4 ms·
> 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. Larr
by 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 agoOk, 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...
- thehardsphere 10y agoYeah, since my initial comments on this I understand less despite reading more. I didn't actually know that Dries originally said it had to do with his philosophy; it had already been edited to be more vague at that point. That's why I started with a "well, he did something" attitude. But the other thing to keep in mind, re: > It looks like it's designed to be defeated by Larry and give Larry a way to retaliate Remember that Larry was the first one to go public, so he's the one who got to establish the narrative, not Dries. Larry decided to make this about what he does in the bedroom, and that's now what everyone on the Internet is talking about. Dries, for whatever reason, isn't saying what "the real reason is", so he's left with no alternative but to respond to Larry's claims on Larry's terms. Dries really ought to just spill everything at this point, "liability" be damned. The project has already been hurt because the assumption now is that it's run by bigots. If it's actually run by bigots and bigotry was the reason Larry got canned, it's not like admitting that is going to hurt them much worse.