5 ms·

It's not right to blackmail somebody. But the reason he was blackmailed probably had absolutely nothing to do with BDSM and everything to do with something rela

It's not right to blackmail somebody. But the reason he was blackmailed probably had absolutely nothing to do with BDSM and everything to do with something related to Drupal or some other area where he had a dispute with someone else. BDSM was probably just a prejudice of convience, assuming the story is exactly how it is presented. So, if would be more concerned about not making people want to blackmail you, than about the particulars of how accepting people will be od what you could be blackmailed with.

watwut 10y ago
"So, if would be more concerned about not making people want to blackmail you, than about the particulars of how accepting people will be od what you could be blackmailed with." That might be career limiting if he is ambitious. If he is ambitious and has competitors willing to hack ethics, then particulars on what happens when they cease the info are relevant.
- thehardsphere 10y ago
  The best defense against people "hacking ethics" is to act ethically yourself always. And by that, I don't mean conforming to heteronormativity, I mean not needlessly pissing people off as you climb the ladder. Even if you have to piss someone off to get the job done, you should know that "ethics hackers" could exist and adjust your work conduct accordingly.
  - klibertp 10y ago
    You posted several comments like this in this thread and I'm getting curious. Basically, what you mean to say is that Larry Garfield is an asshole (I apologize if I'm guessing your intentions wrong). While you claim to know him, I don't, but I read a few comments from other people, who apparently regard him "a model community member". Could you share some details on why do you think he's an asshole, who almost surely did do something bad?
    - thehardsphere 10y ago
      > Basically, what you mean to say is that Larry Garfield is an asshole I wouldn't disagree with this statement. > Could you share some details... Sure. Larry was a very productive and highly valued contributor in the community in which I knew him also. He was also simultaneously an ambitious jerk who sought high status for himself, engaged in a lot of manipulative, bullying behavior to keep that status once he attained it, and sought to change the customs of our community to permanently enshrine himself in a highly privileged position. This created a rather complex dynamic where members of our community either thought that he was a "model community member" or an "asshole" depending on what they happened to notice him doing. Eventually there came a time where his positive contributions outweighed the negative ones, and decisions were made to relieve him of certain responsibilities. Not a secret star chamber thing like with the Drupal project; it was really more of a "well, you haven't really done anything for the past 5 years because all your time is spent on Drupal, so you should really step aside now for someone else to do this work that we really need done." When that news was delivered to him, he engaged in this sort of behavior that he's doing now; sharing publicly details of the decision in a misleading way, in order to gain immediate public sympathy and hide the fact that he was asked to leave his high-status position (not our whole community) because he wasn't meeting the obligations that he committed himself to. He got away with this for a little while because the people who dismissed him decided to let him have a face-saving exit because of his valuable past contributions, but eventually everyone heard the story through the gossip chain years later. So, that's why I think he did do something bad which we don't know about; he's exhibiting the same pattern of deliberately misleading behavior when he did something not-even-bad. Either he's trying to flip Dries et al through public pressure, or he's trying to save his career by painting himself as a victim (he probably still is a victim, even if he's an asshole who did something bad; blackmail is always wrong). He's made a bet that Dries et al are not going to spill the beans, so he's taking control of the narrative for his own advantage. I will say one nice thing about Larry though: I have never heard any woman ever complain that he acted inappropriately towards them in any way related to their gender while he was in our community.
      - klibertp 10y ago
        Ok, that changes the picture somewhat. Thank you. However, I still don't understand why Dries wrote that "promoting Gorean philosophy" was the reason for the ban. He could have simply said that Larry did something bad without getting into details and without mentioning unrelated things. The problem is that - as I wrote in another comment - the reason as stated is very weak. It looks like it's designed to be defeated by Larry and to give Larry a way to retaliate. Even you say that: > I have never heard any woman ever complain that he acted inappropriately towards them in any way related to their gender while he was in our community. So really, saying that the reason for the ban is that Larry promoted "females are subhuman" philosophy was bound to stir up some controversy and generate some support for Larry. I guess I understand less and less...

watwut 10y ago

"So, if would be more concerned about not making people want to blackmail you, than about the particulars of how accepting people will be od what you could be blackmailed with." That might be career limiting if he is ambitious. If he is ambitious and has competitors willing to hack ethics, then particulars on what happens when they cease the info are relevant.

thehardsphere 10y ago
The best defense against people "hacking ethics" is to act ethically yourself always. And by that, I don't mean conforming to heteronormativity, I mean not needlessly pissing people off as you climb the ladder. Even if you have to piss someone off to get the job done, you should know that "ethics hackers" could exist and adjust your work conduct accordingly.
- klibertp 10y ago
  You posted several comments like this in this thread and I'm getting curious. Basically, what you mean to say is that Larry Garfield is an asshole (I apologize if I'm guessing your intentions wrong). While you claim to know him, I don't, but I read a few comments from other people, who apparently regard him "a model community member". Could you share some details on why do you think he's an asshole, who almost surely did do something bad?
  - thehardsphere 10y ago
    > Basically, what you mean to say is that Larry Garfield is an asshole I wouldn't disagree with this statement. > Could you share some details... Sure. Larry was a very productive and highly valued contributor in the community in which I knew him also. He was also simultaneously an ambitious jerk who sought high status for himself, engaged in a lot of manipulative, bullying behavior to keep that status once he attained it, and sought to change the customs of our community to permanently enshrine himself in a highly privileged position. This created a rather complex dynamic where members of our community either thought that he was a "model community member" or an "asshole" depending on what they happened to notice him doing. Eventually there came a time where his positive contributions outweighed the negative ones, and decisions were made to relieve him of certain responsibilities. Not a secret star chamber thing like with the Drupal project; it was really more of a "well, you haven't really done anything for the past 5 years because all your time is spent on Drupal, so you should really step aside now for someone else to do this work that we really need done." When that news was delivered to him, he engaged in this sort of behavior that he's doing now; sharing publicly details of the decision in a misleading way, in order to gain immediate public sympathy and hide the fact that he was asked to leave his high-status position (not our whole community) because he wasn't meeting the obligations that he committed himself to. He got away with this for a little while because the people who dismissed him decided to let him have a face-saving exit because of his valuable past contributions, but eventually everyone heard the story through the gossip chain years later. So, that's why I think he did do something bad which we don't know about; he's exhibiting the same pattern of deliberately misleading behavior when he did something not-even-bad. Either he's trying to flip Dries et al through public pressure, or he's trying to save his career by painting himself as a victim (he probably still is a victim, even if he's an asshole who did something bad; blackmail is always wrong). He's made a bet that Dries et al are not going to spill the beans, so he's taking control of the narrative for his own advantage. I will say one nice thing about Larry though: I have never heard any woman ever complain that he acted inappropriately towards them in any way related to their gender while he was in our community.
    - klibertp 10y ago
      Ok, that changes the picture somewhat. Thank you. However, I still don't understand why Dries wrote that "promoting Gorean philosophy" was the reason for the ban. He could have simply said that Larry did something bad without getting into details and without mentioning unrelated things. The problem is that - as I wrote in another comment - the reason as stated is very weak. It looks like it's designed to be defeated by Larry and to give Larry a way to retaliate. Even you say that: > I have never heard any woman ever complain that he acted inappropriately towards them in any way related to their gender while he was in our community. So really, saying that the reason for the ban is that Larry promoted "females are subhuman" philosophy was bound to stir up some controversy and generate some support for Larry. I guess I understand less and less...