>> "The Gorean philosophy promoted by Larry is based on the principle that women are evolutionarily predisposed to serve men and that the natural order is for men to dominate and lead."
Even assuming this is Larry's philosophy, it is pretty much the same philosophy shared by many women & men in various conservative religious faiths, including branches of Christianity, Judaism, & Islam—only they add in the idea that it is divinely ordered. Are we now going to expel all who hold such religious beliefs? <<
I agree this philosophy is hard to swallow, but the commenter's point about religious belief is well made. Apart from the issue that this is in fact a widely-held belief I would suggest communities allow their members to hold any belief in private, as long as that belief is not in some way construed as a community value, and as long as that person does not act based on that belief during community interactions.
It's one of the simple facts of life that you pretty have to work with people who believe all kinds of things, and they have to work with you. Furthermore, we seem to have forgotten that it's even feasible to have good relationships and friendships with people we fundamentally disagree with.
In this context, if you're running an open source project, it's expected that people hold an even more varied spectrum of beliefs than would be the case in a traditional company. As long as members can professionally conduct themselves in that environment, firing them is not a productive solution. Presumably the person in question has pledged to uphold Drupal's community values and at first glance it looks like that pledge has not been broken.
I honestly don't care about that even, as long as people can discuss their ideas and leave the group if they're done tolerating each other.
> It's one of the simple facts of life that you pretty have to work with people who believe all kinds of things...
In popular usage, "tolerance" is slowly becoming synonymous with "acceptance" or "celebration". But in reality, you just described real tolerance right here. It's a good balance because we can absolutely agree to disagree and be part of a healthy community anyway. Keeping "tolerance" as tolerance is the best recipe for actual diversity of identity and thought in my opinion.
EDIT: Clarified my phrasing a bit.
Tolerance and persecution together in harmony.
Personally I'd agree with that, but analogous to being the employee of a company, it becomes a problem if off-topic distractions seep into the daily business, especially if these conflicts have a potential to escalate into the public view, and especially if the convictions in question are unethical.
I don't follow the caveat for unethical behavior. Do you expect the organization to align to your ethics? Everyone is unethical to someone. The best we can hope for, I think, is to find a common ethic (no lying, no stealing, no verbal abuse, etc.) and agree to part ways respectfully to the degree we can't.
Indeed, that's why I used the word ethics instead of morals ;)
That said, there's a huge gap between a religion a person is imparted with as a child, and philosophy they chose as an adult and have jumped into with both feet.
Many people come from backgrounds with bigoted ideas like that, but they don't colour their daily lives with it because they're not actively married to the idea - it's just part of the box of stuff they grew up believing passively.
This, on the other hand, is an active choice. An active decision that women are our lessers. That's far more serious. I have a lot more trouble with the idea of politely ignoring somebody who actively evangelizes this kind of idea rather than being simply passively being raised with it.
Where do you draw the line? How far do you go in ignoring the fact that key people in your community are, to be blunt: hateful?
Marvel Comics recently fired an illustrator for hiding Islamist, anti-Semitic and anti-Christian references in his art. His ideas were "normal" in his country - should that have been ignored? Reprimanded as long as he kept his politics out of his art?
It doesn't matter what some guy posts on some message board (unless it's a threat, an incitement of violence, or something along those lines). It doesn't matter if he says he believes in "Gorean philosophy," whatever the hell that is.
What matters are his actions. If he's treating women disrespectfully then, by all means, throw him out. But he's allowed to believe whatever the hell he wants, and the idea that he should face repercussions for his beliefs is wrong, whatever age he was when he came to those beliefs.
Sure, there's going to be some correlation between holding misogynistic beliefs and inappropriate behavior toward women, but we don't punish the beliefs, we just punish the behavior. That's what makes this a free society.
I also wonder how the hell some people think minds are to be changed, if the way they want to deal with them is quarantine. Most of the time, you need have some mutual knowledge and respect between two parties for one to really reach the other.
Tolerance (noun): "the ability or willingness to tolerate the existence of opinions or behaviour that one dislikes or disagrees with". Tolerance only counts for anything if it's an effort, if you have to grit your teeth and bite your tongue to make it work. Tolerance is meaningless if you only tolerate people who you consider worthy of tolerating.
I find it odd that many of the people who are so vehement about no-platforming and safe spaces are also strident advocates for a rehabilitative model of criminal justice. That seems profoundly dissonant - if you're a literal murderer I'll fight for your right to be re-integrated into society, but if you hold views that I find unacceptable I'll fight to ensure that you're completely marginalised. I don't see how more division and more antipathy is going to create a more inclusive society.
They've murdered way more people than the Nazis, after all, and they're still a going concern.
Most of the various groups that call themselves "Nazis" or "KKK" consist of about five yokels who meet in somebody's garage. Communists still control entire countries.
So, how about it: is it okay to fire people for being Communists? If not, why not?
However, when I do business with someone I don't know on a personal level, there is every possibility that person is secretly a Rape Nazi. My question is, is catching all of the Rape Nazis worth the cost of sacrificing all borders between the personal and the professional, between public and private life?
So far as I know, doing so is the only way one could guarantee that one never conducted any business with someone whose personal beliefs differ from one's own to an unsatisfactory degree.
Well put, I wonder would the signers be so vocal in support if he were a fundamentalist Christian that opposed abortion and gay marriage?
1. Genocide and consenting adults choosing how they want to interact with one another.
2. Being friends with someone and being able to interact with them professionally.
Lets really try not to judge people for their kinks, because they tend to be strange, inexplicable, and personal.
If I went around on some other private forum and said "tps5 is sub-human and should be subservient to me" you'd have reason to say "I will not work with Pxtl and I'm disappointed that this project is working with him, his behavior is seriously not okay".
If I went around on some other private forum and said "all people who share attribute X with tps5 are sub-human and should be subservient to me" is that more or less okay?
Yeah, it's okay.
I would say that, because we are coworkers, you are obligated to treat me respectfully, whatever your personal beliefs. If you treat me poorly, and I complain, the issue is the fact that you treated me poorly, not your whacko belief system.
If this guy behaved improperly towards women, then I have no problem with him being "removed from the community." But posting X whacko opinion on Y message board should not hurt you professionally. That applies equally to racism and holocaust-denial and whatever other fringe beliefs you can come up with.
To make an extreme hypothetical: You have a white supremacist coworker and a black coworker. The white supremacist always treats your black coworker with respect, kindness, and compassion. She also openly admits that, nothing personal, but she believes black folks are inferior and should be expelled/exterminated. Ask the black coworker, is he being treated poorly?
What's the resolution in this situation? If he knows how she feels, but she is nice to him, how do you propose resolving that?
What's that going to be like on the following Monday? If asked, in this hypothetical, is she supposed to lie?
"So, Jean, I saw you at a white power rally...you were holding an effigy of a hanged black person...what's that about?"
Or, contrive any situation in which her views on her black colleague (i.e. that, although she treats him with kindness and respect, she considers him subhuman and would like to exile/exterminate him and everyone who looks like him) were brought into the workplace.
If the white supremacist coworker doesn't bring up her white supremacist views at work, ever, and treats her black colleague with kindness and respect, at work, but outside the office does not conceal her views, and when asked directly does not lie about them ("Yes, Jim, I'd kill every black person if I could"), how do you resolve the tension that's going to arise from that?
Tell the black colleague, "Jim, don't ask Jean about her white supremacy."? How's Jim supposed to feel about working with her, knowing what he knows about Jean?
I wonder if they would be OK with, "well, Jean marches with a group calling for your extermination, and you know, throughout history, there's been a lot of violence from them to people who look like you, but since she doesn't bring it up at work, deal with it."
I think I'll ask around with my POC friends, in that ham-fisted way white folks always end up asking about these things ("So, I don't want you to speak for all people of color, but ... I'm hashing something out on the internet with some stranger who's probably also a hetero white guy, and ...").
My hunch is, knowing your coworker wishes for the extermination of your people would be considered hostile and unacceptable, especially by those people historically targeted by white supremacist violence, even if she's nice to your face. Like, I imagine you'd have the same tension with a card-carrying nazi and a Jewish colleague who lost family in the holocaust.
To be clear: I think card carrying Nazis are abhorrent and would rather not interact with them. I also thinking banning them from an apolitical volunteer group where they do not volunteer their views is wrong.
Also, in the hypothetical, we were talking about a workplace, not a volunteer group. As for whether card-carrying nazis should be allowed to join apolitical volunteer groups, I think that each group can surely decide for themselves, and this is exactly where a code of conduct would apply, e.g. "nazis welcome" makes it clear up front that nazis aren't going to be uninvited for their views. Then everyone else can make the call whether they want to be involved with the Drupal-with-nazis fork or the Drupal-without-nazis fork.
You know a lot of people who have worked with Nazis? If you do I feel bad for those people but it doesn't alter my views. Claiming your position is the moral high ground doesn't really lend any credence to your argument.
If instead you were discussing your sexual preferences on a private forum, then I would owe you an apology for having invaded your privacy.
Yeah, the fact that the letter doesn't mention that this was a BSDM thing - that these statements are part of a sex-play thing and should be regarded in that context - is kind of frustrating. I don't think casual readers are expected to know what "Gorean Philosophy" is.
I mention this because last time I saw "comments came out from a public figure on a private paywalled forum" it was about holocaust denial and the commentator was a journalist.
This thing being a sex thing hadn't entered my mind at all.
If you didn't bring that into the workplace, yes. You can believe it and not act towards implementing it.
Your comment is greying out. HN's own petite version of silly distolerance - disagree, hence downvote. It isn't civilized at all.
If you really want to share ideas, and they're not well-received here, you can either refine/modify your ideas/delivery, or go somewhere else.
Complaining about downvotes, though? Man, there's a reason that's specifically called out in the guidelines.
That is I think where that theor breaks. Sex jokes making dude can still be more fair then respectful gentleman wit bias.
Searching out which people have chosen a philosophy as an adult is how witch hunts start and are justified. I've heard complaints about McCarthyism and the Red Scare over the years, and I thought the moral was "witch hunts are bad." However, it looks clear to me that other people think the main problem was that McCarthy picked the wrong targets. If he hadn't chased leftist beliefs, then perhaps he never would have been vilified.
Seriously, would you make excuses like this for a pro-ISIS muslim? A white nationalist? A violent anarchist? An antisemitic holocaust denier?
Believing that one person is less human than the other by the attributes of their birth is not a philosophical discussion like capitalism vs communism.
If witches are actually doing damage, then by all means hunt them.
ISIS? Nazis? They want to destroy the world and make it over in their own image, not be left alone in quiet enjoyment of their kinks. Different things entirely.
I only have a vague familiarity with the Gorean subculture. The modern subculture seems largely to be an extension of BDSM oriented role-play. The main negative I've heard is that Goreans sometimes take themselves way too seriously, ala a deep Star Wars or Star Trek nerd. I don't think I've ever heard them described as "abusive to women".
Even just adding "Gorean" within the letter would've helped me understand better. In literary circles, the books (after the first couple at least) do not have a great reputation, and they definitely have been criticized as sexist / misogynist (in addition to being simply bad pornographic writing). So it's easier to see how this sort of controversy can pop up.
(I don't know too much in detail about either, the only Gor related media I've seen is a tangentially related film bad enough to make it onto MST3K -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlaw_of_Gor)
(All made more complicated by the fact that Goreanism itself seems to operate on a bizarre multiple-levels-of-fiction basis, but still.)
Did you honestly think it was the latter? Without even considering the less malicious of the two first?
I mean, after Scott Adams and Dave Sim, it wouldn't be shocking to learn that a geek I respected had views that disgusted me.
Do you think that's fair to Larry?
I don't want to give you a hard time, I just wish people were more careful about this kind of thing.
I'm no republican, but I end up being more annoyed by liberals for such blatant doublethink, for being unable to recognize their own actions.
So while I agree with you - your second statement "annoyed by liberals" should probably be changed to "annoyed by leftists". Liberals and leftists couldn't be more different but are often used interchangeably. Leftists will do what we are talking about. Liberals don't.
So I'll go ahead and agree that there are more than a few liberals out there who seem reasonable to me, and I might even consider myself among them :)
To put it another way, the leftists will acknowledge that anyone can grow out of stupid ideas (and indeed, there are hopeful stories of bigots changing their tune), while the things the right gets down on people for (being gay, whatever) are things built into the person.
So, I think this is an inaccurate characterization of the left. You're free to be annoyed by whatever annoys you, of course, but this one might merit rethinking.
You're arguing with a strawman.
There's an ocean of space between "leftist" and "bigoted" for normal centre and right-wing people who aren't bigots. I'll agree that the social justice community has made a bad habit of throwing around "racist" and "sexist" far too freely, especially in the wake of Trump's election.
But this isn't like that. This is a guy who celebrates sexism. Who has made sexism a cornerstone of his ideology.
It is not hypocritical to be intolerant of intolerance, anymore than it is hypocritical to use violence to stop violence (since that is the entire mechanism of law enforcement).
Yes they are. Opposing views (and the people who hold them) are seen as morally inferior. Furthermore, people who hold leftist beliefs defend other people who hold views such as “women are inferior”, or “homosexuality should be punishable by death”, etc.
And I say this is a liberal, left-leaning, pro-multiculturalism individual.
My point is perhaps not entirely relevant to this Drupal guy though.
>Seriously, would you make excuses like this for a pro-ISIS muslim? A white nationalist? A violent anarchist? An antisemitic holocaust denier?
I can only speak for myself but I would tolerate it vehemently. I have more respect for politeness through gritted teeth than indignation, exclusion and marginalization because the former implies real effort and a conscious fight against your innate prejudice. Of course, no prejudice is best but show me the man who doth not judgeth and i will show you a liar.
That's the business of the criminal justice system. If someone is committing criminal acts, then they need to be caught and prosecuted. If they merely hold objectionable views, then it's not my job to try them in the court of public opinion.
If I'm free to persecute people whose beliefs I disagree with, then what right have I to complain if someone starts persecuting me for my beliefs? Witch-hunting and thought-policing is a very slippery slope.
One could be very easily misled into thinking so with comments like "basket of deplorables". And it's not the only or the worst that leftists said about their opponents. One could argue about if it's exactly "half of the population" or merely 37%, but the idea of un-acceptance and plain old hate is definitely there. And occasionally spills out into violence, as we have seen lately.
> Believing that one person is less human than the other by the attributes of their birth is not a philosophical discussion like capitalism vs communism.
Communists believe bourgeoise are less human, at least if you look how they treated them whereever they got to win. Including kids, of course. In fact, in the USSR having ancestors of a wrong class (not "worker class") was a permanent stain on one's CV for a quite long time. Not sure about other communist/socialist countries but don't think they were more moderate.
> If witches are actually doing damage, then by all means hunt them.
Except beliefs don't do damage. Actions do. And in this case literally nobody was able to name any harmful action that ever happened. Unless "I got my feelings hurt knowing you think wrongthoughts" is counted as harm, which it is not.
Even if you could, that was a comment from a center-right neoliberal about the supporters of a far right authoritarian, and didn't involve leftists in any capacity.
> Communists believe bourgeoise are less human, at least if you look how they treated them whereever they got to win.
The bourgeoisie are a narrow elite, particularly so (compared to, e.g., the developed West and economies which met the criteria for moving on from capitalism to socialism in the Marxist model of Communism) in places where Leninist vanguardism established regimes, not half of the population. And, in any case, Leninist vanguardism isn't representative of leftism, in much the same way Dominionism isn't representative of Christianity. (Or, for that matter, the same way that Leninist vanguardism isn't representative of atheism.)
Ah, I know, no true Scottsman!
> not half of the population.
Well, I don't know if any regime managed to kill literally half of the affected population, but certainly Stalin and Pol Pot could be seen as a viable contenders. Not forgetting the wonders of Cultural Revolution of course. If some movement hold the championship in dehumanising the opponents, it's certainly ones that created Gulag, killing fields, Great Leap Forward, and other similar wonders. All no true Scottsmen of course. And we should not forget one National Socialist Worker Party, which despite the name also definitely has nothing to do with socialism and such.
> And, in any case, Leninist vanguardism isn't representative of leftism
But of course. How did I know?
> the same way that Leninist vanguardism isn't representative of atheism.
Atheist ideas were not central to the bolsheviks' worldview - while totalitarian ideology they followed left no place for Christianity or any other old religion, they were perfectly fine creating new one, with their own saints, holidays, prayers, rituals and churches. They were against God only because The Party leaves no space for God on the top in their ideology. But leftist socialist ideology was the backbone of their worldview. Of course, now, that disastrous results of this ideology is in full view, modern leftists show wonders of creativity to prove that nobody who ever tried to build a society based on leftist principles was actually adherent of these principles. These effort are nothing but laughable, but some people do it again and again.
Thank you for confirming my point: there are people who believe McCarthy was wrong only because he picked the wrong targets. If he had picked other targets, the resulting witch hunts would have been acceptable.
"Actually doing damage" is a fairly good discriminator, imho.
And obviously, no single person holding the digital pitchforks would ever think of themselves doing the same thing as a superstitious peasant a couple hundred years ago.
Is there something productive anyone could do in this regard? I would guess in the most cases, the trenches are almost instantly dug way too deep for a sensible discussion...
: To resort to an example Jon Ronson talked about in various talks. Well worth a Google query.
if we really thought that there were people who had sold
themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers
Assuming, of course, one has an objective way to determine when damage has been done. It's perhaps possible that this isn't always as easy as it sounds.
Marvel Comics recently fired an illustrator for hiding Islamist,
anti-Semitic and anti-Christian references in his art.
This was content hidden in his professional work that he was dismissed over. It's not comparable. If someone were putting inflammatory political content in the Drupal source, it'd be an unambiguous CoC violation and I think they'd have basically no defenders.
That seems like a distinction without a difference. If someone converted to a religion as an adult, would you feel justified in using their religious beliefs to eject them from an open source project?
Even more obviously, childhood beliefs affect us in lots of different ways. If someone becomes a Satanist because they were raised with oppressive Christianity, is that any less "imparted as a child" than sticking with their Christian faith?
This is a bizarre distinction that seems like a way to exempt popular beliefs from being held accountable for their content.
Indonesian here, I'm not sure to what you attribute it to a normal view by Indonesians?
As long as holding that belief doesn't affect in any way his behaviour towards women as a contributor of that project, then his beliefs are none of the project's business.
I'm still not clear why anyone would care how he gets off on his own time, in the privacy of his home. If this is really a thing then other "identifiable" groups might want to prepare for when the pendulum swing back and then they themselves are holding "incorrect values".
edit: removed not
Executive Director's statement:
TL;DR : Please continue iff there was a violation we don't know about
> We want to be clear that the decision to remove Larry's DrupalCon session and track chair role was not because of his private life or personal beliefs. The Drupal Association stands by our values of inclusivity. Our decision was based on confidential information conveyed in private by many sources. Due to the confidential nature of the situation we cannot and will not disclose any information that may harm any members of our community, including Larry
> This decision followed our established process. As the Executive Director, charged with safekeeping the goodwill of the organization, I made this decision after considering input from various sources including the Community Working Group (CWG) and Drupal Project Lead, Dries Buytaert. Upon Larry’s request for an appeal, the full board reviewed the situation, all the evidence, and statements provided by Larry. After reviewing the entirety of the information available (including information not in the public view) the decision was upheld.
> In order to protect everyone involved we cannot comment more, and trust that the community will be understanding
TL;DR : We're continuing, there was a violation you don't know about
Sounds like it's done, then
TL;DR : The Drupal leadership hasn't accused Larry of a code of conduct violation publicly or privately but they're happy to imply that a secret violation exists so they can cover up the fact that they ousted him because his lifestyle is icky and bad for PR.
Gonna stop you right there - there exists no "record" this needs to be on.
Or rather, were there a need for it to be "on a record", such a community would already be failing their supposed 'without the community needing to know or care' ideal.
You can't have it both ways.
I seemed to me that (all allegedly) someone was outed as into BDSM and was somehow treated unfairly. I think that certainly falls into the domain of liberal sexual identity politics.
As such, he was outed, smeared, and asked to leave the Drupal community.
Gor is, for the most part, a personal way of going about one's private relationships. Unlike e.g. red pill doctrine, Goreans still respect consent at its core. Men and women both enter into Gorean relationships with full knowledge of what they entail, and generally speaking, the ability to leave if they find it necessary. Goreans don't "promote" their relationship model as a way that they think everyone should view the world at all times, and put down people who don't think that way.
In short - there's really nothing there for SJW types to be upset about. This is some guy who decided to discriminate against someone for how they go about their relationships and sexuality - precisely the sort of behaviour we're almost always against.
Umm, no. The "Code of Conduct board" said he didn't violate the Code of Conduct, but they escalated the issue to Dries because _something_ came up that they felt needed his intervention.
We don't know exactly what _something_ is. Larry has decided to spin the narrative that it has to do with his Gorean belief and that this is "kink shaming", comparing himself to persecuted gay people. The counter-narrative has been "we're not going to say for confidentiality and liability reasons, but it has nothing to do with anything Larry wrote about."
Also: your quotations around kink shaming imply that you don't believe this is a real thing. The fact that I have multiple friends who've lost their jobs because someone sent their bosses a set of pictures taken off of Fetlife suggests otherwise.
Also, I do believe kink shaming is a real thing. I don’t believe that Larry Garfield was kink shamed. I think Larry is making this about kink to distract from whatever it is really about.
I also know some feminists who find the idea of a white heterosexual male being capable of being kink shamed is definitionally impossible and thus something to find offensive, especially given the enormous privilege Larry Garfield has enjoyed up until now as one of the leading members of the Drupal community. Whether that is true or not is something I don’t actually know enough about to comment on, but it's enough to make me cautious about labelling what happened here as kink shaming.
Ehh, there's a lot who find kink shaming to be something fundamentally different from oppression of LGBTQIA+ people and racial minorities, but many fewer who'll state categorically that it doesn't exist or doesn't cause harm to individuals.
At the same time, it's possible you'll find some who may struggle with the idea of a cis-het white male being kink shamed as something to that should be a source of active and ongoing concern.
Goreans are people that agree with philosophy of professor John Lange, that writes his philosophy in porn books with pen name John Norman
What got Larry kicked out is that similarly to Abrahamic religions, Goreans believe there is an inherent hierarchy between men and women. Or at least it is what Dries (Drupal leader) wrote as explanation for the incident.
So Larry is being punished literally for "wrong-think", having beliefs that are shared with billions of Abrahamic religion followers around the world. But Goreanism is not a religion, so probably doesn't count as religious discrimination.
Also according to a blog lost by Larry, the "proof" used against him was a transcription of a discourse he made in a private wedding.
I've often wondered what the difference between a Cult and a Religion is and my best answer seems to be "4 orders of magnitude".
1000 is a cult, 10,000,000 is a Religion.
If it's a numbers game then everyone religion went through a stage where it was a cult (and indeed if you look at the history of religion lots of them where treat that way, Roman treatment of Christianity is a well documented one).
I don't think this holds.
There are about 1,000 practicing Samaritans left in the world. They practice a faith very similar to Judaism with a comparably long history, and I think hardly anyone would call them a cult.
There are >50,000 self-described Scientologists worldwide. Many different people, including some government bodies, have referred to that organization as a cult.
If we're talking about formal definition, there are detailed lists of what constitutes a cult - size isn't a factor, but segregation from non-members, active indoctrination, and public shaming are. If we're talking common usage, it appears to be respectability or 'kookiness'. Size is a factor, but age, similarity to other traditions, and behavior of members and leaders all count too.
Be careful about the Abrahamic religions thing, though. There's a lot of diversity of thought in that space, ranging from conservative Muslim ideas to ideas that are indistinguishable from any given form of feminism.
And in that space, I would guess that "billions" is an overestimate unless you are speaking in the broadest sense, like "gender roles exist".
That's why CEOs often have such generous compensation packages in the event of involuntary termination.
It's worth noting that many of the objections are about private information being misused. Eich was actually outed from a donor list that was leaked. There's a lot of parallels here if the concern is about "doxxing" activities.
I also have a really hard time with the "but CEOs are different argument". So could being a Democrat in a red state be a liability? Republican in a blue state? Evangelical in a secular area? Atheist in a religious one? Scientologists? Mormons?
In other words, are we saying that only certain kinds of people can be CEOs?
In short, yes.
There are plenty of rational people out there who don't care what someone does in their private life as long as it doesn't have a readily apparent effect on business. It's a shame that all people cannot be like this, because there are others who take a hard line stance against certain private matter that someone else may hold. That is, the fact that a CEO is a Dom in a D/s relationship will resonate so negatively with some people that is can adversely impact business.
Do you remember the Cheerios commercial with the interracial family? People have much bigger skeletons in their closets, and from a business standpoint, that's a liability. It's not right. It's not fair. But it's reality.
My question was about how much we cater to others' intolerance. It seems backward to me that we throw up our hands and accept that we'll, say, never have a fat president again because people just don't respect fat people. Or that a major political party should never nominate an out atheist because they are not electable (a self-fulfilling prophecy).
The silver lining to the Trump candidacy, I think, is that there is more tolerance of unconventional leadership than we have suspected. I swore up and down that Trump was unelectable.
In Eich's case, it wasn't a private matter. He used his money and influence to attempt to enforce his religious views on people who do not subscribe to his religion. When you are involving the government in public enforcement of your personal views, they are not personal any longer.
Saying "this is too important for privacy to apply" affects more issues than just politics advocacy.
In this situation, people apparently are applying the template: "When you X, it's no longer personal anymore".
If not, why not?
But yes, it was a big black mark against them and they, too, received lots of public pressure to change their public policy on the matter. And eventually, they did. Eich refused to even say he wouldn't make such a donation again, much less apologize for the harm he caused.
Most observers believe that the passage of Proposition 8 in California had far more to do with black churches turning out for Barack Obama than it did with contributions from people like Eich.
Edit: updating with citation.
70% of black voters supported Proposition 8, which means that they were against gay marriage.
I don't think that Mozilla was faced with that dichotomy, and the fact that Eich was relatively quickly and easily replaced backs that up.
Should officials be cajoling or forcing people to "convert" (not every religion has conversion as such)? Nope.
Can we divorce all laws from any metaphysical worldview? No. That's not possible. We presume certain things matter, like human lives, freedom of conscience, truth, the health of the planet, etc. Banning murder assumes that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist and/or does not require human sacrifice to get into heaven. I can't come up with the right adjective, but that's imposing an (a)theological position on constituents. It's obviously the right position, too.
Point being, even the idea of "inalienable rights" is an (a)theological position. Some people think rights are given by God or the nature of humanity. Others think laws are given by the people and groups that can enforce them.
The goal isn't to have agnostic laws. That's literally impossible. The goal is to find a just baseline worldview we can all compromise on and have tolerant laws that follow from that.
Ah, I was mistaken on that detail. Apologies. Apparently I've read some poorly researched sources on the subject.
There was a lawsuit about whether it should be made public and a judge ruled that it should be. So "leaked" is inaccurate, though there was and is disagreement about whether the information should be public.
I've come across people who believed that the state should not be involved in marriage. They viewed extending marriage to gay couples as just making a bad situation worse, by getting the state involved in even more relationships.
Yes, he has.
Do you have a religious reason for putting words in my mouth on hacker news? That would explain things about as well as your false assertion about me!
To save anyone interested in what I've written some site-specific searching, start here and follow the links I left in this comment:
Searching for coldpie and my name will return lots of tediously similar comments from him inveighing against me based on ill will and little else. I'll spare you all those search results :-|.
> In other words, are we saying that only certain kinds of people can be CEOs?
Yes. When you're the leader and figure head of an org your views and opinions are seen as representing that org. If you're anti-gay marriage it's seen as if you may treat gay employees negatively. That's bad for hiring and bad for public opinion.
And, yes, as it turns out, historically, we've only ever permitted certain kinds of people to be CEOs. They are also not chosen--or removed--democratically. But this is way off-topic.
If we cannot support and debate "wrong" ideas, then we're not very open in my opinion.
The shift was from "we can treat people equally while keeping marriage heterosexual" to "gay marriage is an inalienable human right". Nobody was advocating for oppressing people in their minds.
All of which begs the question of whether removing a CEO on the losing side of such a debate is tantamount to the imposition of a liberal orthodoxy.
Equality of what?
Marriage is not based in physics or biology. It's a made up concept, actually concepts, plural. There are countries where it means one man + a limited number of women, there are countries where it means one man + as many women as he can afford (and can afford taking care of all the kids), there are countries where it means one man + one woman, and now there are countries where it means 2 adult homo sapiens regardless of sex. There are countries where it can only be between adults, there are countries where legal children can become a legal adults by getting married. etc...
Shouldn't equality include polyamorists? Why isn't it? What about minors who have the legal right to have sex, can they get married? Actually, what about kids who are legally entitled to own stuff, forget about sex? etc.... As far as I am concerned, marriage is just a legal contract that regulates what is owned by the different parties, and as such, none of the setup described here should be excluded. It does get a little bit more complicated when it comes to succession of active assets, for example polyamorists could daisy chain over time and earn retirements for somebody who was part of that chain and died hundred years ago, so there would be some tweaks to be done there, but that shouldn't be a blocker.
Now do you still think "gay marriage" (as opposed to other forms) wasn't just a trendy idea? Are you ok with polyamorist marriages? If not, even though that this is your personal opinion, should you be pushed out of your job because of it?
As for polygamy, that's not quite got the same status, no. And the UN Human Rights ctte has called for it to be outlawed, as it already is in many US states, because it violates the dignity of women in particular. So I think that is vastly more complicated and legally murky area than two-party adult marriage.
Regardless, I fail to see how the extended riff on edge cases and the revelation that marriage isn't a physical or biological construct has anything at all to do with its trendiness.
Are you just making stuff up for fun on HN, or do you have inside information ("They didn't say...; he just couldn't be allowed...") that no one but board members and a few other principals could know for certain?
There was no "leak" or "outing." Campaign contributions are public information. I just pulled up his donation (to Prop 8 and a Lt Gov campaign) here.
I'd link directly but the form uses POST so there's no unique URL for his contributions.
You can always start your own company if you want to be CEO.
In fact, that's what Eich has done - he's a startup founder nowadays.
We've all heard of sore losers but those people were sore winners.
Not: code of thought, beliefs, sexuality, politics, religion....
All the discussions of philosophy and belief systems in this thread are missing the point. It DOES NOT MATTER how you feel about someone else's beliefs. It is not relevant. How they CONDUCT themselves in the community is the only thing that matters.
- Should a person have a right to privacy? Yes
- Should a person be discriminated based on their beliefs? No
- Should a person in leadership be forced to expose their private life? No
There are two questions, however, that is causing everyone to trip over themselves and table-flip:
- Does a person's private life affect their public views?
- If a person in leadership has their private life exposed (fairly or unfairly), does that affect their leadership role?
If you quickly come to a 'Yes' or 'No' in the last two questions, then that is why we don't have constructive dialogue between people with opposing views. Again, we're not talking about blatant discrimination. We're talking about a position of leadership and influence.
For example, if a person has religious views that women should not work, should they be part of the open source community? Of course. Should they be a leader of the community and have prominent speaking roles?
It's no different than the 1st amendment. No laws can be made to punish you for speaking, but you can't just say whatever you want without consequence.
I'd hope that people would take a breath and really think about that. Is it discrimination if you ask that person to relinquish their leadership role? Who is excluded because of that person being in leadership? Who has been silenced out of fear that the power of leadership trumps their voice?
I personally do not know the answers to the two questions, but I'm open to hearing both sides. I also understand how difficult it is to have an answer when you're responsibility is to put people in leadership. With open source, it's even more complicated because you could 'become a leader' simply by being great at contributing!
It's GamerGate type shit all over again, chock full of faux outrage and manufactured drama. I think that sensational journalism has rubbed off on society. People are used to having their emotions exploited and being force fed specific facts sans context to steer their opinion and, at large, public consensus.
Instead of it being CNN steering the public opinion of Trump, it's a group of misdirected, misguided, uneducated, incompatible, unaccepting, pig-headed SJW-type individuals steering the dialogue regarding Drupal.
This is about Larry's belief in Gorean philosophy (which Larry chooses to conflate with his involvement in BDSM, in my view doing a massive disservice to the elsewise extremely benign BDSM community).
The nice thing about the relatively recent past was the presence of tightly controlled mass media which didn't give reactionary, witch-hunt types a voice. The internet has democratized the sharing of knowledge to a degree never before experienced by humanity, but it has also given those who appeal to our baser, exclusionary instincts a powerful platform. Pleas for thoughtful dialogue and careful deliberation don't fill people with the addictive cocktail of hormones that the calls for beheading do.
It's worse than that. Many actually like it. Outrage is click bait because people like clicking on it. If you're reading it, it's for you.
People like a good two minute hate. It creates all sorts of interesting sensations.
- Humanrebar, 2017
remember when it just used to be about the software, guys...
"hey, look at this cool thing I built!" "oh nice, you should try X!" "ah yeah, that might work!" Anyone? No? Alright. :|
Doesn't this just kick the can down the street a few feet? It seems, and I may have interpreted it incorrectly, that the leader or leaders of a community must not personally hold any controversial views at all according to this. Speaking bluntly, I think that is impossible.
Who gets to define whats controversial?
Everyone has an agenda. Seems to be that whoever is best at getting people outraged gets to control them.
"Well who gets to decide who's in charge"
Whoever takes charge.
It's like they're missing the point of OSS. If you don't like who's in charge, remix and make your own. Whoever is the more capable leader will have a successful project. "Beliefs" and all that other crap get left at the door, the race is for the medal - in this case whoever has the best project wins.
Though I suppose trying to achieve that with ideological witchhunts (and what, forming a 'cult of coding'? haha) is a viable strat too. LG was dominated by Kimura Kei for a while
If you're so concerned about "who has power", either do a better job or learn to live with the tools they give you.
I didn't make it very clear, that was exactly my point. Any view will be controversial to _someone_ regardless of the view. Which is why I posit that it is impossible to have a community leader posses non-controversial views. Unless of course the community is an echo-chamber, rejecting all who do not assimilate.
This has not been a controversial question in the modern nation state for nearing about 200 years now in "the West" until several small but very vocal groups have implicitly been taking a pick-axe to what I see as a pretty basic truth: the difference between corrective action in the public vs. the private sphere is a restriction on the public side to objectively measured action. Private thought in general doesn't hold water until violation of actual behavior can first be proven, and only then is intent needed.
Maybe, it depends on the individual. However, it is immoral to discriminate based on categories rather then individual characteristics, so their private life should not affect our actions towards them.
At some point, some open source communities will need to decide whether they work on open technologies or they are political activists with a political mission that serves the interests of a specific political side, or political doctrine If I'm into, I don't know, some niche Porn that isn't illegal, can it be considered "offensive to women" and should I be ejected as a contributor because of my personal sexual tastes in order to satisfy those that might be offended by this, even if I never bring up that matter in public? Now, if I'm part of an atheist association, and I publicly question the reality of a mainstream religion, can it be considered offensive to Muslims and should I be ejected of a totally unrelated community because some of its members that are not even of the religion think that what I said is offensive toward Muslims?
1 : one can argue "free software" is political. It is, but it has to do with the protection of users and their right to access and modify source code. It has nothing to do with women's rights or making blasphemy socially unacceptable, especially when positions are taken outside the context of the project community.
Gor is not just a flavor of porn, it is full philosophy of gender relationships. E.g. it does not just says "this gets me off", it says "this is nature of men/women, modern society is suppressing that nature and that is wrong". Some are in it for sex, but quite clearly others are in it because they believe in philosophy and attempt to live by it as much as possible/legal.
Is it possible to simultaneously believe that women are naturally submissive and happiest when they serve and simultaneously see leadership potential in women who is working under you? I dont know and I am glad that the question is not directly relevant to me.
However, if my boss would believe something like that, I guess I would have to either leave the company or accept I will be less likely to be promoted then male college of similar skills.
I have no idea whether Garfield is into Gor for kink or for gender philosophy nor whether that philosophy affected his leadership style. I dont care about whether he comes back or not. But, the more I looked into Gor the more it looked like way more then just another flavor of bdsm.
It's a series of fantasy f*#%ing novels, ofcourse it's role-play. Serious role play maybe, and definitively weird, but the author is _still alive_ and his name is not L. Ron Hubbard. Is he participating in political activism with mysogynistic undertones? Is he otherwise projecting gor-related gender views onto non-consenting parties? No. He just wants to do weird stuff together with other people who want to do weird stuff, socially and sexually. To assume that he holds these views to be morally absolute for everyone is a gross misrepresentation and unfortunately typical of persecution of weird people.
It seems so to me as well. There probably are people who take it a bit too far, just as there are in most fan groups (e.g., people who get cosmetic surgery to look like anime characters, etc.), but I don't recall hearing of any rash of abuse cases involving Goreans (apologies if that's not the right term).
I'm wondering just how far this goes. I have a friend who participates in Civil War reenactments (again, apologies if I don't get the terminology right). He plays a Confederate, and spends a considerable amount of time and money getting his gear and persona as close to perfect as he possibly can. That doesn't mean he really believes in slavery, or even that the South should have won the Civil War. Quite the contrary -- I'm 100% sure that he doesn't believe those things. This is just something he does for fun.
"Oh so you believe this or that? Well you now embody those beliefs and are complicit in all crimes motivated by them. Your mere presence is oppressive to people who have been slighted by actions or words motivated by the same beliefs. May your career end and your friends abandon you."
The political actions of communities come out of political consensus, which is exactly what's happening with this letter: people are trying to agree on political action. A "politics-free" community is just one where everyone already agrees, or nothing has ever come up for people to disagree over.
Open software is built by groups of people and one part of building a community it deciding what sort of people you want to work with.
While I'm not into this kind of stuff, this is 'acted out'
in a recreational activity..
As one simple example,
this could be his way of coping with the 'reality' that women
are evolutionarily 'superior to men' or similar..
If the actual behavior hasn't impacted the community in a way that the community doesn't like directly, the 'problem' is the person making it their business to muckrake and air other people's dirty laundry..
Also, side note and to actually quote the above link - I find myself "walking on eggshells" considering how to comment in this thread, and I think that reflects the same wider problems that are making this issue so catalytic.
Larry likes to jerk off to weird stories, who gives a shit.
(Vote down, that's fine, but it's still true.)
The problem with this is that to solve problems you need diversity in thought:
"Received wisdom is that the more diverse the teams in terms of age, ethnicity, and gender, the more creative and productive they are likely to be. But having run the execution exercise around the world more than 100 times over the last 12 years, we have found no correlation between this type of diversity and performance."
For instance, in Brazil, once you know you are a person confined to live in favelas forever, then you participation in the broader society will be very limited. And with that the regard for the rules of the larger society.
I've worked with pretty strict christians and muslims in the past without issue. As long as it remains in the private sphere I don't see why anybody would have issue with that. It's also interesting to challenge you world view from time to time, echo chambers are never a good thing for critical thought.
Speaking as a Christian, I actively seek to more deeply integrate my beliefs into every aspect of my existence: how I do my work and fulfill my responsibilities, how I speak to and treat others, i.e. many aspects of my behavior that resonate throughout my daily life regardless of temporal or physical context (at the office, at home, etc., during work, during play). At times, this means my words and actions clash with the "progressive" culture of the software development world; that can happen because someone puts me on the hot seat, or because I choose to speak/act, according to my beliefs, in response to some evil that cannot be ignored. I do pro-life/anti-abortion volunteer work in my area — I don't wear it on my sleeve, but sometimes people ask, or maybe they've seen me out and about, so engaged. I have tech peers who've told me they find such activity heinous. I go to a church where most of the women in attendance (voluntarily) veil their heads during the liturgy — personal photos related to my liturgical life (an important part of every week/year, so media ends up quasi/publicly accessible via the usual social platforms) have... raised eyebrows among the same peers.
Who I am, what I believe — I categorically refuse to put a wall around those things so that "offensive" life-content doesn't leak into my professional sphere. At the same time, I don't actively seek to offend my tech peers and if I do get into a disagreement with someone, I strive to be patient, respectful, and caring. I have friends in tech who share much in common with all the above, but are more guarded (even fearful — that's really the thing) about insulating their traditional Christian lifestyles from their professional peers and employers. I certainly don't intend to out them, and I understand their fears, but that way feels duplicitous to me, and it's not a path I'll take.
I've worked with a catholic guy who told me he prostested the same-sex marriage law in france. I completely disagree with his position but we just stopped the discussion at this point and we kept working together just fine. I would do the same if we worked together, probably.
Now if you kept bringing it up or even wear anti-abortion shirts or stuff like that then yeah, I might ask you to tone it down. But other than that it's really not my problem. The key element is respect I think. I respect you, you respect me and everybody's a happy bunny.
If someone wore a t-shirt in support of the LGBTQ+ life style, would you ask them to "tone it down"?
This is a pretty fundamental difference isn't it? No one is out wearing t-shirts telling other people that they should be queer are they?
And I'm assuming your use of the phrase "the LGBTQ+ life style" was a slip not an intentional denial of the many different lifestyles LGBTQ people have and that being L, G, B, T or Q is for most not a lifestyle but fundamental component of their person.
In general I find that it's harder to be offensive when you position yourself for something rather than against something. On paper an anti-religious shirt sounds more offensive than a pro-LGBTQ+ one, for instance. Both sound hardly appropriate for work though.
You sound quite reasonable, and I think you're right. :-) Other folks I've encountered are... not so reasonable.
I wish techies would get back to focusing on tech, it seems every other tweet and hacker news post is something meta about diversity, inclusion, tolerance, racism etc..
Focusing on the tech unquestioningly meant only the privileged (in one sense or another) were able to get access to the community, and so it has unwittingly become exclusionary. While we were all "focusing on the tech", the number of women and minorities in tech somehow and mysteriously plummeted. And software was made, even by big companies, that excluded huge swathes of people (hello Apple Health). And companies were made that badly suffered from this too (Uber).
So, belatedly, the community is addressing that, by trying to actively work towards diversity, inclusion, tolerance, etc. Tech being tech, this has meant a whole assload of bike-shedding and "works for me, close as wontfix", as this thread yet again evidences. Doesn't mean we still don't have the bugs, and should still be trying to figure out how to fix them.
Branch off into your own community and accept that you made a mistake jumping in without testing whether your "leader" was acceptable to your standard of "tolerance". It's not on them to change how they run something you literally gave up control over just because it was convenient for you at the time.
Lol @ them listing their donations and time 'wasted' on something they had no idea or assurance of control over. I'm reminded of the Bane scene. "I gave you a lot of money..." "And this gives you power over me?"
Next time, get it in (legal) writing, folks! :)
To have tolerance, you cannot tolerate intolerance. It is maybe illogical, but necessary.
Your comment shows the exact sort of thinking the people you're responding to are going off on.
The issue is people are trying to implement nonviolent communication principles in communities without learning how to process the world through the lens of nonviolent communication. And others are using the natural misunderstandings as evidence against nonviolent communication, as though the concept is the problem instead of people interpreting the concept in violent ways society teaches us to.
When we try to outlaw people being themselves, we overlook their needs. That isn't a productive framework and will ultimately compile into systemic issues over time. Tolerating intolerance says nothing about timberline, types of intolerance, scale, etc. It lacks make and is therefore a problematic principle for governing human behavior.
For most other people, it's a pretty clear line. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.
Here's a little explanation of how people work: if a person holds a belief or fear, and one person demonizes then for it while another validates it, the person is going to be drawn to the validator. It's the same reason why gay pride has soared over the last few decades; as a gay person, would you rather listen to a person saying "you're perfect the way you are", or "you should be ashamed"?
Some people in the majority ethnic group are afraid that they will be attacked, in bad faith, for expressing a view in conflict with the current set of liberal views. By dismissing their fears and telling them to piss off, you're guiding them into the arms of Trump and his ilk (who genuinely hold extremist views). The right way to move people is through negotiation, not shaming and heckling. In this case, "negotiation" means understanding their goals and motivations, explaining your own, and finding a consensus agreeable to everyone.
And to preempt accusations: I voted for Sanders in the primary, Clinton in the general, and am constantly horrified by the Trump administration. I'm not defending genuinely hateful views. I am just aware enough of how people work to know that failing to listen because you're on the moral high ground is more likely to breed extremism than genuinely change minds.
I am though getting tired of the "that is why Trump won" accusations that float around, everyone seems to have perfect hindsight now that its over but few people seemed willing to actually do anything to prevent it. The party of personal responsibility has done a great job of blaming the victim (once again) for why they were seemingly forced to elect Trump. The truth is though: we don't have to do anything, there are plenty of shills who will drum up fear, frustration, and anger against marginalized minority groups simply for their existence. Yes, we can give them ammunition but they also have perfectly good ammunition factories churning it out day after day. All it takes is one loudmouth freshman SJW filmed on a campus to bias millions of people while thousands of trained people try to educate others about diversity issues get totally ignored.
There is an inherent conflict between people who see more rights for others as less rights for themselves. Should we take the high road and stick to our ideals (even when it means accepting people who would see our rights squashed)? Absolutely, but if we think by doing so we will actually achieve our goals we are delusional. I find it endlessly ironic that people who are typically derisive of the left as being coddling have to be coddled by the left lest they inflict more discrimination on the rest of us. People who joke about being "triggered" are themselves triggered constantly even though they are typically part of the unchallenged majority. It is like an abusive relationship where you are walking on eggshells and if you get out of line (ie, by standing up for yourself) the result is your fault.
Yeah, that's the truth, and it absolutely sucks. The conservative news coterie will give endless coverage of these incidents, priming millions to despise these people and their viewpoints. It only takes a small handful of people to ruin things for everybody, but this is also true of a few loudmouthed, asshole bigots on the right convincing the left that this is the majority view. This is why I preach the whole thing about listening, negotiation, etc. - it doesn't just apply to those of us on the left, there's absolutely a need for the right to listen thoughtfully as well.
I even feel this way about incidents that I am deeply, personally affected by. Climate change scares the shit out of me (look through my comment history if you need examples), so much so that I have struggled with depression and existential crises solely over this. Unless a hot war takes us out first, I'm firmly convinced that, if anything destroys humanity, this will be it. I'm afraid to have children, and terrified that the meaning I derive from life will be snatched away by stubbornness, greed, stupidity and laziness, which is heartbreaking. And yet, in spite of all that, when I watched a video of coal miners protesting environmental regulation that would take away jobs, I felt sorry for them, and angry at the climate change counter-protesters who were obnoxiously shoving signs in their face and shouting at them. Knowing that this will only make them hate liberals and environmentalists even more makes this sort of thing unacceptable. The best way to get what you want isn't shoving it down somebody else's throat unless you genuinely have the power to do so and enforce it permanently. In a two-party democracy, neither side has that power, necessitating consensus.
I attended a protest that ended up being a big yelling match that I didn't want to be a part of and I was able to strike up a conversation with someone on the other side (not one of the rabid in your face protesters) and I found that pretty valuable. She thought Trump was chosen by God (and some other pretty wild stuff) but my guess is I had a bigger impact on her than the angry people that were on "my side" that she saw the rest of the day. I think if we have enough of that maybe we can change some minds but I don't expect anyone to simply come to an accurate realization on the state of affairs based on what they are exposed to in the media and on the internet.
1. There is no standard of what ethical behavior entails. Many thoughts are actually incompatible. In this context:
1a. Some people might think it's unethical or immoral to be violent even in a consensual sexual context. This could include certain religious people, but it could include certain kinds of pacifists and feminists as well.
1b. Some people might think it's unethical or immoral to have anything beyond a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. In this view, if you know about it and they didn't tell you personally, it's messed up.
1c. Some people might think it's unethical or immoral to be anything less than 100% supportive of any kind of sexual expression.
1d. Some people really don't care and are offended that their desire to be left out of all this isn't respected.
...there are certainly more positions and combinations of positions here.
2. There is the secondary question as to what means in the pursuit of (1) are ethical or moral.
2a. What information is public?
2b. Once something is leaked, can we use it? How do we pretend we hadn't learned something?
2c. What opinions are worth respecting? Understanding? Should we silence people with unconscionable opinions?
2d. Can we outright exclude people for having non-inclusive beliefs?
a) You are implying that this article is an exception to the rule,
b) This article is an example of the rule insofar as you can believe anything at all insofar as "practical" conformity is enforced regardless?
Diversity(tm) and Inclusion(tm) have a cost of inviting Diversity Experts to tell you why you cannot do any of this on your own and why you need to pay them for it, even though none of their materials or solutions have been peer-reviewed and the readily observable effect is that they make everyone miserable.
One is how communities work, the other is how protection rackets work.
Communities have always been free to choose their members and morals. If I can kick someone out for being verbally abusive, why can't I do it for whatever the community agrees on?
This phrase to some extent seems to have origins in dialectical materialism which is a marxist philosophy.
I mention this because it seems at odds with your opposition
to certain attitudes.
e.g. a sort of historical predeterminism that humankind is unstoppably destined for socialism once society 'evolved' to a certain level of productive capacity -
This view of progress is what leads to there being a 'right' and 'wrong' side of history, and as best I can tell the phrase it comes directly from marxists, and is rooted in in their philosophical view of society and progress, which doesn't mean one cant use that same sort of philosophy but leading to another in context, necessarily..
just a mention, since it seems like you might not like sounding marxist, not that that would in some cases be inherently a bad thing either.
Given the choice, it's the pot-stirrer I would kick out of my community. You know, if I had my own community. With blackjack...
IANAL, but since when have arbitrary website terms and conditions been automatically enforced by criminal law?
I assumed that it meant a civil law violation someone could sue over - usually "civil and criminal" cases like DRM violations are specified as such.
And a bulling case I forgot the name (they used the same law that was used in Aaron Swartz to argue that the bullying people were criminals because they broke MySpace TOS).
And a bunch of other cases... In US breaking TOS is literally a crime if you keep using the site (it is akin to virtual trespassing).
I think such law is bullshit... but it does exist. (CFAA I think is the law name)
Lori Drew, who was acquitted.
That must be why they chose to do this in public rather than in a private letter.
As much as I agree with the contents of the letter I reject the way in which it was delivered, it is essentially blackmail. If you don't do 'x' we will leave would have been strong enough without making this yet another public spectacle because it pulls in the world at large to witness whether or not these demands are met.
I can't stand Drupal for many reasons (backwards incompatibility by design being the major one) but this is not a nice thing to do.
Posting doxxed information across the internet, along with euphemistic insinuations that he is an irreparable pervert, attached to his real name, forever to show up as the first result when you Google him ... is "not a nice thing to do"
Trying to hold your community leaders up to a higher standard, and refusing to partake in the same backroom whisper campaigns that you're angry about? That's just not even on the same level of "not nice".
Buytaert is wrong, there is really no doubt about that. But if you want to make a point you simply send the letter to its intended recipient and follow up on the threat to leave if you are ignored or unhappy with the outcome.
If you want to increase the spectacle you do so publicly, with the direct result that Drupal gets hurt even further in the process no matter what the outcome will be.
I might agree with you if it were a call to resign or similar, but they aim at getting (to them very relevant) information that has been demanded in public (and I have to assume in private as well) before, without result, not necessarily at a reversal of the decision.
The problem here is that the producers of drupal are a much smaller set of people than the consumers of something like drupal. It's the consumers that will have to decide whether they want to base their next project on Drupal or not and all this infighting is giving of an aura of extreme instability. So as a result the drupal project as a whole will suffer because some fraction of that audience will decide to move on from Drupal.
Using PR-speak to sound reconciliatory while doing the opposite is a game two can play at. It may not be nice either, but it's better than trying to be reasonable against someone arguing in bad faith. That's a recipe for frog boiling and being a pushover. The idea isn't to endlessly escalate, it's to ensure both sides now have something to gain by cooperating and to lose by defecting.
Agreed. This line in particular got me -
> We unreservedly promise that if you do — but only if you do — we will have your back
Not exactly subtle. I'm surprised so many people put their name to this letter as alleged - I'm guessing they instead 'collected signatures' for a 'petition' then penned/published this - but I seriously doubt that so many would stop interacting with Drupal over this sort of thing. More likely they'd grin-and-bear it and still use the tool for their work, but not participate in the 'community drama'.
Software is ultimately about software, not interpersonal ethics. You can trumpet all you like with these pieces, but at the end of the day the people even reading are a tiny subset of the people using it, and even if they all leave and start advising against it, that software is still a solution in the solution space, viable to many customers who don't know or care about interpersonal dramas within its community.
It's marketing. Nothing new with that.
The letter to Dries writes:
> It is unacceptable to judge people based on unspoken, secret rules that they have no say in and cannot know.
Unacceptable? Tell that to the pope (pedo trials) and the US gov't (TPP, Guatanamo). They do this all the time. So again, if we agree this is "unacceptable" we say that many of our governing institutions are unacceptable, and thereby set a higher moral community standard then what we are governed by. I for one believe it is very important to do this.
> Ensure people carrying out illegal acts related to the conduct of others are reported to the proper authorities.
Here again it shows. "Illegal acts" are here scoped by their "relation to the conduct of others", yet are ultimately are defined by gov't. Possession of pot has been illegal, but hell no I'd turn someone in for that: I do not consider is punishment-worthy.