Drupal Developers Threaten To Quit Drupal Unless Larry Garfield Is Reinstated (drupalconfessions.org) 478
An anonymous reader writes: Slashdot previously covered the story of Larry Garfield, a Drupal developer who was allegedly banned from the community for his BDSM/Gorean lifestyle, after he was outed by a colleague with a grudge. Now, dozens of core Drupal developers, committers, and funders have banded together in an open letter to Dries Buytaert, the CTO of Acquia, Drupal trademark owner, and Benevolent Dictator for Life (BDFL) of the Drupal project. Among other things, they demand that Larry Garfield be reinstated, threatening to abandon the project if their demands are not met. Here's an excerpt from the letter: "If you will not fight for us and restore our faith in the professionalism of the Drupal community, then a number of us will be permanently leaving the Drupal community, ceasing all contributions to the official, Drupal-branded branch of the codebase, and ceasing participation in all Drupal communities. This is not our first choice, but we cannot and will not participate in a community that encourages abusers to totally destroy people's careers for personal or ideological reasons."
This is all very silly. (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be a boring world if people could not enjoy some socially-unaccepted hobbies in private without fearing for their employment.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Work found out the secret to my productivity was dressing up as a Jewish schoolgirl and getting fucked in the ass by fat hairy dudes in Nazi Hitler uniforms. HR fired me anyway even though the motivational boost I get from my fetish made me the most productive member of my team. My boss begged HR not to fire me, and as punishment my boss was forced into early retirement. Now I'm unemployed and not even Herr Trump wants to hire a Nazi fetishist.
Re:This is all very silly. (Score:4, Funny)
Max Mosley might be hiring?
Re: This is all very silly. (Score:3, Insightful)
If Trump showed any proclivity towards fetishes, it would have been shouted from the rooftops before the election. And yet, crickets. The garbage that got shopped around about urine women in a hotel room was universally dismissed. Packaging it with all the other stuff in that dossier just discredits the whole collection.
Trump is a crude braggart. A sexual blowhard. If you need an example of an actual abusive predator, look to Hillary's spouse.
Re: This is all very silly. (Score:3)
Re: This is all very silly. (Score:4, Insightful)
You're kidding, right? Trump was on mic openly bragging about things that he actually did that are worse than anything Bill Clinton was formally accused of.
Huh? Bill Clinton was accused of rape. How is grabbing em by the pussy worse than rape? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:This is all very silly. (Score:5, Funny)
It would be a boring world if people could not enjoy some socially-unaccepted hobbies in private without fearing for their employment.
I suppose it depends on which society you live in. I live in the SF Bay Area, and nobody cares if you are BDSM, your gender, or whatever. We are totally tolerant ... as long as you don't smoke. We don't even want those disgusting fume emitting tobacco burners within 100 meters of our building. Gross. They should stay in Oakland.
Re:This is all very silly. (Score:4, Interesting)
It's the Gorean part I think that's the problem. What it means to be a "Gorean" is vague enough that the range of possibilities straddle the line between what is acceptable even in a place like the Bay Area.
It seems likely that most self-described Goreans are irony-mongers and play-actors -- as harmless as baseball card traders. There are a few crackpot cultists who genuinely believe a society organized around slavery would be a good thing, but opinions per se can't really hurt anyone. And if there's a large enough number of Goreans, they're bound to have their share of genuinely twisted people, but their numbers are so low in the first place they hardly present any kind of risk to the general public; they're mainly going to be a problem for other Goreans who want to play act.
So it seems to me you could handle it like anything else. It's OK for people on the team to be militant Christians or atheists, but if that difference of opinion is hindering work then they should keep those opinions out of the work (including volunteer work) or leave the team. It's not a judgment of who's right or wrong, it's a judgment of who's helping or hurting the work. People in leadership positions you might hold to more arbitrary standards because their public persona reflects on the project.
Re:This is all very silly. (Score:5, Informative)
There are a few crackpot cultists who genuinely believe a society organized around slavery would be a good thing, but opinions per se can't really hurt anyone.
Oh we have PLENTY of people who like the idea of a society organized around slavery. We call them "H1B Employers". . . . (evil grin)
Re: (Score:3)
It's the Gorean part I think that's the problem. What it means to be a "Gorean" is vague enough that the range of possibilities straddle the line between what is acceptable even in a place like the Bay Area.
I have made many mistakes in my Internet life. Someone will use some odd term and I'll say "Huh, I wonder what that is?" And then I find out, and I also find out I was a hell of a lot better off not knowing.
Now I face the same question. "I know what BDSM is, but what does Gorean mean?" The temptation to Google is there, but I also suspect I don't REALLY want to actually know.
Which smoke? (Score:3)
We don't even want those disgusting fume emitting tobacco burners within 100 meters of our building.
But vaping? Totally fine man.
HMM.
Re:This is all very silly. (Score:5, Insightful)
And how do you equate BDSM with misogyny? Are you there in the bedroom with him? How do you know he's the top? How do you know he's doing it with women?
Re:This is all very silly. (Score:5, Insightful)
but a core part of the Gorean lifestyle is believing that females are genetically inferior
The obvious rebuttal is that no, the "Gorean lifestyle" has no such beliefs. It is a game - make believe.
Harmful behavior is what we should be focusing on and which is remarkably absent from this discussion. There is no indication that Garfield has behaved in a way that is misogynist or encourages other discriminatory behavior. There is similarly no indication that Garfield has harmed anyone through his behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
And how do you equate BDSM with misogyny?
"BDSM" covers a lot of ground but a core part of the Gorean lifestyle is believing that females are genetically inferior.
But will we apply the situation if the sexes were reversed? If a female found her sexual release as a dominatrix, and happened to be really good at it because she thought men were inferior, does it then follow that she should be terminated?
Could you imagine the outrage? She'd be elevated to martyrdom status.
Then we have the issue of preference. Would there be outrage if this guy were into extreme BSDM but with other men instead of women? Or the same regarding a woman with other women? Or if in either case if the dominant one was misogynist, since a woman can be misogynistic too.
What of the submissive one? Would it be correct to fire them too? Or just the dominant one?
That's the problem. Either way, it's not even remotely a simple issue once we decide to use a person's consensual sexual activity as a employment criteria.
Which is why I long ago decided that as long as it is a consensual act between two adults, and there isn't harm, I'm not going to get too excited about it.
In any event, if these were my employees, I would keep the creep with the ultra kink, and fire the snitch.
Re:Thanks for the troll mod (Score:5, Insightful)
That's how I know I hit the mark.
Now I'm never going to stop making these points.
Sorry for the bad quote level screwup on the last reply.
While my own tastes are remarkably pedestrian - most would say normal, coward has a good point.
This is workplace interference in a person's sexual behavior.
If he was performing his weird shit - and make no mistake, this is plain weird - on a woman who did not give consent, it would be a no brainer, that's sexual assault.
But now we have to ask ourselves, should his lady friend be sought out and fired from wherever it is that she works? Two willing and consensual participants in any other "crime" are treated as co-criminals.
And I'll re-iterate, if the roles were reversed, should the woman be fired, and the submissive man be viewed as her victim?
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is misogyny and Social Darwinism.
Then where is this misogyny and social Darwinism? Getting fired because you get off in private on male-dominant role playing games has nothing to do with that.
This is justified social ostracism from a society that rejects his values.
What are his values? Funny how you failed to discuss those.
Re: (Score:3)
No need for home visits. By then everyone's subdermal chip will record everything for later review.
What fun will that be? Remember, people who want to regulate sexual behavior tend to want to see what they want to regulate.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah I know 50S is not really BDSM, just someones fantasy of what BDSM really is...
But that's the important thing - millions of women buy into that FANTASY and enjoy it. So to take someone off a project because they are doing something millions of women (including lots of feminists I'm sure) fantasize about, seems absurd.
Re:This is all very silly. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a sexual fetish. He likes to see women submit. That's the whole point: he was engaging in a form of sexual fetishism with like-minded partners.
Did you know there are black girls who like white guys to slap them around, call them racial slurs, and force them into humiliating sexual acts? They get a thrill out of the racial degradation and submission on racial inferiority. Most of the people involved are normal people outside of context, largely because actual hard-core racists can't control themselves and it quickly becomes an unsafe environment--meaning the women aren't enjoying it because you crossed the line twice and they're too busy feeling like they're in actual danger to enjoy their kink.
It weirds me out, too, but so does sex in general (and social behavior at large). I like being in control, because social situations are terrifying and confusing; but I don't like mistreating and degrading others, because I don't want to be an asshole, which is also part of having some social issues (various social anxieties--including some Cluster-A personality disorders--amount to not wanting to be a bother to anyone). I can see why people enjoy the power dynamic, because it makes sense to me to either want to be in control or to want to be led; I can't see why people enjoy mistreating others, or being mistreated.
Here's the thing: I can still grasp that these people are putting themselves there because they like it. They want to be there. People in abusive relationships are trapped there because of various psychological insecurities. People who actively seek these relationships out haven't simply accepted it, but have structured their lives to pursue some deviant form of desire. Those people have formed groups on both sides, and so they engage with each other because they get what they want and they retain the security of a mutual agreement on the form of their relationship (instead of the instability of finding a random abusive relationship and trying to survive it).
Human reasoning allows for a broad range of defense mechanisms. There are immature and pathological defense mechanisms that go right down to labeling and attacking groups, like pathological splitting (e.g. black people are the cause of all crime, men are all misogynists, anyone on welfare is a lazy societal parasite--no exceptions). There are also mature defense mechanisms like humor, tolerance, mercy, and suppression. At the height of maturity, a human can suppress strong emotional responses and examine the situation on its merits, and thus can select an appropriate response--that means, in this case, identifying the scope (sexual behaviors between informed, consenting parties) and what is outside that scope (abusive behaviors inflicted beyond the consent of involved parties or onto non-consenting parties (=victims)), which would suggest tolerance as an appropriate response.
So grow the fuck up.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Not so silly. (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, she agrees she is autistic but was never his slave. He was just someone that helped her. According the her anyway. I am beginning to suspect people who make lurid up that are contrary to all evidence.
Re: Not so silly. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. Ask the autist slave how they feel. Lol.
It is ridiculous, right? She clearly has no ability to determine what is best for her, and needs someone to take care of her and tell her what is acceptable.
oh, wait
Re: Not so silly. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. Ask the autist slave how they feel. Lol.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
C.S. Lewis
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Not so silly. (Score:4, Insightful)
As long as you're doing that in the privacy of your own property, and not bothering anyone else, why should we care?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not so silly. (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone who's a BDSM "slave" isn't usually a real slave, they're just pretending because they and their partner enjoy it. It's like how someone who dresses up in a nurse uniform to have sex isn't usually a real nurse, they're just pretending because they and their partner enjoy it.
A BDSM "slave" has agreed in advance what they'll do and what their limits are, and has a safeword that would stop everything as soon as they say it. People into BDSM are generally much MORE concerned about consent than the average person - because we push the envelope so much, we have to know that the emergency stop will work. And there's usually a lot of love and caring in the relationship, just like in a "vanilla" (non-BDSM) relationship, although the feelings might be expressed differently.
And are you saying that "vulnerable highly-autistic women" are not allowed to have any kinks? I have no knowledge of the people involved, but it seems plausible to me that she got a man to love and care for her, look after her, help structure her life, and have a fulfilling sexual relationship with, and he got a woman to love and care for him as best she could (those things can be difficult for an autistic person), and an obedient partner in life and in bed - that seems like a relationship which is positive for both the people involved.
As for the "passed her on to a friend of his", well, relationships sometimes end. Sad but true, both for BDSM and "vanilla" (non-BDSM) relationships. If he still cared for her, then helping her find someone else seems like a generous thing to do that would be good for her. Especially if, due to her issues, she would have had problems being on her own and/or finding someone else. And if they're looking for someone for her, then their circle of friends would be the first place to look, because they know and trust those people.
So, from what's publicly known, I don't see anything he's done that's wrong. Unconventional, sure. Against certain people's morals, certainly. But then again, if the standard is "against certain people's morals", then we should be kicking out all women from the project for not wearing a burqa.
I call bullshit (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Where do I sign up??
Right here [slashdot.org]. If you're anonymous, you're generally ignored.
Re: (Score:2)
I would have an issue with someone who believed it was his natural right to be superior to me.
You don't want a job then. Or indeed, any social interaction.
Anyway, it's fun proving them repeatedly and consistently wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
What keys did you press when you last withdrew money from an ATM, please?
Four numbers and the Enter key; along with a few of the keys along side the MFD to indicate transaction type, etc.
Which name and address did you type in when you last ordered something to be delivered to your home?
Mine.
What about if he donated to the wrong ideology? (Score:5, Insightful)
Would it be okay to launch an Internet-wide Two Minutes' Hate against them to put pressure on their employer? (Assume, perhaps, that they're in some leadership position â" like, say, CTO.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What about if he donated to the wrong ideology? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes.
Practicing BDSM is a personal choice made by consenting adults. If other people do it, it is none of your business.
Donating to prop 8 was an attempt to deny legal rights to other people. The makes it the business of other people.
The two are not comparable.
If you leave me alone, I will leave you alone.
If you target me, I will target you.
Re:What about if he donated to the wrong ideology? (Score:4, Insightful)
The two are not comparable *in that specific way*.
However, leading your life in your own manner within legal guidelines should be protected, regardless of how you feel personally about those actions.
Vote a certain way, get fired? Are you for real? You're wrong, and you know it.
Re: (Score:2)
Practicing BDSM is a personal choice made by consenting adults.
Is it always that simple? What if one of those 'consenting' adults is a disturbed or mentally ill person, maybe one that had suffered many cruelties in their childhood or some other trauma that affected their self importance?
Re:What about if he donated to the wrong ideology? (Score:5, Insightful)
Donating to prop 8 was an attempt to deny legal rights to other people.
And donating to political causes that champion abortion rights is supporting murder of the unborn. So anybody who does that should be fired and drummed out of their career.
Oh, what's that? You don't think your politics should determine your employment status?
Fuck off with your prop 8 shit. It was a politically contentious issue, there was a reasonable case for the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, and even many mainstream Democrats at the time had not come out in support of gay marriage (quite the opposite in some cases), and only changed their position when it became political expedient to do so.
Re:What about if he donated to the wrong ideology? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, please do. I think idiots that follow your philosophy should go out of business, and the fastest way to do that is to get rid of all the workers that do actually produce something and retain the sponges in management.
Re:What about if he donated to the wrong ideology? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure.
But don't go asking for anybody's help if somebody steals your private property.
And don't be a whiny bitch and try to take it back either; it's their private property now.
p.s. do you understand taxes pay for the concept of "legal right" to exist at all? Without taxes, there would be nobody to defend your legal right.
Re: (Score:2)
Without taxes, there would be nobody to defend your legal right.
Not entirely true. There is the 2nd amendment which gives you the means to defend your legal rights from individual agitators to government tyranny.
Note* I am not making the argument that all taxes are theft or w/e just that one of the legal rights you have is self defense.
I would also say it is a stretch to say that taxes pay for the concept of legal rights. Rights do not come from the government and their application are the extremes of government policy and individual action. Sure, certain rights have a
Re: (Score:3)
Except that we have a Supreme Court ruling that denying the right to same-sex marriage is a violation of both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. You can frame it as a "lifestyle choice" if you like, but that's irrelevant given the ruling.
The problem here is the prick who fired him (Score:2)
I don't even know what proposition 8 is (maybe I heard but forgot) but whatever politics someone has it shouldn't matter in the workplace unless you are directly working for a political group on political matters. So you do plumbing for the Republicans? Who cares if you used to support Castro.
Re:The problem here is the prick who fired him (Score:5, Insightful)
If you had that position should that prevent you from being employed?
Politics is like that. My local representative (who I did not vote for, but for other reasons) is a member of a mainstream political party that opposed decriminalising homosexuality twenty years ago (almost to the day in that state, a bit longer ago in my state I think). Some prominent people in that party still want to turn back the clock (eg. Senator Eric Abetz). Locking people up for being gay is a bit worse that proposition 8 isn't it? Some people express truly revolting and reactionary opinions and still call themselves conservative, but it's not a crime. If someone wants to support that bunch they shouldn't be sacked for it IMHO no matter what politics the boss has.
Good men oppose actions not thought.
You are arguing something completely unrelated. This is about someone choosing who works for them. If they are making that choice based on what the person does outside the workplace it's unfair and intrusive IMHO.
Re: (Score:3)
If you had that position should that prevent you from being employed?
Define: should. I'm being serious. In a general sense, no, the government should not step in to enforce that. If other nazis, or people who don't care want to employ him, then fine. Should it prevent him being employed at my company? Um hell yes, there's no way I'm going to employ someone who wants me dead.
It falls under exactly the same freedom of expression things as everything else. The government won't throw you in gaol, but no one is
Re: (Score:3)
"Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane."
"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly d
Re:The problem here is the prick who fired him (Score:5, Informative)
> Now here's the thing, the people working at the organisation he was heading thought that was unacceptable behaviour. It's entirely their right, and in fact their duty[*] in some ways to say they won't work at an organisation headed by that guy. The organisation now has a choice: keep the head or keep many of its workers.
FWIW this is factually incorrect. Many people at Mozilla Corp (which Brendan was CEO of) didn't like his position on prop 8, but AFAIK none of them publicly called for his ouster. A handful of staff of the Mozilla Foundation (which Brendan was not part of) did and were in the news; they're probably who you're thinking of.
Re: (Score:3)
Eich stepped down. He stepped down because of the public outcry and because he's a pretty cool guy. Mozilla, Inc. didn't force him out as a matter of its board making a PR move; Eich left because people with no power to remove him were upset about him being where he was.
The entire argument is that a bunch of people whined to the point of having real consequences against someone who is all and all a decent person because his opinions on what should and shouldn't be legislation differed from theirs.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Easy. There's a rather remarkable difference between "I do not believe in same-sex marriage" and "I do not believe in same-sex marriage so much that I am going to donate money to have that right taken away".
It was the same thing with Chick-Fil-A. It wasn't Dan Cathy's stance but rather the fact he was giving money to an SPLC-designated hate group which, among other things, advocates kidnapping the children of LGBT families to "rescue" them.
Re:What about if he donated to the wrong ideology? (Score:5, Interesting)
SPLC-designated hate group? This is the same SPLC that calls Ayaan Hirsi Ali an hateful extremist, mocking her experience with female genital mutilation, for speaking out about such matters in the context of the Islamic world, right?
I'm afraid the once-proud SPLC has squandered all moral authority.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the same SPLC that calls Ayaan Hirsi Ali an hateful extremist
Citation needed.
Re:What about if he donated to the wrong ideology? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
So do I. You can't always get what you want.
But if you try sometimes well you might find you get what you need...
Re:What about if he donated to the wrong ideology? (Score:4, Insightful)
Shut the fuck up
Liberalism, everyone.
What people do in private life belongs to them (Score:5, Insightful)
The key words here are mutual consent and boundaries. He was not asking or coercing any of his coworkers to join him. So, I'm with the letter writers.
Re: (Score:2)
If your drug habit cuts into your performance, yes, I do care about it. If you somehow manage to be fully functional while high as a kite, I don't give a fuck what you inject, snort, inhale or pump into your ass.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I do not think you read through your own references without a predetermined conclusion in mind. Your own references (even those quoted) do not support your contentions.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, let's fire anyone who LARPs as a bad guy or even just as a race with a questionable culture as seen through the lens of a conservative 20th century American politician!
Re: (Score:2)
Also, you might want to include a NSFW warning when linking to stuff like that.
Yeah, Wikipedia's banned at my company. The local council also prosecute anybody viewing it in schools and it's a felony to include it in SMS messages.
Some messes cannot be fixed (Score:2, Insightful)
Once you sack a person, you cannot re-instate them. They hold grudges for being sacked, they act like they're bigger than their boss and many other personality traits make it impossible.
So he cannot re-instate this developer, right or wrong. All Dries can do is sack others who outed the developer for their political attacks on the private lives of their fellow Drupal developers.
That would be the maximum, he'll probably just say some calming words and move on with it.
Re:Some messes cannot be fixed (Score:5, Informative)
For that matter, an entire community holds grudges.
I am friends with most of the primary personae in this sad tale. It's unlikely I would want anything to do with about half of them ever again.
Re: (Score:2)
Been there, done that. You can't win when your peer group has a civil war.
Re:Some messes cannot be fixed (Score:4, Informative)
He should put it up to the community to decide -- and if they decide against him, resign -- or say "I did the wrong thing, lesson learned, let's fix it". The one thing he should not do is dig in his heels and refuse to negotiate.
As project lead I had to make a call on a certain repeat offender when his abuse of team resources (our time and our servers, and sometimes our actual team members) became intolerable. I released the logs that led me to do it, and said "if you think I made the wrong call, I will resign and you can have him back." That was a pretty cut-and-dried case though. I had two team members who were going to quit if I didn't fire the one.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I do think I can mention the straw that broke the camel's back though. This particular guy invited a Serbian Titoist (basically someone who wanted the old communist Yugoslavia back) into our developer chat, to argue politics. Until then, he had managed to hijack the topic for hours at a time all by himself, but that was where I decided the line had been crossed -- when he brought in outside help.
He was a dick, and he was a drunk, and he was a racist. None of those were sufficient cause to fire him. Actively
Re: (Score:2)
It is not at all clear from the thread context whether you're talking about Buytaert or Farfield?
Re: (Score:2)
He was abusing team resources, though. It wasn't done in his spare time like this case.
Drupal is dead (Score:2, Flamebait)
DEAD
The asshole who thought he was in charge killed it.
Branch the code (Score:2)
I can see both sides: The commercial product doesn't want the bad press attached to product. The OSS developers say that they're giving free support son what someone does in their bedroom shouldn't matter. Personally I side with the developers. But I respect the commercial services discussion.
Having said that: if the developers are that passionate they should branch the code. Start their own project. Maybe make it their own commercial product.
Drupal drupal drupal (Score:2)
Gah, you've said Drupal so many times it's like its not even a word any more!
Sayonara Drupal (Score:2)
My Mind Changed (Score:3)
After reading Larry's blog post [garfieldtech.com] (and I recommend reading the whole thing) - I've come away realizing Drupal is in the wrong here, and the community is absolutely right to stand up for him. This isn't a man publicly arguing women are less than men. It's a man who is into BDSM and who enjoys a master slave relationship within the context of his romantic/sex life in a way that is wonderfully aware of active consent. That's fine. Some men and women enjoy being dominated, others enjoy dominating. Some like that to mix with how they live life - and that's also fine.
What isn't fine is ignoring the Gorean side of this or failing to see the problems with that culture - just as we need to see the problems with any culture (for example Judeo/Christrian/Muslim culture and how they view apostates, women, and non-believers). I believe we can be critical without blaming everyone in those cultures or destroying those cultures. It's fine to disagree and debate.
Drupal should reinstate this guy (since that seems to be what he wants. Though personally I'd argue he should join a programming community that better respects diversity and values people more.
Lastly I'll add this. It is worth considering that viewing women as less then men can be harmful, even deadly. It leads to treating people as mere objects, restricting their human rights, etc. Look at women in Saudi Arabia for instance. But I'm far more worried about that threat coming from conservative fundamentalist religions than from a sex subculture inspired by novels.
Re: Good (Score:2, Funny)
O yes all good devs just love to take over projects from crappy devs.
Please txt me the number to your dealer i want what you are smoking
Re:I think they don't understand (Score:5, Interesting)
First, someone's personal life is their business. We are supposed to be building code, not snooping.
Second, he was doxxed. Fruit of the poison tree.
Third, maybe most importantly, who cares what you have to say about Gorean philosophy. They are BDSM addicts who play too much D&D.
Fourth, someone was genuinely hurt by seeing this doxxed screenshot. Let's not forget the victim.
https://twitter.com/DrupalScar... [twitter.com] ... with that in mind, we can't do something to keep the two separated? It's a HUGE community. Take him off session selection if you want. Chase him out - we can do better than that. We're supposed to be innovators. Find a better way.
Re:I think they don't understand (Score:4, Insightful)
So ... Stephen King should be arrested? I mean, read his books, that's sick shit this guy is into!
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Goreanism is misogyny
Is it? You have any evidence that Goreans hate women? What about the women? Do they hate themselves?
Or are you just throwing around labels and reacting from ignorance?
Re:I think they don't understand (Score:5, Insightful)
False. Larry does not follow any such creed. He plays at it. Play, fantasy.
He does say that it is his contention that some women enjoy this some of the time. He would appear to be correct as he has a number of active feminist ex-lovers supporting him. Reports of his general behaviour with and to women have been described by women and men (how would they know!) as exemplary.
There are also Gorean groups where gender is reversed. So what?
There is a difference between fantasy and real life. Accept that.
If he treated people as you claim you would have a point but he does not do so and you do not have a point.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't understand. Social Justice is all about power: the power to tell others how to live their lives, how to act, how to speak. It's certainly not about making the world a better place. And conformance won't mean you will be left alone or even tolerated, it just means they will find something else to control you with.
So this guy is into an alternative lifestyle. Good for him, I say. Now his fellow developers support him. That makes them good people too, in my book.
Re: (Score:2)
virtue signaling (Score:5, Insightful)
That position is exactly as valid as saying that the opposition to "Social Justice" is merely a bunch of amoral recalcitrants.
But really you're just using "Social Justice" to mean "people I don't like". Because to the degree that that has anything to do with this subject, basically the strongest argument that can be brought to bear would be that the "slave" women have internalized the Patriarchy to the point of self-degradation. But if you're wont to hold that opinion, there are quite a few things higher on the list than private sex games.
What you're doing is virtue signaling. It's not very intelligent and rather boring.
Re: (Score:2)
Give a platform to? Did he use the open source project to promote his lifestyle?
Re:I think they don't understand (Score:5, Insightful)
What if Larry Garfield was the bottom instead of the dom? Would that be acceptable to you? Or what about if his submissive girlfriend had a job at Drupal and didn't want to stop being submissive? Would you want her fired as well? Do you see what I'm getting at? If they're both consenting adults, why do we need to mess with their sexual identities?
And I do think that the anonymous scared drupalista on Twitter is being unfair to the guy. How would you react if an anonymous heterosexual man said he was afraid of sharing the stage at a drupal conference with a gay man? You'd call that person out. After all, most gay men don't go out raping heterosexual men (either on stage or even in private). And yes, the heterosexual man may be completely disgusted by the gay dude, but he has to get over his disgust of sharing the stage with him and get over his desire to punish/change the gay guy.
Last I remember, Drupal's mission wasn't to change people's perfectly legal sexual identities or fetishes.
Re: (Score:3)
I never thought I'd say this, but can we bring the GNAA guys back? They were less annoying than idiots with Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The key words here are mutual consent and boundaries. He was not asking or coercing any of his coworkers to join him. So, I'm with the letter writers.
--
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Re: In Other News (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: In Other News (Score:5, Informative)
I think you missed the keyword "excessive" in GP's post.
"Excessive" being the amount where it starts to affect people other than just yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
Excessive is subjective. That's your definition, there are others.
Re: (Score:2)
And its why I love gay bars!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's perfectly possible to say "I disagree with what Larry does in his personal life, but since it doesn't affect the project*, he should be allowed to continue doing what he was doing".
In fact the article says just that: "Our concerns do not make us pro-Larry — we do not endorse his beliefs or his personal life"
(* More precisely, "any effect on the project has happened because Larry's enemies have attacked Larry, including doxxing him, conducting a whisper campaign, and breaking the ToS of a private
Re: (Score:2)
No, they are not endorsing his beliefs.
Your inability to dissociate contexts and cope with nuance and ambiguity does not make them bad people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The issue is that his belief system tells him not to treat everyone as equals
But is it actually his belief system? Or just a kinky fantasy he indulges in from time to time? And has it resulted in him doing anything untoward in his professional life?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the point is whether your private, completely legal doings between consenting adults are to be used for firing you.
No, that is already the standard. It's how corporations work, it's how foundations work, it's how businesses work. It's how in fact all relationships work, paid or unpaid. If someone doesn't want you associated with them, they get rid of you. That's what voluntary association is all about. Are you opposed to voluntary association?
Re:Let them all go (Score:4, Interesting)
If his sexual preference was for young children, he's breaking the law. Entirely different matter. Stop being a dick and conflating "sexual kinks with consenting adults" into "sexual assault of a minor".
If he was a mysognist who refused to hire women - also MORE ILLEGAL than being into BDSM. If you have a problem with this, get the law changed.
As such, where the law - and these developers - have drawn a straight line along "what he did was perfectly legal and his own business", you and the people who are the target of this letter haven't. Your line is all squiggly and routes round personal prejudices tries to blur the line between legal and illegal, and draws huge boundaries around what YOU are into sexually as what is acceptable.
The facts of life are that people can pick the workers they like. WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE LAW. Don't like it? Get the law changed. And you can't just pick up Drupal developers off the street, so they can hold their employer hostage. Or, rather, insist that their employer upholds the law around employment. Never heard of unions? (P.S. I disagree insanely with the concept of unions, personally, but that's another matter entirely).
There is a "commercial reputation" element, yes, but you can't just let people set out on DELIBERATELY DESTROYING the commercial reputation of the company in order to GET BACK at someone whose legal and consenting sexual life you disagree with. No company wants dickheads like that on the staff.
If they were to let the staff go, they'd still not solve the problem. The problem is one of culture where it's acceptable to target and destroy the reputation of staff members. If that's acceptable, next thing you know, every piece of dirt on every "new" member of staff will come out too. Is that acceptable?
I honestly don't get why anyone's sex life matters whatsoever. Politicians, policemen, or cleaners. Who gives a shit. Their CRIMINAL life, yes. That matters. But their personal sexual life? No.
And dickheads like you are just reinforcing hatred because of personal sexual preferences. You're no different to a homophobe, a puritan or a prude.
Re: (Score:3)
The key word the is consenting.
You have a problem with someone who has a history of treating people the way they want to be treated. I think that it shows he's a considerate person. Unless you have evidence that he treats people in a way other than they wish to be treated, I'm not sure what negative affect you forsee in the workplace.
Just because you personally disagree with what those women wanted, doesn't mean you should be allowed to dictate it to them. Or do you think you're better than them in some way
Re: (Score:3)
That will overflow into his work life one way or another.
Not if you are a mature person that has a sense of boundaries and how to behave in different social settings.
Leave your f*king social lives at home. You come to work to do work. You might be sitting next to a person of a different religion, a fan of the wrong football club or supporter of the opposing political party. Deal with it. On your own time.
As long as Garfield treats his (female) coworkers professionally, let him be.
A week analogy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A week analogy (Score:4, Insightful)
Proposition 8 prevents some people (gays) from receiving certain tax advantages (combined tax bracket cuts your taxes in half on a single income household). To offset this, general taxes need to go up (ending with gays paying slightly less and not-gays paying slightly more), or government services need to go down (ending with everyone losing the benefit provided by those services).
Nobody seems to want to discuss if we should give you a tax break just for being part of a traditional male-female, single-income nuclear family--a tax break intended to make everyone else pitch in to pay for your spouse, with additional tax breaks coming when you have (presumed) children. Why am I paying slightly-higher taxes as charity to people who entered a tax-advantaged legal contract?
It seems reasonable to me that someone could have issues with these in any combination. Some people may believe we have a tax-advantaged system to support families for the purpose of child rearing, and believe the environmental development of a child cared for by gay parents is somehow worse than a child cared for by a heterosexual couple (this may be for objective reasons such as base-psychology-driven confusion, or for subjective reasons such as essentially encouraging the child to explore bisexuality/homosexuality through parental example under the assumption that this is "bad").
From that standpoint, they can legitimately believe Proposition 8 is harmful to society, while also not attacking people for being weird.
Re: (Score:3)
Some people apparently have a belief that they should be allowed to engage in consensual sexual relationships with 14-year-olds--that was the old law, anyway. If they didn't, then we wouldn't need a new law restricting their freedom to act--which is basically what a human right is: you're allowed to take actions freely. We don't have a list of the 5 things you're allowed to do, and then name off the rest as legal privileges your masters granted you out of benevolence; some crazy people 200 years ago tri
Re: Selective outrage (Score:4, Insightful)