
PrlConf 2016 is cancelled - mrstorm
http://www.jonprl.org/prlconf.html
======
OoTheNigerian
I'm African and should be very disgusted by this person's views (I am) [1]

However, the views were written under a pseudonym years ago and has no bearing
on technology.

Basically, these were anonymous talks jotted down somewhere.

It is shocking that this person John Sterling canceling this talk thinks it's
a good idea to permanently sentence a person for what the wrote UNDER A
PSEUDONYM years ago and may or may not longer think the thoughts.

This is the height of intolerance I have ever seen. Left to this guy, thinking
absurd stuff today about various issues (not even acting on it) should banish
on from society when it is discovered in 2 decades.

I unreservedly condemn such intolerance and declare it far more dangerous than
folks who think Africans are a lower species. One is an uneducated thought the
other a dangerous totalitarian action.

[1][https://twitter.com/aphyr/status/606576005667504129](https://twitter.com/aphyr/status/606576005667504129)

~~~
jonsterling
Curtis Yarvin still believes what he said years ago; he has written as much
today on Reddit. I would not have made the decision I did if he had renounced
his prior views. Lord knows, I had very regressive political views once upon a
time, though never as horrid as his.

~~~
OoTheNigerian
But really, don't you think it's ok to have very "offensive" beliefs? I hope
you are aware it was once reprehensible to think the earth revolved around the
Sun and you can get killed for "blasphemy"

I believe you are operating under the same principles of censorship AND
punishment for ideas you do not agree with.

I'm sure you you strongly believe his are "obviously bad". But that's how
people in the places above think too.

Now, it would have been very different if his political views were a topic of
conversation at the conference but to the best of my knowledge aren't. So how
do both of them tie up.

I do not know what your religion or denomination is (or if you have one) but I
know a lot of people who will not let you work for them (say develop a
website) if you do not in private believe that Jesus is your personal Lord and
savior.

You are acting alike sir.

PS:

1\. Would you act the same if it was a black dude that wrote the same
thing/has the same ideas he has?

2\. To what extent should he be ostracized? Can he get investment in your VC
firm for a photo app? Get a job at your company managing servers? Open a bank
account?

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

PPS: What he wrote is very very insulting and reprehensible to me and I'm sure
many others.

~~~
jonsterling
My belief (which you are free to disagree with!) is that the nature of
Yarvin's public statements disqualifies him from acting in good faith with the
broader community, at least until he has withdrawn them. I feel that each
person is a whole human being, and I do not believe that someone can just
leave something like "Blacks are suited to slavery, Europeans to mastery!" at
the door. Even if he could, it wouldn't do anything for our speakers and
attendees who are not comfortable sharing a stage or a room with him. My job
as an event organizer is to make sure that conditions are comfortable for the
people who have entrusted me with their safety. I did my best, but to be
honest, every possible choice before me was distasteful, and I chose the least
odious path I could.

I decline to answer your questions about hypotheticals (a black person who
says the same thing, or a hypothetical VC firm, etc.). I believe these are
interesting questions, but I do not believe that anyone can come up with a set
of rules or laws that captures precisely the outcomes we wish to see; as a
result, I retreat to a far less ambitious perspective, where I intend to deal
with things like this on a case-by-case basis using empathy and common sense,
taking the unique circumstances into account.

I hope that this helps, and I recognize that you may not agree with the choice
that I made. But I did my best.

~~~
colin_fraizer
"My belief (which you are free to disagree with)". However, you are not free
to express such disagreement or even discuss it. Expressing ideas with which
the "right people" disagree is grounds for scorched-earth attacks on every
aspect of your life until you can be brought to heel.

(I find slavery and support for such reprehensible. Such ideas should be
openly confronted and countered directly by expressing superior ideas. For
example, the idea that all human beings have inherent value and should not be
subject to the use of force inherent in slavery.)

(While I'm criticizing ideas, I'll criticize a couple more: 1. It is deceptive
to imply there is was some threat to the safety of attendees. (The linguistic
sleight of hand of "physical and emotional safety" is the giveaway. It
combines and attempts to equate two unlike things.) 2\. The repeated
references to "solidarity" are a dressed up form of tribalism, placing loyalty
to "us" or "our team" over clear thinking. (It's the left's equivalent to how
some on the right use "patriotism".))

~~~
nailer
> the use of force inherent in slavery.

The article in question mentions agreeing to willing slavery, i.e. without the
use of force:

> Once we get this far, we are almost all the way to Carlyle on slavery. We
> have not agreed that a man can be born a slave, but we agree that he can
> sell himself into slavery. That is: he can sign a contract with a master in
> which the slave agrees unconditionally to obey and work for the master, and
> the master agrees unconditionally to protect and support the slave.

------
etjossem
The post by Curtis Yarvin cited as cause for PrlCnf to withdraw from
LambdaConf (since no one has mentioned it yet):

[http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.fr/2009/07/why-
carl...](http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.fr/2009/07/why-carlyle-
matters.html?m=1)

I personally feel that LambdaConf could have reached out to the many brilliant
minds in the functional programming community and chosen a speaker more
reflective of their values. Yarvin's assured us all he's going to give a
technical talk, not chat about the merits of entering into a contract of
slavery. But LambdaConf has taken a risk by giving him a pulpit to speak from,
and it's up to each attendee to decide whether that sits well with them.

It still wouldn't sit well with me, nor were the PrlCnf organizers willing to
tolerate it. They're making a conscious choice to answer Yarvin's invitation
with a boycott - another form of free expression. Other LambdaConf attendees
may do the same, if they feel Yarvin is sufficiently extreme in his views.

And that's freedom of speech in action.

------
SwellJoe
It's always fun to see how "free speech" is used to defend troglodytes' right
to proclaim their superiority by virtue of their race and sex, but the people
who have anything to say against those opinions are told they're being too
sensitive, participating in "outrage culture", infringing on someone's rights,
etc. The right to be an asshole and the right to call out their assholery is
the same right.

In this case, an individual has opted not to participate in an event that a
racist is speaking at; not because he thinks the racist will spout racist
things during his talk, but because being involved with racists is repugnant
to him. That's his right. Are you going to force people to participate in
events against their will to protect the feelings of a racist and proponent of
slavery? Who's being overly sensitive now?

Lambda Conf made a choice that they're willing to work with the racist
proponent of slavery. That's their choice. It's the choice of everyone else to
say, "Nah."

No one is exerting force against anyone else in this story. No one is
threatening violence. No one is calling the cops. This is literally a free
speech story on all sides. Individuals are making choices about the kind of
community they want to be a part of, and a lot of people are voting with their
feet that they don't want to be part of a community that welcomes a self-
proclaimed racist and proponent of slavery.

Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism.

And, for the folks who say, "This was years ago, under a pseudonym!" Did I
miss where he has renounced his earlier writings? Did I miss the apologies?
Did I miss where he owned up to the incredible amount of bullshit he spouted
for years? I'm not saying he has to do those things; he can say and believe
any thing he wants. But, time passing does not mean he's changed his mind on
these subjects, and given the extremity of his views...I think it requires
more than mere silence for me to believe he has changed.

In short: I wouldn't want to participate in a community that tolerates racist
proponents of slavery. It doesn't make me "sensitive". It means I choose my
friends and peers with care.

~~~
dpkendal
> Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism.

“Sorry, you wrote this and we don’t like it, therefore you’re not invited to
this conference on an irrelevant topic” or “… therefore we’re not going to a
conference to which you _were_ invited” is not valid criticism of an idea.

~~~
SwellJoe
Who decides which conferences I will be forced to attend in order to avoid
hurting the feelings of white supremacists?

Conferences are private entities that choose their speakers using a variety of
metrics. No one is entitled to a speaking spot at a tech conference; the
organizers look for speakers that will attract attendees, generate (positive?)
buzz, provide good talks, etc. If the people attending the conference and
helping with the conference don't want to hear someone who has written in
favor of white supremacy speak at length on some topic unrelated to his white
supremacist beliefs, why should conference organizers offer him a speaking
spot? Who decides who gets to speak, if not the conference organizers?

And, in this case, the conference has decided to ignore the history of the
speaker, and the opinions of _some_ conference attendees, and have him speak.
That is, again, their choice. I think it's gross, but I'd never suggest they
should be prevented from allowing this person to speak. I would not _attend_ a
conference with this person as a speaker; not because I'm afraid he'll infect
my mind with his peculiar and anachronistic brand of racism (I've read a
number of his essays, it would not be exposure to some novel idea), but
because I think white supremacists should be shunned. Literally. They should
be ignored so hard in our communities that they opt out of them, seeking
spaces more friendly to their positions.

Lambda Conf has every right to have someone who thinks slavery is a rather
nice idea speak at their conference. Other people have every right to
criticize that decision and opt not to participate in that conference.

------
erichocean
Summary: PrlConf 2016 is being cancelled because Curtis Yarvin[0] is speaking
at another conference, LambdaConf, and has written (elsewhere, under a pen
name) about political viewpoints that are not mainstream, progressive
political viewpoints.

The LambdaConf people are aware of Yarvin's political writings, do not agree
with them, but decided to let Yarvin speak anyway if he agreed to their terms,
which he did (these are Yarvin's own words to LambdaConf[1] on the subject):

> _One: I’m a writer, not an activist. I’m neither a leader nor a member of
> any kind of organization. I promote only one kind of action: reading old
> books. I’ve explicitly denounced any other form of “direct action,” violent
> or otherwise. Instead I promote passive unresistance, or “passivism.”
> Frankly, any “follower” who needs me to explain this is a dangerous fool and
> hasn’t read enough old books._

> _Two: Politics of any sort is out of scope at a functional programming
> conference. I pledge to treat other LambdaConf guests as if they were
> colleagues at a large company or fellow students at a university, and
> neither utter nor show any content that’s out of scope or otherwise
> disturbing. My pen name has been “doxed,” but professionally I behave as if
> it was a secret._

> _Three: violence is unacceptable and frankly preposterous at a functional
> programming conference, even over an issue as charged as strict versus lazy
> evaluation. The strongest possible pledge is to not respond with verbal or
> physical violence even if assaulted myself. I have no hesitation in making
> this pledge._

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin)

[1] [http://degoes.net/articles/lambdaconf-
inclusion](http://degoes.net/articles/lambdaconf-inclusion)

------
jimrandomh
If you're going to start a massive drama based on accusing someone of saying
something bad, please _quote the bad thing directly_. When you call someone an
"advocate for slavery", I check your accusation for links and verifiable
quotes. If there aren't any, then I reflexively assume this is someone who ran
over your dog, stole your girlfriend, and said nothing of the sort. Thank you.

EDIT: I have been informed that Jon Sterling may have read an out-of-context
quote in which Yarvin may have been summarizing 19th-century philosopher
Thomas Carlyle, whom Wikipedia describes as a "satirical writer", and not had
his dog run over after all.
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11363159](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11363159))
But also he might really believe it, and I'll only have to read about 1.5*10^5
words to be sure.

~~~
masklinn
The individual in question is Curtis Yarvin aka "Mencius Moldbug".

Quote:
[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CGr9pDjW8AA23uT.jpg](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CGr9pDjW8AA23uT.jpg)

Source: [http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.be/2009/07/why-
carl...](http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.be/2009/07/why-carlyle-
matters.html?m=1)

Link:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin)

~~~
jimrandomh
Thank you for the links. I really feel like they needed to be part of the
original post.

Yarvin's writing is... rather too voluminous for me to feel confident that I
know what he believes, in so little time, but I did see a few things in that
seven-year-old post which made me question the interpretation given:

> "Lifetime employment and slavery are, of course, practically synonyms, and
> indeed the same phenomena of reciprocal loyalty and dependency were said -
> repeatedly, in my memory, in the '90s on NPR - to emerge."

> ...

> "Carlyle is in fact ready to be as indignant as anyone over these abuses. He
> reasons: since slavery is a natural human relationship, this bond will exist
> regardless of whether you abolish the word. And it does - if only in broken
> and surreptitious forms."

This leads me to think that he's using words in a non-standard way. An unwise
way, given the response it's gotten him, and I certainly wouldn't invite him
to speak anywhere if I thought he was going to say things like that. But I'm
really not okay with seeing someone attacked for beliefs I'm not sure they
actually hold, in domains unrelated to those beliefs, by people who don't
appear to be trying to be charitable.

------
zeveb
> The program committee feel that we cannot possibly organize a workshop under
> the umbrella of a conference that values the free expression of racist and
> fascist views over the physical and emotional safety of its attendees and
> speakers.

Ummm, none of those views are to be expressed at LambdaConf. There is no
threat to anyone's physical safety, and the only threat to anyone's emotional
safety is solely self-originated.

Under the circumstances, I cannot have anything to do with Jon Sterling,
because I can't trust that he will behave like an adult in a pluralistic
society.

------
madsushi
The invitee in question:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin)

------
Karunamon
From the linked site within the linked site:

> _The controversy had nothing to do with the talk, which by all accounts was
> a great fit for the eclectic topics served up every year by the conference.
> Rather, the controversy surrounded the speaker’s political views, which were
> penned under a pseudonym years prior._

Can we please stop this? If I read right, this guy decided to kill a
conference because he didn't like the political views (repeating that:
political views, _not actions_ )

..of someone else who was supposed to be at a parent conference.

Continuing on from the OP link:

 _> we cannot possibly organize a workshop under the umbrella of a conference
that values the free expression of racist and fascist views..._

Unless the person in question was expressing those views at a technical
conference, this is a _shockingly_ disingenuous and dishonest statement.

> _..over the physical and emotional safety of its attendees and speakers._

And the appeal to "safety" is the cherry on top. Words are, by themselves,
harmful to this person? What the FUCK is "emotional safety"?

These kinds of knee jerk reactions are more harmful to the free exchange of
ideas than ten thousand /pol/'s.

~~~
spicyj
Just so everyone's on the same page, some of the thoughts in question:

[https://twitter.com/aphyr/status/606576005667504129](https://twitter.com/aphyr/status/606576005667504129)

~~~
MattRogish
Also, he's no garden variety racist. He's the creator of the "Neoreactionary
Movement"
[http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Neoreactionary_movement](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Neoreactionary_movement)

Regardless of whether or not you think a racist should or should not present
(be paid to speak? Edit: they are not paid to speak at this conf although some
expenses are covered) the founder of a pro slavery, pro facist movement
speaking at your conference is a different sort of thing.

~~~
Karunamon
_the founder of a pro slavery, pro facist movement speaking at your conference
is a different sort of thing._

Unless he is speaking about pro slavery and pro fascism, I have absolutely no
reason to care.

Can we _please_ learn to separate technical concerns from nontechnical
concerns? And before anyone starts replying with "they're one in the same!" \-
only under certain circumstances. If the subject of the talk is garbage
collection in a programming language, what the speaker believes about anything
other than garbage collection in a programming language is IRRELEVANT.

~~~
masklinn
Why do you care so much what other people think and do? You don't care? Then
don't. Other do care? Let them, since you don't care keep not caring?

~~~
hnbroseph
this seems more like meta-caring. i may not care about what anyone writes in a
book, but it can be concerning when people start burning books they dislike.

~~~
masklinn
Nobody's burning books here, a number of people refuse to associate with
Moldbug entirely, and one of them had a workshop at lambdaconf which they
cancelled. That's about the extent of it.

And then Karunamon comes in and asserts that no, they can't have freedom of
association and they must judge others by Karunamon's standards only.

~~~
Karunamon
I said nothing of the sort. I said can we please stop having knee-jerk
reactions like this? Everyone who would have benefited from the conference was
directly harmed by this immature, foolish decision.

~~~
masklinn
That's exactly what I've written: you've decided that you wouldn't mind
associating with Yarvin, and that Sterling shouldn't mind either.

------
caseysoftware
Will we see a similar reaction when anti-white or anti-male speakers are
invited to speak at conferences? Or are there groups that it's acceptable to
insult and denigrate?

~~~
etjossem
Give me an example of a tech conference speaker who professes the belief that
white guys lend themselves well to being enslaved. I certainly can't think of
one off the top of my head.

Is it possible this isn't a real problem faced by the software community?

~~~
caseysoftware
If you're going to respond, please stick to what I said instead of what you
imagined. Thanks!

~~~
calibraxis
No, they had an entirely correct response. The context is a country which
notoriously acts with unusual violence against its Black population, since its
"founding fathers", up to basically being a police state as far as many Black
communities are concerned.

------
fiatmoney
The red star signature is a nice touch. I wonder if Mencius qualifies as a
kulak?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_star](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_star)

------
DanielDent
I'm disturbed by the amount of CSS that was used to try to make the page look
like it hadn't been styled.

Font choice: "propagandaregular". Are we being trolled?

~~~
jonsterling
Sorry about that. This note replaced our "call for proposals", which had much
more formatting. Also, I'm a shite web developer, so there's that.

~~~
ktRolster
What does prlconf have to do with lambdaconf? How does a speaker at one
conference cause the _closure_ of another conference?

~~~
masklinn
It was collocated with lambdaconf and essentially happening within lambdaconf:
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:o9MkL1W...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:o9MkL1We6DAJ:www.jonprl.org/prlconf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

~~~
DanielDent
[Wikipedia]

In programming languages, closures (also lexical closures or function
closures) are a technique for implementing lexically scoped name binding in
languages with first-class functions. Operationally, a closure is a record
storing a function[a] together with an environment:[1] a mapping associating
each free variable of the function (variables that are used locally, but
defined in an enclosing scope) with the value or storage location to which the
name was bound when the closure was created.[b] A closure—unlike a plain
function—allows the function to access those captured variables through the
closure's reference to them, even when the function is invoked outside their
scope.

------
KKKKkkkk1
The announcement is written on behalf of the program committee but signed only
by its chair. The cached version of the page doesn't say anything about a
program committee either. Who is on the program committee other than Mr.
Sterling?

------
dominotw
I a brown person. I am curious what will not allowing him speak achieve. Will
it teach him a lesson? Would he change his views at a deep fundamental level?

------
gravypod
If you really want someone's ideas to be discredited, let them express them
and then refute them in a debate like format. Let them get exposure and if
their ideas are wrong or bad it will be evident to anyone who is listening.

Silencing people because "I don't like what they say" is wrong.

------
lhnz
It all comes down to this argument [0] in which he attempts to defend the
offending opinion that has been linked to everywhere ("Why Carlyle Matters"
[1]).

I agree with the commenter that he does seem to be trying to deflect as he
avoided using the word 'intelligence' or 'character' and carefully used an
anecdote hiding behind a third-party in response. His own response suggests
that he lost respect for the Native Americans for not making good slaves -- I
wonder if he really means that, I honestly rolled my eyes at it.

I think the paragraph that people are angry about is just _stupid_. Even if
you believe that the brain/character/intelligence can be affected by our
genes, it doesn't immediately follow that 'slavery' is therefore due to
character or intelligence. When I read that paragraph a few thoughts ran
through my head like "this person needs to think about people's feelings
before writing his thoughts down" and "are you sure well-adaptedness is the
right frame to use when looking at slavery?" and "why does slavery have to be
such a slippery concept to you? could it be that you're trying to build a
motte-and-bailey in advance."

That said, I still do not think that the wrong beliefs warrant no-platforming.
This is a tech conference and not a political one, and even if he was to speak
politically informally it is better that reprehensible political views are
said out in the open where they can be deconstructed and quashed.

Of course left-leaning people have every right to remove themselves from the
room if they do not want to be near him; as are libertarians allowed to bow
out from events like Strange Loop.

Either way the Streisand Effect [2] is at full force here. It's surely great
for Urbit and Curtis Yarvin's weird politics. Maybe next time we can avoid
giving him free publicity?

Edit: It looks like he responded to that comment, and his response is actually
pretty decent. He thinks of talents as distributed and none of them carry
special mystical significance to him (even intelligence.)

[0]
[https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/4bxf6f/im_curtis_yarv...](https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/4bxf6f/im_curtis_yarvin_developer_of_urbit_ama/d1dh7u7)

[1] [http://unqualified-
reservations.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/why-c...](http://unqualified-
reservations.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/why-carlyle-matters.html?m=1)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect)

------
setra
Note the red star at the bottom of the page

------
akhilcacharya
If urbit were any good I might be inclined to disagree, but not even the
technology holds up. I invite anyone to try to read the source - it looks
intentionally obfuscated.

------
carapace
It is correct and proper to shun and revile a person who actually advocates
slavery.

To say, "Well, as long as he is not advocating slavery at the con, that's
fine." is ridiculous.

Throw the racist evil nasty bum out and let someone else who actually deserves
the timeslot talk.

~~~
thescribe
Where is the line though? Should radically conservative parts of the south bar
anyone who has advocated for gay marriage from speaking at tech conferences?

~~~
caseysoftware
I think this and the growing list of similar circumstances establishes
"she/he/it offended me" as a valid reason to blacklist anyone.

Whoever gets to define Bad Think is in a position of incredible unchecked
power.

~~~
SwellJoe
I'm curious how much power you believe a programming language conference can
exert on someone? You've called it "incredible unchecked power", but what does
that mean here? Power to do what? Ask someone not to speak? Is there some
other "power" being wielded that I'm not grasping?

You seem to be making a "slippery slope" argument; I guess on the basis that
you're afraid any unpopular opinion can get one ostracized. But, slippery
slope is generally considered a fallacy, and this is a great example of why.
The conference organizers themselves have gone to great lengths to talk about
all of the various and wildly differing beliefs held by participants that _no
one considers controversial and worthy of mention_ ; right, left, religious,
atheist, gay, straight, black, white, brown, all of these things are OK with
everybody (by some reasonable definition of "everybody"). No one is suggesting
Republicans/Libertarians/Democrats/Socialists shouldn't be allowed to speak or
participate. We can all agree to disagree on those concepts and have civil
conversations about other subjects without it being a big deal.

Civil people can disagree without suggesting some people are genetically
predisposed to being slaves and that others (conveniently, the person making
the suggestion among them) are naturally predisposed to be their masters. And,
there's where the problem lies. One can't reasonably "agree to disagree" with
someone who considers an entire race to be subhuman; at least, I can't.
That's, frankly, a person I want to be as far away from as possible. I
certainly don't want to be a participant in a community that welcomes that
person.

~~~
caseysoftware
I'll describe it a different way:

Either:

\- It is wrong to denigrate _any_ group (religion, race, ethnicity, etc); or

\- It is okay to denigrate _any_ group (religion, race, ethnicity, etc); or

\- It is wrong to denigrate _certain_ groups (religion, race, ethnicity, etc)
but not others.

It appears that we're in the third category. Therefore, whoever gets to define
that list is in a position of great power to punish some while excusing others
for the same action. And - as we've seen - since the stakes seem to be the
livelihoods of the people involved, it's an important conversation to have.

The programming language conference is just the setting.

~~~
SwellJoe
_" Either:

\- It is wrong to denigrate any group (religion, race, ethnicity, etc); or

\- It is okay to denigrate any group (religion, race, ethnicity, etc); or

\- It is wrong to denigrate certain groups (religion, race, ethnicity, etc)
but not others.

It appears that we're in the third category."_

Because someone has said that supporting slavery is deeply, possibly
unforgivably, wrong?

Your third category is "religion, race, ethnicity, etc". Where does "believes
some people were born to be slaves and others were born to be their masters"
fit into that?

Again, you're making a slippery slope argument, in what you call a "different
way", but it looks the same to me. Perhaps I'm still not understanding you.

Am I understanding that you believe no groups should ever be denigrated? So,
we shouldn't denigrate white supremacists and neo-Nazis? Why not? We shouldn't
denigrate mass murderers? Why not? We shouldn't denigrate dictators? How about
religious fundamentalists who prevent girls from getting an education because
they are girls? Can I denigrate them? They aren't physically hurting anyone,
they aren't "violent". But, I think the civilized world should shun them.

There are, in fact, groups that most of us denigrate. I don't think repugnant
beliefs should be considered sacred or free from criticism. Who makes those
decisions? Well, I do, you do, organizations do, sometimes governments do.

 _" Therefore, whoever gets to define that list is in a position of great
power to punish some while excusing others for the same action."_

You're begging the question, and not answering mine.

 _" And - as we've seen - since the stakes seem to be the livelihoods of the
people involved, it's an important conversation to have."_

I have not seen that. Has this person lost their job because someone doesn't
want to go to a conference with them? Though I would be _entirely_ comfortable
with overt racism and support of human slavery being a firing offense at any
company.

Again, slippery slope is a fallacy. Supporting slavery is not a religion, a
race, an ethnicity, an age, a gender, a sexual preference, or any other
protected class.

