He is saying that if nothing can sway you from an opinion, then it is a belief, including being 100% opposed to genocide.
(Please note: I don't side with genocide!!! But I understand his point. Read on.)
I think he's the positions armchair arguing type, not necessarily the evil type.
I can totally see him say "If a group of people's solely reason to exist is to exterminate the rest of the human race, if that's all they think about, if all they do is to accomplish that - induce terror, kill babies, spew propaganda, castrate humans of all races; then it's safe to say that that group of people should not exist and it should be exterminated."
That's an extremely wild scenario, of course! But I think that's what this guy is saying. We may find genocide in general heinous, but he won't say that all genocides are bad because of thought examples like the above one.
Then the other party takes that personally, and extrapolates that Vaxry is in favor of exterminating all trans people - something he didn't say or mean.
I don't know, man. I read Vaxry's response and I think that he has a point. There was an incident, and it was dealt with.
Then someone from redhat (because they e-mailed him with from RedHat address) told him "hey we saw improvements on you moderating your community. Great! But if you break our CoC again, we'll ban you!" To which he replied "Uh, we don't have a CoC, we don't belong to your organization, what's is this about?" And the person replied "This is not a RedHat position. And again, we'll ban you!"
He explained this in a blogpost and posted the full e-mail conversation.
He also said that the misrepresentation got to such point that a another transgender coder made a contribution to Vaxry's project, expecting that it would be rejected, and got surprised that her PR got merged.
I'm all for AI, but there's gotta be a better way for machines to become intelligent. Not just "training and predicting without any thought in the process."
True.
It could also be purportedly condescending. Still an insult.