Consensual dom/sub sex cost this Drupal developer his career & community after the 'tolerance' brigade disapproved

omegaphallic · 2017-04-18T15:50:12+00:00

People thought I was crazy when I said BDSM need recognition as a sexual orination and the protections that grants, I knew stuff like this would happen, if they had found out this guy was gay this reaction wouldn't have happened.

SFDaveForce · 2017-04-18T15:30:41+00:00

Key term is "his".

If this were a woman, the "tolerance" brigade would have defended her freedom to explore her sexuality.

yy222 · 2017-04-18T16:29:29+00:00

Flirting with authoritarianism

“Inappropriate behaviour” is the irritating buzz phrase of our neo-prurient age. It speaks to a climate in which various finger-waggers still have an urge to hector the sexually unstable masses — that’s us — but lack any convincing moral language in which to do so.

In this post-religious, morally cagey era, where the cult of relativism means no one is sure what’s right and what’s wrong, the new policers of interpersonal shenanigans can’t denounce us as “vulgar” or “hell-bound”, for that would involve being judgmental. So instead they reach for that PC, frigid term, inappropriate.

“That’s inappropriate,” they say, about everything from lads’ mags to rude rappers, with none of the fire-and-brimstone of the priests of old but with the exact same intent: to censure us for doing something that they, the right-minded, consider bad.

It is never us who decides what’s appropriate; never people like Gayle or McLaughlin (who didn’t seem especially perturbed by Gayle’s come-ons). It is always them, the secular new priesthood.

Apparently we can’t be trusted to negotiate public and sexual life on our own terms; we need better-educated busybodies to chaperone us.

As a tool for Social Justice, the code of conduct recognizes no boundaries between project, person, and politics. ... So, when is a project participant not representing the project? The answer appears to be “never.”

Notice the First Law of SJW at work: the initial suggestion is that the Code of Conduct is simply about being nice, and that there is nothing controversial about it. But then, the moment that anyone objects, the fact that there is controversy only proves the need for this uncontroversial policy to be implemented. And then notice how, although the Code is said to be about nothing but feelings, it needs "teeth" and private enforcement in order to be "tenable".

And don't forget the Second Law of SJW: SJWs always double down. No sooner did Ferrara withdraw his attempt to impose the Code of Conduct on the project than someone else proposed it again.

One of those who successfully resisted the initial entryist attack, PHP project member Paul Jones, explains in detail why the Code of Conduct is nothing more than an SJW weapon used to exert political control over an OSS project:

Recently, Anthony Ferrara opened an RFC for PHP internals to adopt and enforce a code of conduct. Even leaving aside for the moment whether this is an appropriate use of the RFC system, the RFC generated a lot of discussion on the mailing list, in which I participated at great length, and for which I was hailed as abusive by at least one person in favor of the RFC (a great example of a kafkatrap).

... The Code of Conduct as presented enables its enforcers to stand in judgment of every aspect of your public, private, professional, and political expression ... one must read the Contributor Covenant as a political document, with political means and political ends. Specifically, it is a tool for Social Justice .... As a tool for Social Justice, it recognizes no boundaries between project, person, and politics. ... So, when is a project participant not representing the project? The answer appears to be “never.”

Never accept any Code of Conduct proposed for any reason. And every OSS project leaders should impose a rule that anyone proposing a Code of Conduct will be immediately expelled from the project. At a bare minimum, only those who have been contributing to the project for at least three years should be permitted to propose, discuss, or vote on project-related rules.

https://www.popehat.com/2014/10/21/gamer-gate-three-stages-to-obit/

The entryism is of the usual type: people with blue/pink ideals join red / gray groups and try to achieve social status with in those groups, then use that social status to push for the admission of – and promotion of – more blue/pink members. Once the blue/pink members achieve a majority they then change the rules of admission to create a lock on their new conquest (in the case of academia, for example, even blue researchers in the Netherlands of all places, were shocked by how blatant the process was).

The status shaming is also of the usual type: high status blue / pinks follow Alinksy's battle plan.

First, they pick a low-status target (rule 12). This target is usually a pale, bespectacled Aspergers-ish nerd) for a transgression against the norms they wish to universalize. The high social status pinks paint themselves as victims of a power imbalance, then they use their superior popularity to out-speak the target and push their version of the narrative. Pink allies in the media join in to keep the pressure on (rule 8). This is easy to do, because the act of social shaming is not only fun, but it's click-bait, so everyone involved not only has lolz, they has cheeseburger (rule 6). The toxic nature of the allegations is usually sufficient to make sure that the target of the attack does not get much, if any, sympathetic press (rule 12, again: "Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions".)

We saw this in "DongleGate", when Adria Richards told her almost twenty thousand twitter followers that she was offended by the rampant institutional sexism she experienced when she eavesdropped on two low status nerds, and the entire left wing media piled in to attack two blinking developers who'd been pushed into the limelight with out any warning. The two guys were fired.

We saw this when Gawker writer Nitasha Tiku took a break from making fun of mentally ill hoarders to attack some dweeb sysadmin as "homophobic, racist, misogynistic, classist" because she didn't like the jokes he tweeted to his friends, or that he'd dressed up as a brogrammer for Halloween. The guy was fired.

We saw this when the multimillionaires / Harvard grads who run OKCupid (the 420th most accessed website on the internet) used their megaphone to attack the bespectacled microkernel programmer who'd been promoted to run Mozilla. The guy was fired.

Title	Consensual dom/sub sex cost this Drupal developer his career & community after the 'tolerance' brigade disapproved
Author	WillaPhilly
Upvotes	12
Comments	7
Date	April 18, 2017 1:29 PM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/662tmd/consensual_domsub_sex_cost_this_drupal_developer/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/consensual-domsub-sex-cost-this-drupal-developer.925399 https://theredarchive.com/post/925399

Comments