There's one sentence that stands out:<p><pre><code> LambdaConf cannot live up to its goal of being a “friendly community of like-minded souls” when it does not protect current and potential members of that community who are vulnerable to those who would deny their humanity.
</code></pre>
I would love to know how those members of that community are supposedly vulnerable. In the end, it is one voice against many. That voice will, in a big group, be drowned out. And the speaker this statement is aimed against is at the conference for his technological/theoretical knowledge - not to spread his non-technical opinions. Therefore, any likely violation of the community members' personality(?!?) is simply an assumption.<p>Furthermore, the speaker was previously banned from another conference. I have yet to find accounts that such violations have actually taken place at a conference where he gave a talk. Shouldn't the basic assumption in a system based on the rule of law, that you're innocent until proven guilty be the case here as well?
They're trying so hard to be the victims here.<p>I guess 'Debate ideas not people' isn't as important as making sure a man who holds an unpopular opinion isn't welcome at a conference.