"While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger." (John Rawls from the same link in the other thread)

So some people sincerely believe Yarvin's very presence is a threat while others find his online philosophical rants to be little more than meanderings.

With that said here's my answer to your thought experiment:

Yarvin would be uninvited if he had been proven (not alleged) to have:

* harmed or advocated harm to anyone * rallied for pro-discriminatory policies * lobbied for pro-discriminatory policies * addressed someone with discriminatory slurs

If he were to deny the evidence then it would be a done deal and he would be banned.

However, everyone gets a chance to repent in my book. So if he had been proven to do these things and he came clean (or eventually came clean) then he would get a chance to publicly apologize online for wide distribution - and again live at the conference at the start of his talk.

---

The real answer to your question is that I would not associate with anyone proven to have done abhorrent things. But I regularly associate with people who have all kinds of abhorrent thoughts.