BDSM sex rocks Drupal world: Top dev banished for sci-fi hanky-panky A prominent contributor to the open source Drupal content management system has been asked to distance himself from project because "his belief system is inconsistent with [the] project's goals." The beliefs at issue involve participation in the BDSM and Gorean (NSFW) communities, the latter involving people interested in …
So we have an example of beliefs being used against someone, but because its not, for example anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim there is little legal challenge of it not any apparent need for those in charge to fully justify their actions. Even the accusation of witchcraft these days will get little mention.
Has his interest in Gorean role-playing caused any harm? Have there been any cases of play-partners presenting stories of abuse? If not the Drupal team should shut-the fsck up and get on with developing software, not acting as moral police for communities who are probably able to make their own minds up (no matter how odd it seems to most of us).
Very well said, and don't forget feminists. I don't want to stir up a fire here but the extremists within those areas also have a tendency of proclaiming their believes as "right" and everyone who disagrees with them and speaks up is per definition guilty of harassment (at least that's the impression I constantly get).
Still... Salem... Not so much, I think this is more about a growing display of intolerance for other people's believes which we're seeing, and it's something which somewhat worries me from time to time.
Many people will agree that the dictators of the past (the likes of Stalin, Hitler, Hoessein) are bad news, yet many will easily stoop to their habits for themselves. I'm not talking genocide and all that monstrosity of course, but about spreading a sheer display of intolerance for any other opinion but your own.
Makes you wonder what's next. Hmm, people who play Minecraft should obviously be considered as very childish for playing such a weird retro-like game. Obviously you can't have those around within "serious" software projects which "matter".
How about El Reg readers? "Biting the hand that feeds IT"? Those sound very intolerant, maybe we should ban those from any "serious" projects as well.
I'm not using Drupal myself, but if I was then this display of intolerance would definitely be reason enough for me to dump it for something else.
Yeah let's not forget the feminists. They're behind everything, aren't they?
Before you run off thinking this is uppity wimmen making your life difficult again, consider first that bigots will use any acceptable veneer to mask their prejudices, be that religion, concern for children's safety or gender equality. What the announcement said was "this person engages in sexual practices I don't approve of". This time it's wrapped in nebulous concerns about "gender equality", rather than "think of the children", but it's the same nasty sentiment that's been used before.
Honestly, I can't say this sort of thing is my idea of fun. Much like the game of golf, I'm happy for other people to derive pleasure from it, so long as I don't have to watch or partake... or hear about it constantly.
What these groups are doing is consensual, and primarily for sexual fun. If the histories of key members of the British Establishment has taught us anything, it's that a penchant for being tied up and whipped in the bedroom is not an indicator of being submissive and oppressed when the daylight hours arrive. Enjoying something in the bedroom doesn't mean you live the rest of your life that way (and although it help the staffing shortages in hospitals, we probably want trained medical staff at the bedside...)
Gender equality really is a red-herring. Swap the genders (or go for same-sex pairs), and you'll find there's an equally popular subculture there.
Taking this play, or the attitudes that go with it, outside of the bedroom and into real life would definitely be grounds for getting the boot from any sane organisation, but there is zero evidence, from this report, that he ever did this.
Just as a side note. The majority of prominent feminists in the Drupal community are on Larry's side on this one. Larry himself has done quite a bit to promote feminism and help women rise up the ranks. His private sexual life is kept quite separate from his work as a programmer.
I can't hear mention of Gor without chuckling at the memory of Houseplants of Gor
"I can't hear mention of Gor without chuckling at the memory of Houseplants of Gor"
A friend once saw the Gor canon in a bookshop (neither of us had any idea what it was about) and immediately suggested that the series needed a Cockney extension - Gor Blimey and Gor Strike a Light.
After all of these years I am now informed.
This just sounds like a case of "I'm firing you to protect you".
i.e -- there is more to the *reasons* than they want to let on right now. (We here in Canada know where that falls out to, having seen this in public in a huge way just a year or three ago)
All that out of the way, someone named Purer decided to hunt up the evidence to make this fellow sound like a misogynistic rapist. </shakes head>
J.G. was ultimately found not guilty in court. He's still an &sswipe who doesn't like being told no, but he was still found not guilty. Not part of drupal so don't know if our subject at hand is the same, but I'm quite sure there will be escalation after escalation until all of the laundry gets tossed out the window.
What are you going on about?
Jian Ghomeshi's activities had nothing to do with this, one way or another. The man got his jollies from punching and choking his partners while having sex. The sex was consensual but the assaults were allegedly not. After an initial victim spoke out, several others joined in too, with the same complaints.
The trial, for assault, misfired because his lawyer was able to cast doubt on whether all the victims were really unwilling. It seems to me they were, but not beyond a doubt in a court of law with a well-paid lawyer. This is always a really hard call - closed doors, no witnesses. Still... way more than 1 complainant? Seems that the balance of the doubt kinda weighed against Jian.
There is no indication in _this_ article that there were assaults against unwilling partners. The Gor books are pretty misogynistic, I know from reading 2-3 of them in my early 20s. And, if I were a woman, I would not touch someone really believing in its "philosophy" with a 10' pole.
But that's about it. BDSM does have its followers and... if 2 (or more) consenting adults... they should be able to do as they please. Mind you, I don't think much of the Drupal actions here, but maybe they had further reasons. Dunno.
What I do know is that Jian's legal issues were of an entirely different nature, much more serious. So don't conflate the 2.
Read Dries blog post carefully. He suggests there is more to the story which is what he based his decision to ask Larry to leave the project.
This is nonsense. If he couldn't share his reasons publicly then it didn't rise to the level to ask him to leave. There are certainly non-libelous to explain why he made his decision. Dries clearly doesn't understand basic management skills.
Personally, I would never work for or with Dries Buytaert, Acquia or have anything to do with the Drupal project. He has poisoned the well.
One of the first things they pound into HR's heads is that you can't bring up why someone left, or you can be faced with a lawsuit. He brought up that it was all over being Gorean, HR (or in this case, the lead) can refute the specific claim, but they still don't get to air all the dirty laundry, especially if there's a lot of bickering and he-said-she-said.
To me, it sounds like he was involved in a lot of internal strife, and it was him or someone else (or maybe even both). It's perfectly reasonable to fire someone who is causing office issues, unless it's for being a protected class.
From the stories I've heard from folks working in/close to Drupal, Garfield has too big of an ego that makes him nigh-impossible to work with. Part of it is that his ego has been outweighing his contributions for a while now and that this is just the straw that broke the camel's back.
... allegedly subscribing - in his private life - to a fantasy promoting a system of beliefs outlined in a work of fiction - i.e. in novels?
That's a very slippery slope right there.
Based on the same logic, one can be fired for liking Alien. According to Drupal, if your boss doesn't like Alien, you're toast, because it promotes a system of beliefs some might find objectionable. Such as extra-terrestrial, fictional creatures that have acid for blood, and reproduce by forcefully inserting an egg in the host victim, who serves as food for the developing Alien egg, and dies when the egg hatches.
Or, one can buy a Giger's Alien costume, dress up as such, and post pictures of themselves, dressed-up as the Alien, on Google or Facebook. That's a fireable offense?
I hope he gets a very good lawyer. Drupal are wankers.
"He was fired for allegedly subscribing - in his private life - to a fantasy promoting a system of beliefs outlined in a work of fiction . . ."
Well, I don't think he was 'fired' per se, but he is being pressured to leave. That said, based on the stated reason for applying that pressure, they've established a reason to ostracise someone for being Christian, or Muslim, or Hindu.
Actually, on Islam, if you are Muslim and subscribe to the idea that a woman's testimony is worth less than a man's, surely that is a view that would also be counter to the Drupal stance on 'gender equality'.
Actually, on Islam, if you are Muslim and subscribe to the idea that a woman's testimony is worth less than a man's, surely that is a view that would also be counter to the Drupal stance on 'gender equality'.
Going down that road will make SJW's heads explode.
Let's go down that road.
It's 2017 and there are still prudes in the world.
It's disgusting, especially when I bet those in the project get intimate with a man/woman ask for their toes to be sucked or one of their orifices to be licked.
Maybe, just maybe, if they spent less time banning people for getting their kicks in niche places they might just be able to deliver a CMS that isn't a bag of rotten frogs churned through a cows arse.
@wolfetone
Oh, there are prudes everywhere but, worse, there is a pervasive mockery of any sexual behaviour beyond some vague notion of 'normal' sex.
Sure, it's fun to make jokes at Donald Trump's expense but why are comedians making jokes about the reports that were published about his activities with Russian prostitutes? If he is harping on about the sanctity of marriage then by all means call out hypocrisy (should the report be proven) but what is happening is that an adult is being ridiculed for indulging in a particular kink with other consenting adults.
The particular (alleged) behaviour obviously lends itself to all manner of cheap puns so it becomes irresistible but such ridicule is utterly backwards, not to mention thoroughly hypocritical when voiced by those who ostensibly support the LBGT(etc..) community.
Indeed, some comedians have admitted that, while the report is unverified and this is all just unproven allegation, the subject is too funny not to use. They are saying that the act itself is worthy of ridicule.
What those comedians are doing is getting a cheap laugh by shaming someone's private sexual preferences.
"Sure, it's fun to make jokes at Donald Trump's expense but why are comedians making jokes about the reports that were published about his activities with Russian prostitutes?"
The only concern should be if the person has an important position that could be exploited by a blackmailer.
It is the condemnatory attitudes of a society to something - that hand the blackmailer their weapon.
President Sukarno of Indonesia was subject to a KGB sting like the one alleged about Trump. When shown the film of his encounter - he apparently requested several copies for Indonesia's cinemas.
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-cia-and-kgb-both-tried-to-blackmail-sukarno-with-sex-tapes.459041/
"What those comedians are doing is getting a cheap laugh by shaming someone's private sexual preferences."
Not just any someone, the President of the United States. The most public person on this planet - one who is still supposed to be an example of moral rectitude, even in these days of almost-anything-goes. And if Clinton could risk impeachment for a simple blowjob, then presidential sex with prostitutes is definitely on the table.
"Basically just a bunch of misogynist arseholes using kink as an excuse to be arseholes."
A pool table perhaps - better than a warm apple pie? The right height and a soft covering.
Many years ago two young friends were into doing it outdoors. They reported that corn stubble was very uncomfortable - and sea water washed away all the natural lubrication.
@Pascal Monett
". . . one who is still supposed to be an example of moral rectitude . . ."
I agree - our leaders should indeed be beacons of morality. In a perfect world. BUT, I do not agree that a person's sexual preferences (within the confines of activities between consenting adults) should form any part of the judgement of someone's morals.
It's this unhealthy connection of sexuality and morality that holds so much progress back because the sentiment becomes one of distrust - anyone who has sexual preferences that deviate from some bullshit 'norm' can't be fully trusted. It's bigotry - these people aren't exactly like me so I can't trust that they'll act like me.
Part of it is religious, of course, but that doesn't explain the shame and ridicule poured out by, ostensibly, liberal comedians and commentators.
On the note of blackmail, if it turns out that (now) President Trump did engage in the alleged actions and is being blackmailed by Russia, then the American people (and not only them) are partly to blame. It's only leverage if the people judge each other negatively based on their private, sexual activities.
It's perverse - you can be manifestly unqualified, an inveterate liar, an unrepentant bigot and a dangerous narcissist but if you get a kick out of urination in a sexual setting then, well, that's just unacceptable and renders you unfit for public office.
@AC
"I enjoy the sort of activities The Donald [was] alleged to have engaged in, and worse."
What do you mean "worse". Those activities are not objectively bad to start with. They're not even that uncommon, in absolute terms.
I did read in a previous article here, many moons ago, that those activities are enjoyed by some 1% of the population. That may not sound like much but it means that if you enjoy that and step into a standard NY subway car on your way to work, chances are that there is another person - in that same car - who shares your preference.
Likewise many other preferences.
The idea that some sexual preference is "worse" than some other is exactly the problem - that there is a set of good, normal, decent and acceptable sexualities and that others are therefore 'bad' and unacceptable - in varying degrees.
The only test of whether someone's sexual activity is acceptable is whether the participants are consensting*. Note that 'harm' is not a valid test as some people enjoy pain as part of their pleasure and, again, so long as it is consensual, we're all good.
* - And of age, but that is factored into the legal concept of consensus.
This post has been deleted by its author
Sure as hell is. When some people think putting on lipstick is a worse crime than chopping someone's head off, then something is seriously wrong. When some western liberalised/empowered individuals start to take cues from similar moralistic thinking, no matter how far removed it seems at this time from Talibanism, we have to watch out carefully.
Firing people for sexual preferences / fantasies that are non of your business in the first place? WTF.
Perhaps not put your nose where it doesn't belong? I can see someone else getting fired over this...
We all have a problem with Hitler. But if hey, had he come up with a good algorithm it would have been bonkers not to adopt it,
Good is good, Bad is bad. No one, even him, is exclusive to either. Use what is good, destroy what is evil was the obviois path to me. But for Drupal management?
"Developers sometimes must interact with other people. In some cases, if their personality is toxic enough, it doesn't matter how good their code is because they can destroy an organization with petty infighting."
Still a failure of management if it's in business as usual. They are paid all those big salaries to deal with exactly that kind of issue. The issue, of course, is what constitutes the management of an open source project. Linus may attempt to solve the problem by being the biggest, hardest bastard (with the largest cheek pouches, cf Terry Pratchett?) but it's a solution not open to everybody. Most open source projects aren't named after the founder.
But then it's not confined to software. Arrogant people with a kind of OCD are rather common. My wife was at a meeting a few evenings ago where one such person hijacked his 5 minute slot for a 20 minute digression on why he wanted a particular word to be used on a form which really didn't matter anyway. \__(*_*)__/
Good code is Good code, yes. But there is a lot more to it than that. Good ideas, done mediocre will trounce bad ideas, no matter how well done. Most Microsoft projects are not that well coded, but they're
But - outside of some tiny projects and sci-fi films - coders never just sit there on their own with a single computer, writing stuff from memory. There is a massive team involved and they MUST all cooperate.
Having someone on the team who's disrupting it is rarely worth their contributions, and they need to be kicked out of fixed very quickly.
Having said all that. I think this is a pathetic pretext for doing so. Who cares if he likes to play sexual games? - what are you now, the morality police?
So if I was a Christian, Buddhist, Hinduist, Muslim etc. and said lets take a break for Christmas (or other religious holidays), does that mean I'd also be fired for pushing my beliefs onto others? Pretty certain around the (civilised) world, persecuting someone based on their beliefs is illegal.
I wish we had some sort of diagram comparing the numbers who have heard of Gor (Love it, hate it, couldn't give a wet slap) to those who've heard of Drupal.
Goreans are almost as daft as Goths, but as long as no-one is getting hurt for real who cares for fuck's sake?
But you know what? I got sent a flyer a while back that included an offer of a seriously businesslike ankle shackle intended to be bolted to the floor. While it was being sold as "play dungeon" equipment it fairly screamed "Saw movie" at me.
So I can kinda see the other side of the coin too (not that this coin was spinning in the air during the events related in the story). Kinda hard to spot a psychopath in amongst all the roleplayers until it's too late when kit like this is available by clicking a mouse button.
But to be crystal clear: IMO writing about Gorean stupids is masturbation, not planning.
A question . . .
Given that BDSM generally involves (at least) two people - whether fantasy or in practice - surely it always involves a position of inequality so far as the roles are concerned.
That's the very MEANING of the word 'domination'.
So, what if one of the Drupal devs has a fetish for being a submissive? After all, that implies that someone else is dominant*.
If fantasising about being in a dominant sexual role over a woman clashes with ideas of gender equality, so to would fantasising about being in a submissive seuxal role, with a woman dominant.
What happens if a female dev is found to be a paid dominatrix?
I am concerning myself only with hetrosexual interactions here as obviously there is no gender inequality where both participants are the same gender, but that brings up another challenge to this idiocy. If we follow the argument further, Drupal's reasoning results in BDSM being unacceptable for hetrosexual people but acceptable for homosexual people.
Except that the Goreans aren't just fantasising or role-playing. They believe, or claim to believe, that all women are by nature submissive. Basically just a bunch of misogynist arseholes using kink as an excuse to be arseholes. Which is fine if they keep it private. But keeping a personal kink private is easy, keeping a belief system to yourself not so much.
"Except that the Goreans aren't just fantasising or role-playing. They believe, or claim to believe, that all women are by nature submissive."
By that logic you can include many religions into the same bucket, yet you cannot fire someone for their religion....
And religions certainly don't keep their beliefs private..
By that logic you can include many religions into the same bucket, yet you cannot fire someone for their religion....
Did I suggest otherwise? I'm not exactly the biggest fan of religion around here. I didn't and I'm not suggesting firing anyone for their beliefs but if their beliefs lead a person to engage in arsehole behaviour then all bets are off.
But the women presumably participating in the activity are submissive. I don't think most of the people doing this stuff are in any doubt that it is all made up. The outraged public, however, has a bottomless (ahahaha) capacity for shock and horror. This is not new. The Sunday Mirror and the News of the World fed on this very audience for decades.
The weird thing about BDSM and similar kinks is that it's very, very explicit that the position of power is GIVEN to the dominant rather than taken by them, so what it appears to be on the surface is a lot more complex. Safewords and the like being a big thing, consent being an absolute sacred line that will not be crossed, and so on.
I once made the mistake of asking someone who was into that stuff their thoughts on 50 shades of grey, and to say their opinion was "negative" would be a polite understatement.
"...the numbers who have heard of Gor..."
Count me among those. I read one of them when I was ~17. It was one of the worst books I've ever have the disgrace to read. By sheer force of will, I finished it, and I regretted every page. After reading that bookthing, I got the distinct impression that the author was an utter moron.
Having said that, I don't think that - as long as,,, yadda yadda... consenting adults- nobody should be able to use his sex life and fantasies against Mr. Garfield.
"Count me among those. I read one of them when I was ~17. It was one of the worst books I've ever have the disgrace to read. By sheer force of will, I finished it, and I regretted every page."
Wow! Kudos for the huge amount of determination. IIRC I was about 15 when a friend introduced me to the Gor books with obvious delight and what we now call fanboi-ism. It was utter shite and I didn't get past chapter 2.
If that was the real reason then it's a stupid one. If someone is putting in good work - regardless of the occupation - it is totally irrelevant what they do in their private life.
If it's not the real reason, then it's even more stupid. They've failed to address a problem, and left themselves open to extremely bad publicity - if not lawsuits.
Not sure I 100% agree with that. I worked with somebody who had to leave when he was convicted of paedophilia. Hard to imagine working with him if we'd known what he was up to. "Great coding today, buddy. Fucked any kids recently?"
I hope he's getting help but it'd be awkward if he came back.
Lefty lesbian feminist clocking in here - if it's between consenting adults and no-one's permanently damaged (I'd normally say 'no-one gets hurt', but due to my ignorance of BDSM thought maybe that needs a bit of a modification there?) what the heck does it matter what someone gets up to in their private life?
Yes, yes, I know the arguments some extremist idiots give, along the lines of 'well, if they're like that in private, how can they be trusted?' - but that ignores the 'consenting adults' part of the equation. And also ignores the safety valve value of private play between like-minded chums.
If someone likes the idea of BDSM, I'd MUCH rather they go find other like-minded types to play with than try inflicting their play on those who aren't so inclined, just as I'm sure most women would much rather I play cherche la femme in places habituated by other women of my ilk than in my place of work. Not to mention that because most folk have limited free time, don't like causing others upset and/or wish to avoid rejection, that's exactly why folk tend to clump together into like-minded communities when it comes to their private lives.
For a coding project, the criteria should be - 'do they produce good code?' and probably 'do they work tolerably well in a team environmment like a software project?' Can't think of many cases even where they've had a criminal conviction that that'd be relevant (conviction for fraud and wanting to work on banking apps? Nooo, I don;t think so!)
Many people have wrong, preconceived notions concerning BDSM. I am not personally into that sort of thing, pain - or inflicting pain - goes full contrary to what I believe sexual pleasure should be. But BDSM is not just about sex, nor is it just about pain.
I have read about BDSM and people who practice it. I think a good starting point is this article.
Read it and think about it. Make a decision if you want, or don't. But do not remain willfully ignorant about it if you intend to decry other people's practice of it.
When people argue 'well, if they're like that in private, how can they be trusted?' what they actually mean is "well, if they're like that in private and I don't act outraged, people might wonder what I'm like in private" and they know they've got as much to hide.
For the LGBT-specific version, see gayhomophobe.com
Is it just because all the other geeks aren't getting any (other than the odd wafty crank) whilst Garfield is getting his world rocked? As for the Gor books, I figured out they were shite 30 years ago after reading the 5 that my local library stocked. Quite apart from the sexism they are badly written and scientifically worse than the vampire shite that is currently all the rage.
"As for the Gor books, I figured out they were shite 30 years ago after reading the 5 that my local library stocked."
I've always thought my ability to tolerate utter rubbish books, and actually finish reading them is pretty damned good. The one Gor book I tried to read, though, is one of the rare examples I can think of where my tolerance was defeated.
So that you managed to read five - given that you presumably realised they were shite after (during?) just one - shames me. I am clearly not as tolerant (or stubborn?) when it comes to crap books as I thought.
When I was 13 or so, I read the entire series. Within the wierld of Gor, the sex made sense. By the time I was 17 (yes, I re-read books), I couldn't get past the sex: it was just too alien to everything I'd learned about women in the mean time. Spoiled an otherwise good bit of shlock-fi.
There's a difference between promoting a belief and indulging in private role-play, something that some of the antagonists in this situation are ignoring (or perhaps refusing to believe exits).
For example, a couple whose play-acting involves one of them dressing up as a schoolgirl (or schoolboy even) and getting spanked probably don't actually believe that IRL all schoolgirls/boys should be spanked.
A couple who play at Batman having sex with Catwoman don't believe that Batman should have sex with Catwoman because...uh...neither of them exist.
Similarly guys who enjoy tying up their girlfriends may well imagine tying up other women they see. But that doesn't mean they believe that all women should be tied up.
I get pleasure out of eating bacon sandwiches. Doesn't mean that I believe everyone else in the world should eat bacon sandwiches as well. Preferences for sexual play does not automatically equate to Belief, can't these idiots see this?
"For example, a couple whose play-acting involves one of them dressing up as a schoolgirl (or schoolboy even) and getting spanked probably don't actually believe that IRL all schoolgirls/boys should be spanked."
As long as they didn't take any pictures of themselves - or even drawings. In England that could be regarded as a criminal offence to possess such pictures..
"As long as they didn't take any pictures of themselves - or even drawings. In England that could be regarded as a criminal offence to possess such pictures."
Is that for real? Or just rumour? I did just try and see if I could find any news items on this, but then realised that Googling "schoolgirl photos sex play" was probably not a good idea.
Things have got really crazy in the area of photos of children in the UK in the last decade or so. My parents used to have some old slide photos of me at the age of 12 months stark naked being washed in a bucket. It is a sobering thought that it would now be technically illegal for me to possess those photos, as they are pictures of a naked minor...despite the fact that the minor is me. But I digress. Back to your thread...
"Is that for real? Or just rumour?"
IIRC the Sexual Offences Act 2003 was the one that made definitions much looser. There was previously a separate category for 16/17 year olds that allowed far more licence in their pictures. After the SOA 2003 - all under 18s are covered by the same blanket category as "children". Hence being a Sun Page 3 girl like Samantha Fox at 16 is no longer possible. Possession of such published pictures is potentially illegal.
The SOA also introduced the qualification of "looks under 18".
At some point the previous offences involving photographs were widened to include any representation of a "child" - in a drawing, cartoon, or sculpture. There seem to be cases where a picture in a legally published book - is only considered illegal if on a digital device. Established works of art are usually excluded - but exactly what date is the cut-off point is not defined.
The categories of pictures considered potentially "indecent" start with simple nudity then progress through "clothed in a provocative pose" - and on to what are more obviously sexual. A jury can also be asked to consider very innocent pictures as "sexual in the mind of the accused". It is not difficult to put many traditional family album pictures into those categories as potentially "indecent".
In one case the jury was shown a naturist family's picture of a group of teenage boys and adults naked in a sauna. The prosecution deemed it "indecent" because they argued that an adult's head was titled in such a way as to be considered as looking at a boy's genitals. The jury said "not guilty" - but the family destroyed all those holiday pictures after the trauma of the prosecution.
A judge in Bristol refused to renew a strip club's licence unless they stopped advertising St Trinian's themed nights with posters that included the classic outfits.
A UK man was convicted - quashed on appeal - for viewing USA gay web sites. The sites carried the "all models over 18" certification - but the police and CPS considered some of the models "looked under 18".
In brief - there are very loose legal definitions - and it is down to the attitudes and motives of an individual area's police and CPS as to what is prosecuted.
.. the FOREground impression it leaves is that these people are intolerant. Unless they address that with other information, that is the impression as it stands, and that immediately leads to other questions such as:
- is this the thin edge of the wedge? Will they now start on other non-mainstream communities?
- where will this stop? Just sexual preferences, or is a bad dress sense next? People owning a VW Beetle? Anyone who ever expressed themselves NOT disdainfully about other CMS?
- given the immediate life/professional impact this has on the person, are they prepared for the legal followup? I think that is almost inevitable, and the fact that there has apparently been a dearth of discussion with the victim (yes, I'll call him that for now in absence of better data) and a lack of clearly and frank discussion with the rest of the team before taking that decision suggests they should be on their own for this and not be backed by any Drupal funding.
As for Mr Purer, it may be worth remembering that mischaracterisation that has a material impact on someone's life is grounds for litigation as there is clear, numerical evidence of impact. It may also have an impact on Epiqo, his employer, as these things rarely stay contained to just the staff. I would recommend that they start to work on some PR statements, just in case.
That all said, it IS the US where bigotry is not exactly big news. The timing is bad, though, just after Trump started to pull legislation - this could get tangled up in the general backlash against Trump's activities.
Goreans are just weird. Really, anyone trying to turn a fetish into a lifestyle, in my opinion, could benefit from some counselling.
A fetish should just be something that spices up your sex life; not something you live. In fact, isn't the definition of addiction/unhealthy obsession when it starts to negatively impact your personal and professional life?
Goreans are just weird. Really, anyone trying to turn a fetish into a lifestyle, in my opinion, could benefit from some counselling.
That too seems to be more opinion than fact. Some of it seems to come from simple experimentation, others appear to have a need, some just want to show off being different (but have little to no contact with the actual culture behind it) and some just do it because it upsets the neighbours :).
Personally I think it's none of my business unless it somehow affects my life, and, if so, that is easier solved by an open discussion than by behaving like an idiot. Only if that doesn't work is there an argument for doing what they did, but as far as I'm concerned they overreacted.
Small caveat here: we don't know the whole story. So far, it doesn't look good for the Drupal leadership for acting without any apparent consultation.
The last word on this matter belongs to J.S. Mill, just a shame that more than a hundred and fifty years later the direction of travel is going the wrong way again:
"A theory of "social rights," the like of which probably never before found its way into distinct language: being nothing short of this—that it is the absolute social right of every individual, that every other individual shall act in every respect exactly as he ought; that whosoever fails thereof in the smallest particular, violates my social right, and entitles me to demand from the legislature the removal of the grievance. So monstrous a principle is far more dangerous than any single interference with liberty; there is no violation of liberty which it would not justify; it acknowledges no right to any freedom whatever, except perhaps to that of holding opinions in secret, without ever disclosing them: for, the moment an opinion which I consider noxious passes any one's lips, it invades all the "social rights" attributed to me by the [aggrieved]. The doctrine ascribes to all mankind a vested interest in each other's moral, intellectual, and even physical perfection, to be defined by each claimant according to his own standard."
Obviously we aren't talking about statute here, which makes it even worse in some ways.
" that every other individual shall act in every respect exactly as he ought"
There's where the problem is - who gets to decide how someone ought to act? A large, vocal part of society says men absolutely shouldn't wear dresses and heels. Another large, vocal part of society says that should absolutely be perfectly acceptable. So who's right? Or are they both right but the two rights are just completely incompatible?
Abortionists vs Pro-Lifers
Religion vs atheism
Gun-control vs 2nd Amendment
Black or sugar-and-cream
There aren't going to be any easy answers because the extremes on both sides are dug-in deep, and feel, with the utmost religious fervor, that THEIR idea of "right" is the only one that actually is right, and that "compromise" is a dirty word.
"Or are they both right but the two rights are just completely incompatible?"
As J S Mill indicated - the difference lies in who is trying to impose their belief on everyone else.
Pro-lifers want everyone banned from having an abortion. Pro-choice says to allow the woman to make her own decision either way.
Secular societies allow freedom of religion and none-belief. Everyone has an equal privilege - and laws are not based on religious dogma. Theocracies say everyone who is not of their faith is a second class citizen.
That's a very bad comparison. There's no victim when people practise Gorean sex in private. There's a rather obvious victim when a woman chooses to have an abortion. You wouldn't want to legalise the killing of children provided it is done in private and doesn't affect other people, would you?
I'm not in favour of banning abortion, by the way. I'm just old enough and wise enough to understand alternative points of view.
"That's a very bad comparison. There's no victim when people practise Gorean sex in private. "
Surely the whole article being discussed here is about someone who practises Gorean sex in private, and is a victim because of it?
** Makes informal bet with myself that irate straw man comments will soon be heading my way, accusing me of callously equating Garfield's problems with the killing of unborn children **
" As J S Mill indicated - the difference lies in who is trying to impose their belief on everyone else.
Pro-lifers want everyone banned from having an abortion. Pro-choice says to allow the woman to make her own decision either way.
Secular societies allow freedom of religion and none-belief. Everyone has an equal privilege - and laws are not based on religious dogma. Theocracies say everyone who is not of their faith is a second class citizen."
WTF? You got a downvote for this?
@AC
"There's where the problem is - who gets to decide how someone ought to act?"
I believe that was part of Mill's point - something he call the "tyranny of the majority". In other words, Mill argued against the idea that an individual's rights and the limits on their practices should not be governed by the mere opinion of others.
To allow people to dictate what others may and may not do based on their own morals and mores alone is a form of tyranny and, as Mill identified, in some ways a more problematic form.
In Mill's reckoning, individuals should possess the liberty to act as they wish so far as those action do not harm others, but he was wise enough to realise that what constitutes 'harm' cannot simply be left up to individuals to decide, else the merest discomfort experienced by some person becomes cause for the restriction of freedom of some other.
The core thesis, In my opinion, is that the harm to an individual's liberty is a far greater harm than the discomfort of even the vast majority.
I want to thank the Register team for bringing this to the attention of the people outside of the Drupal communities. Because it seems to me that this outside media attention is definitely starting quite an uproar and in my opinion rightfully so.
Personally I am somewhat surprised in how a so called "free" and "open" community as Drupal claims to be is now desperately trying their best at damage control. Yet not the kind one would expect from an open source project, no, the kind you'd expect from a big IT company which only sees a danger to their revenue and couldn't care less about the rest.
Maybe I'm ranting, I can't rule that out, but how else do you explain official comments which basically don't go much deeper then Stay for community. I quote (I kid you not!): "This seems like the perfect time for a singing, dancing, spandexed pageant about the Drupal community.".
And the worst part: "Do you think Larry was punished for thoughtcrime? Pitch in and help build a system where the next Larry can’t be treated that way. Do you think Dries and the DA deserve our trust in their decision? Join up and help make sure the next iteration preserves the strength of independent leadership.".
So basically, how I perceive this, is them saying "whatever you might think be sure to stay and/or join the community". Let's stop caring about Larry and instead put your effort into trying to prevent this from happening to the next Larry! And if you try hard enough then who knows: maybe you can be in the spotlight to play the role as the next Larry.
I think people seem to forget there's a whole company behind Drupal. And companies don't care about communities, companies care about revenue. And let's be honest: this backlash can have its affect on that, and that will scare them to no end.
Moments like these I am a very proud Register reader. Biting the hand that feeds IT.
Once again: thanks Reg for posting and informing us about this while also making sure we go to see both sides of this story so that we could make up our own mind.
So somebody in their private time likes to get their kink on (in private) role playing a fantasy world with other willing participants.
Somebody with an axe to grind decides to go digging into someone else's private reproductive-recreational life and go outing them and instead of properly slapping down the party doing the privacy invasion the project gets all of the sudden "moral" and decides well that version of kink is one we don't approve of?
If it's really about "had heard some ideas somewhere that maybe weren't nice to women" are they going to kick out anyone from the Wahhabist and several other sects of Muslims? What about people from certain orthodox Jewish sects?
Not to long ago wasn't this the same thing that was done outing people who had a different sexuality or different gender dressing preference? Now of course you would be the worst person in the world if you did that, but it's fine to go around outing & discriminating against other choices that are not yet protected?
What adults want to do for their own private entertainment with willing adults is not really anyone's business in most cases, especially not when it has no bearing on anything to do with an open source project & the person is doing nothing illegal. There is no need to go sticking ones own personal biases and dislikes into somebody else's very private business, especially when they are very much keeping it private.
Many people enjoy indulging in playing around in a fantasy setting with things that they would never do or agree to have done to them in real life, for many different reasons. Are you next going to go ban actors from being in your project because on a movie several years ago they played a murderer? --- I mean they acted out killing a bunch of other people (actors)...... Gasp!
On a side note, back in the day when Sadeville was a more popular place, there was a large Gorean community, and if you didn't approve, (or just wanted some fun), you could dress up as a female vampire, or a furry and get some friends together and go raid their Sims (which really upset them since they said your kind didn't exist) & have way too much fun till you got kicked off the Sim.
As an interesting side note, however you would usually find that the person who actually owned the Sim and was actually in charge was usually one of the characters playing a female slave (and was usually actually a RL female if they were paying and owning the sim) vs, most of the players with male characters were broke and a lot less glamorous in real life to say the least.
I remember when Second Life first went free to play and I gave it a go (no way was I going to pay just to access what amounted to a glorified chatroom prior to that) - there was a big marketing push, companies setting up in-game vendors where you could get digital merchandise and guff like that. I marveled at the nissan island with its car vending machine that popped out Sentras that you could drive around in.
I ended up crashing the car off the road near one of the newbie spawns and didn't know how to retrieve it, then my connection died, leaving the car stuck on some guy's digital lawn. when I logged in the next day, I found a snooty note in my inbox telling me that I had been blocked and reported for this "abuse".
Naturally my troll senses fired up as I realised "oh, so THAT'S what sort of community this is."
The very next thing my flatmate and I did was dress up as Jules and Vince from Pulp Fiction with the loudest gun-props we could find in the free libraries, pile into another copy of the Sentra, and do a driveby on a gorean sim. Fun times.
This sort of affair exposes the farce of bothering to have any sort or organizational facade surrounding a so-called BDFL (aka Dries). He owns the trademark, he's the founder and CTO (conveniently) of Acquia, and he alone selects and appoints volunteers to the Drupal CWG.
Does that sound a little Soviet to you? Well it should. Because it is, and it should come as no surprise that they've been exposed as thought police for an association that is NOT managed by it's members, but rather, a despot.
It's time to Fork Drupal, if Dries and his other two cronies don't resign and leave the camp completely for the community to salvage, and it may be time to fork Drupal anyway, as it appears to be a dying project under the tutelage of a despot.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
