there is a conference being organized about some technology, I'd like to see speakers who have the most to contribute, on that merit only. I couldn't care less if they march around with armbands on in their spare time. I'm suggesting that more people learn to compartmentalize.
To me, if they can keep it to themselves, they can believe whatever they want. Up to and including that I shouldn't have been born, though I may draw a line at believing I should be killed, depending on how mentally stable I believe them to be.
>I am not asking for anything resembling quotas; just any demonstration of the ability of the team to coexist with a person they have serious ideological disagreements with.
That would be nice... unfortunately, filter bubbles are such that it's hard for most people just to locate a reasonable person who has serious ideological disagreements with them. The current polarisation didn't happen in a vacuum.
