> [...] censoring him [...]

I don't recall saying anything about censorship. I said it was "actually inadvisable". Because I think that his views have nothing to do with the presentation he's going to give. No one even realized that he was going to give this talk because the speaker names were anonymized to the editorial crew, probably as a way to prevent marginalized groups from being excluded.

> [...] Hacker News has and will continue to make editorial decisions about who is allowed to post here.

And those decisions are made judging by the person's interactions on HN and only HN, as far as I know.

> [...] you seem to pretend [...]

Am I being accused of something?

> [...] just because the subject of his talk is some technological function, that this means he will not be interacting socially or simply being present.

Firstly, there's a very well-written pledge that all LambdaConf attendees (speakers or otherwise) have to follow. What you are describing in his social interactions will be contained within those rules. He will be thrown out if he does something stupid.

Secondly, is his mere presence such an affront to you? Are you really unable to exist in the same space as a racist? I understand that those views are fundamentally wrong and really awful. But what does his presence have to do with it? Can you explain to me a scenario where his presence is a factor in the equation?

I know he's dehumanized people in his writing and I think that's a horrible thing. At the same time, what do his purposely self-anonymized writings have to do with his code?

> [...] can and should face societal consequences.

Witchhunting? ...I hope I'm misunderstanding you. Can you please elaborate on this point?

> [...] people claim that any mention of feminism and the inherent biases of the programming community is "politics" and that should "stay out of tech." "Tech is neutral on this issue! All we care about is making something."

I said none of that, and I don't agree that feminism or bias are politics. They're intertwined with society, which touches everything we do. I agree with many of the ideals at play here, and you're not wrong about systemic violence and discrimination. At the same time, I wouldn't prevent him from talking to a group of people because of what he believes in a different context. It's not in scope. We shouldn't be seeing side-effects here.

If I or anyone else made a conference for feminist issues or the like, then I'd have to reevaluate whether people are interested in hearing what he has to say. But that's not even in scope in this instance.

> [...] someone clearly calling for oppressive action to be enacted against an entire category of humans [...]

Citation needed on his call to action. A quote from him:

>> I promote only one kind of action: reading old books. I’ve explicitly denounced any other form of “direct action,” violent or otherwise.

> But when you take a neutral stance [above quote] you are not being neutral. You're inherently supporting them, because inaction on human rights issues means not protecting human rights.

False dichotomy

> 2016?

I know what year it is

> even remotely difficult

You're boiling down a complex concept to "supporting racism"

> they've chosen the expensive road

Being inclusive and open-minded is priceless to me

> I have backchannel info

Is it just me or do you seem to revel in this? Realize that this kind of stuff is penalizing people not even remotely close to this argument or whatever's happening.