Some of us do not accept "this person has said [thing considered objectionable] and therefore should not be allowed to talk about [unrelated topic] even if they perfectly follow the guidelines of the relevant event."
The question is what kind of effect they have on the audience. If someone uses exclusionary language in front of a diverse community that can be really destructive.
That excuse just does not work. Who are these fragile people who would be destroyed by Bob Martin's thoughts on programming? And why are they more important than all the other people who would want to listen to a guy that has been successfully writing software longer than almost anyone still working?
Something else to consider though, the amount of contempt for ones views that may be unpopular, for me is contrary to a diverse community, in fact disinviting people is exactly the opposite of being inclusive. I’m unsure how you can have a diverse community without having people who aren’t always inclusive, by trying to weed them out you inherently become what you lament. No?
EDIT: Looks like whilst I was writing the below (underneath the dashes) the parent did post a couple of links (thank you!). I'll leave what I originally said unedited because I don't think it's particularly controversial. However, having read them, I do have some additional comments on the links.
On the race situation, I disagree with Uncle Bob (link: https://dev-to-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/i/aaoswq5bzdpptrtd7s...), and I think what he's written is ill-advised and ill-thought through. At the same time I don't see disinviting him or deplatforming him to be a worthwhile approach. Dialogue would be a better option.
On the sexism situation (link: https://medium.com/@BradleyHolt/what-uncle-bob-gets-wrong-c0...), maybe I'm tired, but I couldn't quite get my head around what the piece was saying. There seems to be a paragraph quoted from Uncle Bob in there that suggests he's not being sexist. Frankly neither Uncle Bob nor the author rebutting him seem like the clearest communicators in this situation. I find the whole thing a bit unseemly but it also seems like it's not strong enough evidence to say Uncle Bob is definitively sexist.
It's also worth pointing out that prejudice is not binary. People who are sexist or racist in some aspect of their psyche or attitudes don't always manifest that in the same way, to the same degree, and to the same "out groups".
At the moment our response seems to be that anyone who's even a little bit prejudiced, or even appears like they might be prejudiced, about any "out-group" should be absolutely crucified without mercy. That's ridiculous and is a product of corrupted thinking.
There is a clear and significant difference between the murder of George Floyd, for which the perpetrator will rightly be tried according to due process, and somebody saying something online that's naive, somewhat ignorant, and hasn't been thought through properly (and is therefore tone-deaf).
At the moment our tendency seems to be to want to treat both of these extremes as the same. All that's doing is deepening the divisions, mistrust, and alienation within our societies. This is not a good outcome for any of us.
--------
MY ORIGINAL COMMENT:
Well this, right here, is the problem.
Some weeks back I became tangentially aware that Uncle Bob had become persona non grata and I tried to find out what he'd actually said[0]. I'll grant you I didn't spend that long on it, but I did spend a good 5 minutes Googling when I arguably had better things to do, and didn't find anything.
However, if you're going to make vague allegations somebody's behaviour the ABSOLUTE LEAST YOU CAN DO is cite some examples (with links) of where this person has behaved as alleged. Not second-hand accounts: what they've actually said on their blog or social media or wherever.
If the content has been deleted then a credible news source that includes screenshots of the original content is fine. But what you shouldn't be doing is posting nothing to back up your allegations.
[0] I've never been a close follower of Uncle Bob's because he's mostly known (as far as I'm aware) for being a huge proponent of agile and I'm... well, let's just say that like a lot of people I'm somewhat over it and have been for many years.
What? His remark regarding racial bias is reasonable and should not be grounds for barring from talking about programming in any sane, free society. We are going insane here. This isn't going to work, there is going to be a huge backlash and no one is going to take this SJW stuff seriously anymore.
If I invited a dozen guests to a party at my house and half of them objected to having #7 on the guest list because he's a shitbag, it would not bother me one bit to have him disinvited.
If, on the other hand, I myself were disinvited in such a manner, my first thought would be to reassess my recent behavior rather than suing the house owner.
Of course, when faced with a few loud complainers, you would never consider yourself to be right, and them wrong. You would recognize the folly of your ways, and the wisdom of the crowd that was right all along.
What if your party took place 80 years ago, in Berlin, and you invited a dozen guests, half of them were Nazi and objected to your invitation of the 7th for being a Jewish sympathizer? Would it bother you to disinvite him? And would you reassess your recent behavior if you were the one disinvited?
What if the other six had enough plutonium on them to collectively trigger a nuclear blast? What if one of the Nazis had super powers and wasn't fully committed to the Reich's agenda? What if this comment goes on forever, listing increasingly ridiculous scenarios?
To answer your particular hypothetical question: I can't say for certain, but I sure hope that yes, it would bother me to disinvite that person in that situation. But I don't see how your post relates to the topic at hand.
And now when he was told he had said some things that make people uncomfortable, his public reaction was threatening to sue. He'd rather attack, than stop and understand why he is becoming persona non grata.
Co-opting the language of victimhood (in the blog post, but also for Sonmez https://twitter.com/unclebobmartin/status/118636551396805017... ) to support and perpetuate toxic behaviour in himself and other people in the software industry is just one reason why "Uncle" Bob Martin shouldn't be given a platform by any conference. There are plenty more deserving people who can talk instead.
There is nothing in what you posted that makes Bob Martin a sexist. He should attack, no one should kowtow to this self righteous mob. Its only cowardliness that is giving these people power.
The woke movement is about power. It’s like “Anonymous” with better PR/public perception (good initial purpose, then it becomes a nom-de-guerre that anyone can take up)
People who choose to perform its language claim it’s about racial or gender outcomes. “Saints” lead the way in pursuing meaningful change, “believers” follow them.
Then, when “sociopaths” figure out how to use the blessed language to for _personal_ (or in-group) power grabs (and destory livelihoods in the process), one should call the followers “useful idiots”.
I see Uncle Bob doing a poor job of sympathetically articulating potential (or realized) issues with the moment*. And using words that aren’t from the right tribal dictionary. But I see respondents avoiding substantive responses and trying to tar and feather him for word choice. Cardinal Richelou’ing him.
> If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him. [1]
Your claim is bold and your proof is lacking.
You won't be spared because you agree (or claim to). I hope your performative martyrdom here satisfies you, because your imagined allies Do. Not. Care.
People acting like bad NLP software. Finding banned words instead of constructing parse trees.
Thank you for being clear about the backing of your claims. I find them thin.
This response is hardly site-guidelines worthy. Sorry.
Just a reminder that the he wrote texts like the following:
“Remember when the software SJWs told us that “Software Craftsmanship” was exclusionary to women because it was clearly male?”
Good that the CoC was enforced. People like him who are still stuck in the 2016 election cycle are actively hurting the software community and hold us back.
When someone like him still fills his blog with GamerGate-like Anti-SJW rhetoric in 2020, they are either stuck in the past or are actively still holding these beliefs, which are once expressed incompatible with the CoC.
Could you be specific? I am having a hard time connecting his dislike for SJWs to any danger of COC violations. This all just seems political intolerance to me.
So in your view, the fact we are in 2020 (which is not very inclusive way to speak about date by the way, as I personally live in Reiwa 2), the fact someone is resisting about extremist views on a number of topics which are potentially prejudicial to himself in the long term, is something to be ashamed of? (Note that I didn’t check his blog, but being anti-SJW sounds exactly what an intelligent perso would do)
You know there is a name of that kind of behavior, and it has made millions of deaths worldwide already. It shows that resisting is even more important than before, before it is too late again.
How is being anti-social justice as a philosophical stance exclude one from working within the bounds of a CoC?
Social justice as an ideology is deeply flawed and runs counter to liberal democratic principles. Every CoC I've seen is just rules for engaging on an open source project. Clearly one could oppose a philosophy and abide by the terms of a CoC. A CoC isn't about policing people, but about civility and rules of engagement for a specific thing.
I would like clarity, as it seems like you are saying that that CoCs are exactly the ideological purity test and purge the detractors like to claim they are, but that seems uncharitable.
It was actually easy to identify the conference in question by searching for the author's name plus "Chicago" and "conference". DuckDuckGo's search summary shows him as a speaker, but the actual page does not. And the date of his own talk coincides with the first day of that conference.
"Disinviting someone from a virtual conference who can draw a potentially large audience away from that virtual conference is not a particularly intelligent tactic."
I think Uncle Bob greatly overestimates his pull in the tech talks world.
Verbal agreements still count as contracts in some jurisdictions and having your schedule booked on a certain date means you're missing out on paying opportunities. I assume you're employed otherwise you wouldn't spout nonsense like that.
There is no contract, verbal or otherwise, because there was no consideration -- Martin would not have received anything in exchange for giving his presentation. (Intangible benefits like "exposure" don't count as consideration for the purposes of contract law.) The conference never had any obligations to him, and consequently he has not lost anything by no longer being engaged to speak.
Even if there had been a speaking fee, the conference could have fulfilled their end of the contract by paying him but not having him speak. There is no scenario under which the conference would have been forced to allow him to give a presentation.
And conversely, if he had backed out last minute for personal reasons, it would have sucked for the conference, but they wouldn't have been able to go after him for damages.
The many spelling mistakes in this post lead me to believe that he was very, very angry when typing this up. I'd not be surprised if it was deleted by Monday.
There won't be a lawsuit. There was never intended to be a lawsuit. There are no grounds for a lawsuit! This is all about getting exposure and perhaps channeling wallets towards his Patreon (or SubscribeStar, or whatever platform is en vogue with the bob martins right now).
> There won't be a lawsuit. There was never intended to be a lawsuit. There are no grounds for a lawsuit!
Of course not. But that isn't my point.
My concern isn't that he would actually file a lawsuit -- that's a non-starter. My concern is that his reaction to being snubbed is to publicly threaten the conference organizers, and the other speakers at the conference. That sort of behavior suggests a hostile, combative attitude that likely goes beyond this incident. That is the bullet I'm suggesting that the conference may have dodged.
I've never quite understood why Robert Martin carries so much currency in the software development world. That whole portion of industry group-think -- what to call it? consulting-revenue-oriented-dev-culture? you know, the agile/xp/enterprise software/oop-cum-fp-design-pattern "flavor of the month while pretending to be profound" thing -- had noble intentions but feels like a huge left turn in retrospect. Fortunately that crowd is taken less and less seriously as software progresses toward something more reminiscent of traditional engineering; the next generation of the sort seems to be piling into the "data science" world.
Given his views on software-related things, it's not particularly surprising to me that his approach toward a dis-invitation is... provocative, designed to go viral by tapping into certain aspects of a certain subset of dev culture, and not particularly well thought out.
From memory I think (please, someone correct me if I'm wrong) there were some articles about hiring on merit rather than promoting gender (and possibly race/culture) diversity as an ideal?
it's tragic that people think merit-based promotions and hiring actually exist. Meritocracy is flawed and extremely biased -- because people that enforce meritocracy are biased.
Martin himself shows himself to be a biased person which he shows time and time again on Twitter. What if he were to decide who got promoted or hired for companies?
Who isn't bias? That's what defines an individual personality. If we would remove everybody who expresses some biases you wouldn't have that much choice of people at the end.
The fact that people have bias cannot be the issue in itself, problems occur when they are ignored and not taken in account by systems.
For example a hiring process can take in account biases and have ways to correct for them, for example by avoiding to have one single interviewer having way more weight than another, by doing blind reviews, etc.
No? maybe I misunderstood your comment. Everyone seems to default to "if it's not meritocracy, then what?" or they default to "this meritocracy alternative you're proposing is worse". Well, then, what's better for you? What would you prefer knowing that meritocracy is inherently full of biases?
Meritocracy is full of flaws.
I do believe putting more diverse set of people into power makes a difference. Having racial diversity, gender diversity, cultural diversity, financial diversity etc. is important for having fair and fruitful leadership at companies, in gov't, and whatever other places.
No, I guess I misunderstood yours.There is nothing better than meritocracy, in my view, because meritocracy, which I believe is routinely used successfully in all sorts of domains, ensures the best people are incentivized to do the best work they can, for the benefit of the entire tribe..
I guess that's where we disagree. I don't think it's been used successfully and by design, meritocracy isn't for the benefit of everyone -- it encourages actions only for the benefit of the power-wielders because they're the ones who judge merit.
calling out the left in the US for promoting a cancel culture. And telling people not to remain silent or embarassed about having views other than the left.
I object to using the notion of a "6X difference in murderer density" among Black men as a reason why police are justified in racial profiling.
But I also object to the extremely smug and faux-engineer-rationality of "This does not appear to be racism [...] It looks more like math."
If we're expecting Uncle Bob to be just some guy on Twitter I would write him off as a simple fool. If we're expecting Uncle Bob to be a thought leader in a consequential professional field requiring deep analysis and sound judgement, that's something else.
There is an authoritarianism to it. There's almost never any trial, never any jury. We have these codes of conduct but there's no justice system around them, no paths to renewal or forgiveness.
Perhaps a write up with what the charges are, to start, is due.
Then the person can reply, appeal or try to say that they are trying to learn & prove & apologize.
We have had to tolerate & had to endure humongous shitbirds on this poor planet for way too long. People should be fed up, up to our ears with terrible behavior, & seemingly nothing to put a damper on it, endlessly ever the malignant poisonous people grabbing attention & stroking their demented egos in public. We do need a way for civil society to begin to emerge defenses, to say, no, you are not a civic participant here. But I also think the current CoC system is remarkably cruel & unjust, almost everywhere, & cause of undue unnecessary harm & division & schizming. (But not with BM).
I wouldn’t have cancelled the contract, we’re not getting anywhere with purity tests. We can appreciate what George Washington & Thomas Jefferson did AND disapprove of their slaveholding. Life is ambiguous and messy.
The one rant I read indicates that he thinks the country was not founded on slavery and that Reconstruction was not thwarted, Jim Crow did not exist, federal redlining of Black neighborhoods until recently did not happen, and none of the people that I’ve hung out with who have chatted about f’ing up n*s actually exist. That’s an issue for another venue and I applaud his candor in stating it, sort of a flat-earther earnestness.
True... I can’t glean your point, though. Are we disagreeing somewhere, or are you amplifying/concurring? Am I missing something so egregious (a call to race war or similar) that he’s an incitement danger on the order of a Richard Spencer? I don’t even agree with him on every tech subject.
I think he shouldn't have been dis-invited from the conference. But, on the other hand, I find Rob Martin overrated and very much like an snakeoil salesman, he needs to peddle something. He is very opinionated and his opinion changes too quickly to be useful, so he's not a person I really want to waste my time learning from. There are plenty of people out there who don't pretend to be gurus and yet what they teach is infinitely more useful.
> The conference organizers are in breech of contract
“Breach”, and probably not. While Martin acknowledges there was no written agreement, he provides little reason to believe that whatever communication they had met the requirements for a contract.
He does provide, in arguing for breach of contract where he is the aggrieved party, a much better (but still far from complete) argument for fraud where attendees were the aggrieved party.
In addition to an actual contract, breach would depend on something he strongly implies did not occur, to wit, an actual disinvitation by the organizers. It's clear that his contact wanted Martin to voluntarily back out based on the conflict created by the threatened boycott by other speakers, and Martin seems to describe himself agreeing to do so to make things easy for his contact. That's a change by mutual agreement, not a breach.
> The speakers who refused to speak if I spoke are guilty of tortious interference.
Assuming the required relationship (which may be disputable), Martin seems to establish interference, but not the independently wrongful action that would make it tortious.
Also, this is cute:
> I promised him I would not mention his name or the name of the conference on line.
But then:
> So, this time, I’ll let the legal options rest. Instead, I’m offering a virtual free talk at 10:00 AM CDT, on September 21st, the first day of the conference.
So, you've pretty much guaranteed that the conference, and probably your contact since knowing the conference will make that not too hard for people to deduce, will be publicly identified online soon, even if not under your byline.
Terroristic response. Not doing it but basically the whole post is about how much might & shit he could reign down on those who dare ruin & cross him & the volunteer activities he was happy to do as a favor for a while.
81 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 141 ms ] threadETA: ignoring racial bias in policing @ https://dev-to-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/i/aaoswq5bzdpptrtd7s...
Plus a good take on his "Thought Police" post https://medium.com/@BradleyHolt/what-uncle-bob-gets-wrong-c0...
The idea here is: if you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; if you don't, please don't comment until you do.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
On the race situation, I disagree with Uncle Bob (link: https://dev-to-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/i/aaoswq5bzdpptrtd7s...), and I think what he's written is ill-advised and ill-thought through. At the same time I don't see disinviting him or deplatforming him to be a worthwhile approach. Dialogue would be a better option.
On the sexism situation (link: https://medium.com/@BradleyHolt/what-uncle-bob-gets-wrong-c0...), maybe I'm tired, but I couldn't quite get my head around what the piece was saying. There seems to be a paragraph quoted from Uncle Bob in there that suggests he's not being sexist. Frankly neither Uncle Bob nor the author rebutting him seem like the clearest communicators in this situation. I find the whole thing a bit unseemly but it also seems like it's not strong enough evidence to say Uncle Bob is definitively sexist.
It's also worth pointing out that prejudice is not binary. People who are sexist or racist in some aspect of their psyche or attitudes don't always manifest that in the same way, to the same degree, and to the same "out groups".
At the moment our response seems to be that anyone who's even a little bit prejudiced, or even appears like they might be prejudiced, about any "out-group" should be absolutely crucified without mercy. That's ridiculous and is a product of corrupted thinking.
There is a clear and significant difference between the murder of George Floyd, for which the perpetrator will rightly be tried according to due process, and somebody saying something online that's naive, somewhat ignorant, and hasn't been thought through properly (and is therefore tone-deaf).
At the moment our tendency seems to be to want to treat both of these extremes as the same. All that's doing is deepening the divisions, mistrust, and alienation within our societies. This is not a good outcome for any of us.
--------
MY ORIGINAL COMMENT:
Well this, right here, is the problem.
Some weeks back I became tangentially aware that Uncle Bob had become persona non grata and I tried to find out what he'd actually said[0]. I'll grant you I didn't spend that long on it, but I did spend a good 5 minutes Googling when I arguably had better things to do, and didn't find anything.
However, if you're going to make vague allegations somebody's behaviour the ABSOLUTE LEAST YOU CAN DO is cite some examples (with links) of where this person has behaved as alleged. Not second-hand accounts: what they've actually said on their blog or social media or wherever.
If the content has been deleted then a credible news source that includes screenshots of the original content is fine. But what you shouldn't be doing is posting nothing to back up your allegations.
[0] I've never been a close follower of Uncle Bob's because he's mostly known (as far as I'm aware) for being a huge proponent of agile and I'm... well, let's just say that like a lot of people I'm somewhat over it and have been for many years.
Some people don't want to share a platform with him and the conference decided they'd rather have those people than him.
If, on the other hand, I myself were disinvited in such a manner, my first thought would be to reassess my recent behavior rather than suing the house owner.
> Of course, when <...>, you would never consider <...>
Presented without comment.
To answer your particular hypothetical question: I can't say for certain, but I sure hope that yes, it would bother me to disinvite that person in that situation. But I don't see how your post relates to the topic at hand.
And now when he was told he had said some things that make people uncomfortable, his public reaction was threatening to sue. He'd rather attack, than stop and understand why he is becoming persona non grata.
Co-opting the language of victimhood (in the blog post, but also for Sonmez https://twitter.com/unclebobmartin/status/118636551396805017... ) to support and perpetuate toxic behaviour in himself and other people in the software industry is just one reason why "Uncle" Bob Martin shouldn't be given a platform by any conference. There are plenty more deserving people who can talk instead.
The woke movement is about power. It’s like “Anonymous” with better PR/public perception (good initial purpose, then it becomes a nom-de-guerre that anyone can take up)
People who choose to perform its language claim it’s about racial or gender outcomes. “Saints” lead the way in pursuing meaningful change, “believers” follow them.
Then, when “sociopaths” figure out how to use the blessed language to for _personal_ (or in-group) power grabs (and destory livelihoods in the process), one should call the followers “useful idiots”.
I see Uncle Bob doing a poor job of sympathetically articulating potential (or realized) issues with the moment*. And using words that aren’t from the right tribal dictionary. But I see respondents avoiding substantive responses and trying to tar and feather him for word choice. Cardinal Richelou’ing him.
> If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him. [1]
Your claim is bold and your proof is lacking.
You won't be spared because you agree (or claim to). I hope your performative martyrdom here satisfies you, because your imagined allies Do. Not. Care.
People acting like bad NLP software. Finding banned words instead of constructing parse trees.
Thank you for being clear about the backing of your claims. I find them thin.
This response is hardly site-guidelines worthy. Sorry.
[1]: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Cardinal_Richelieu#disputed
“Remember when the software SJWs told us that “Software Craftsmanship” was exclusionary to women because it was clearly male?”
Good that the CoC was enforced. People like him who are still stuck in the 2016 election cycle are actively hurting the software community and hold us back.
You know there is a name of that kind of behavior, and it has made millions of deaths worldwide already. It shows that resisting is even more important than before, before it is too late again.
Social justice as an ideology is deeply flawed and runs counter to liberal democratic principles. Every CoC I've seen is just rules for engaging on an open source project. Clearly one could oppose a philosophy and abide by the terms of a CoC. A CoC isn't about policing people, but about civility and rules of engagement for a specific thing.
I would like clarity, as it seems like you are saying that that CoCs are exactly the ideological purity test and purge the detractors like to claim they are, but that seems uncharitable.
It seems what he wrote was accurate. What problem do you have with it, specifically?
I think Uncle Bob greatly overestimates his pull in the tech talks world.
That's pre-apocalyptic thinking.
Conference asks Martin to give a presentation. No money is to change hands, no contract is signed.
Conference changes their mind and decides to not have him speak after all.
Martin's reaction is to throw around legal threats like "breech of contract" [sic] and "tortious interference"???
Sounds to me like the conference dodged a bullet.
Even if there had been a speaking fee, the conference could have fulfilled their end of the contract by paying him but not having him speak. There is no scenario under which the conference would have been forced to allow him to give a presentation.
The many spelling mistakes in this post lead me to believe that he was very, very angry when typing this up. I'd not be surprised if it was deleted by Monday.
Of course not. But that isn't my point.
My concern isn't that he would actually file a lawsuit -- that's a non-starter. My concern is that his reaction to being snubbed is to publicly threaten the conference organizers, and the other speakers at the conference. That sort of behavior suggests a hostile, combative attitude that likely goes beyond this incident. That is the bullet I'm suggesting that the conference may have dodged.
Given his views on software-related things, it's not particularly surprising to me that his approach toward a dis-invitation is... provocative, designed to go viral by tapping into certain aspects of a certain subset of dev culture, and not particularly well thought out.
Martin himself shows himself to be a biased person which he shows time and time again on Twitter. What if he were to decide who got promoted or hired for companies?
There are literally studies on this.
The fact that people have bias cannot be the issue in itself, problems occur when they are ignored and not taken in account by systems.
For example a hiring process can take in account biases and have ways to correct for them, for example by avoiding to have one single interviewer having way more weight than another, by doing blind reviews, etc.
And that meritocracy on its own cannot work because everyone is biased in one way or another. Got it.
I see meritocracy as an ideal we would like to be able to tend to, not something that has been achieved in the past or current time.
Meritocracy is full of flaws.
I do believe putting more diverse set of people into power makes a difference. Having racial diversity, gender diversity, cultural diversity, financial diversity etc. is important for having fair and fruitful leadership at companies, in gov't, and whatever other places.
I object to using the notion of a "6X difference in murderer density" among Black men as a reason why police are justified in racial profiling.
But I also object to the extremely smug and faux-engineer-rationality of "This does not appear to be racism [...] It looks more like math."
If we're expecting Uncle Bob to be just some guy on Twitter I would write him off as a simple fool. If we're expecting Uncle Bob to be a thought leader in a consequential professional field requiring deep analysis and sound judgement, that's something else.
Perhaps a write up with what the charges are, to start, is due.
Then the person can reply, appeal or try to say that they are trying to learn & prove & apologize.
We have had to tolerate & had to endure humongous shitbirds on this poor planet for way too long. People should be fed up, up to our ears with terrible behavior, & seemingly nothing to put a damper on it, endlessly ever the malignant poisonous people grabbing attention & stroking their demented egos in public. We do need a way for civil society to begin to emerge defenses, to say, no, you are not a civic participant here. But I also think the current CoC system is remarkably cruel & unjust, almost everywhere, & cause of undue unnecessary harm & division & schizming. (But not with BM).
https://unherd.com/thepost/happy-bastille-day-cancelling-peo...
Virtue signaling is an essential component of this form of “revolutionary” political assault.
The one rant I read indicates that he thinks the country was not founded on slavery and that Reconstruction was not thwarted, Jim Crow did not exist, federal redlining of Black neighborhoods until recently did not happen, and none of the people that I’ve hung out with who have chatted about f’ing up n*s actually exist. That’s an issue for another venue and I applaud his candor in stating it, sort of a flat-earther earnestness.
“Breach”, and probably not. While Martin acknowledges there was no written agreement, he provides little reason to believe that whatever communication they had met the requirements for a contract.
He does provide, in arguing for breach of contract where he is the aggrieved party, a much better (but still far from complete) argument for fraud where attendees were the aggrieved party.
In addition to an actual contract, breach would depend on something he strongly implies did not occur, to wit, an actual disinvitation by the organizers. It's clear that his contact wanted Martin to voluntarily back out based on the conflict created by the threatened boycott by other speakers, and Martin seems to describe himself agreeing to do so to make things easy for his contact. That's a change by mutual agreement, not a breach.
> The speakers who refused to speak if I spoke are guilty of tortious interference.
Assuming the required relationship (which may be disputable), Martin seems to establish interference, but not the independently wrongful action that would make it tortious.
Also, this is cute:
> I promised him I would not mention his name or the name of the conference on line.
But then:
> So, this time, I’ll let the legal options rest. Instead, I’m offering a virtual free talk at 10:00 AM CDT, on September 21st, the first day of the conference.
So, you've pretty much guaranteed that the conference, and probably your contact since knowing the conference will make that not too hard for people to deduce, will be publicly identified online soon, even if not under your byline.