Jon Pretty

"Disagreements" may sound like downplaying them. But that's how they were seen at the time. Those who disagreed with John in 2015 still talked with him in 2016; still went to events with him in 2017. It's as if the more time passes without incident, the harsher the condemnation.

An example is the oft-repeated claim that he invited a racist speaker to LambdaConf. This is a gradual escalation of the reality: a racist speaker was accepted by blind review and was not removed. Repeated enough times people, start to believe it. Where have you seen that before?

But it's become obsessive because it paints John as the most tangible icon in our community for many of the rancid ideas that good people want to distance themselves from. Those ideas are precisely as bad as the ever were. It's just that John was never a proponent of them.

And everyone should attack racist and sexist ideas. They don't have a place in the Scala community or anywhere. But we don't defeat bad ideas by attributing them to the nearest lightning rod and attacking him as if he's a valid personification of them, when really he's not.

I've seen it suggested John is a "Nazi-sympathizer" recently. This is bad enough, but what saddens me more is seeing people I respect, and who know better replying, liking, but passing over the chance to offer a correction; out of convenience. It's a first-degree lie of omission.

Instead, attack the ideas themselves. Argue against racism, against sexism. Argue against homophobia and transphobia. If you're employing such weak proxies for those things as John de Goes, your zeal is doing a disservice to your cause. It is not getting you closer to your goals.

People have asked me before, "why defend John?" My goal is not to defend John. I only want to do what I can to uphold the values I believe are important in the Scala community. For me, that means condemning any injustice to @Ryan_Signify or John, and equally to Jamie Allen too.