Being a speaker at the same event is hardly being forced to associate with someone, nor indeed a reason to attempt to publicly repudiate them.

Additionally, in my experience Linus Tovalds is not a jerk. Is this something you sense you get by reading email threads?

Perhaps you associate a lack of politeness and deference with being a jerk, but it really isn't the same.

> Perhaps you associate a lack of politeness and deference with being a jerk, but it really isn't the same.

I would certainly associate those two attributes with being a jerk.

It's hard without specific examples, but brusque or somewhat impolite generally seem common. For example, someone asserts something technical in a strong way, lacking technical insight, or re-animating a zombie topic. The response is often short and somewhat acerbic. To be honest, replying in a sensitive way, with references to past converations, takes a long time.

I would contrast this with jerk as being someone who deliberately disregards the comfort and feelings of others to satisfy themselves: the queue jumper, Steve Jobs, someone who humiliates people on minimum wage, who doesn't re-rack the weights at the gym, who parks in the disabled car park.

I don't. In fact, the opposite: I find overly deferential people difficult to work with. I'd prefer to work with someone that is going to call me an idiot when I do something dumb than someone who will keep their mouth shut and work around me -- Letting me do stupid things without correction is unpleasant. And having people waste time trying to make me feel better or whatever just annoys me. Besides, reading a good insult is just plain fun. Especially if I know the person.

(And no, Linus tends not to flame people he doesn't know.)

I'm pretty sure lack of politeness is one of the defining traits of a jerk, yes. Which I'm quite aware of because as a lot of programmers I am something of a jerk.

So tolerance and diversity are apparently only good things if they're applied to the Right People with the Right Opinions.

Tolerance and Diversity when it tips the scale toward their agenda, Shaming, Boycotts, Twitter smear campaigns, and threats to employers when it doesn't.

If tolerance and diversity are good things, a position that is intolerant or anti-diversity would be a bad thing.

I do not understand how banning people due to some unproved, anonym accusations will result in a more inclusive society. Actually it sounds like a surefire way to achieve the antipode.

Maybe perhaps they should instead opt to lose these "others"?

I'm unsure as to who the "jerks" really are in this situation.

The whole thing feels like "reverse bullying" to me.

It's just normal bullying.

>Being unliked is also a reason that people won't want to associate with you.

Not a good reason.

i would lose the bunch that can't hold their side in a ideological argument about their work and instead resort to ad hominem

Why can't we all just be a professional and move on ?

Because we all adopted codes of conduct that assume we're easily agitated children, and then took them seriously.