#not just because i havent interacted with any of the things cited as sources but also because

[trekkele]

How much violence do you think Batman should be able to get away with while still remaining as "one of the good guys"?

There are times where he is way more brutal than necessary to just your average crook. Threatening someone with crushing their skull with the Batmobile (Arkham games), to beating people senseless and unnecessarily risking them dying (some choices in the Telltale Batman game), to cutting a cannibal's finger off for threatening only Bruce himself and no one else's life (although obviously he killed some people already) (a Batman/Catwoman comic), breaking criminals' bones as an intimidation tactic before and/or after they told him everything (comics, games, movies,...), etc.

Like that's some really unheroic things to do and Bruce sometimes admits to liking dishing out this kind of punishment. But then he turns around and preaches to everyone how they went too far for breaking ONE bone, especially to the Robins. How many people really know this vicious and cruel side of Bruce, I wonder...

How would you imagine the Batkids reacting to a video of Batman calmly and in a calculated way torturing information out of someone, almost like a real villain? And his cruelty rivals that of Jason during his utrh and rhato days where he was the most mentally unstable and that's like a Tuesday for Bruce? And what if that video is a few years old, and shows a little Robin (Dick or Jason, maybe) being sent away to stake some place out or to return to the cave just a few minutes prior? Obviously they'd be horrified, but what then? Do they go looking for what happened after the torture and maybe find out it was for vital information that relsulted in stopping the city from getting blown up and that the victim was then rehabilitated and now works for Wayne Enterprises.

Just, Batman's methods were horrifying but it was enough to shake/scare this specific person out of a criminal life style, then give him a well-payed job in one of the branches of WE in another city without Batman, now having built a family with kids and the guy looks the happiest he's ever been. And this case isn't the only one, and a majotity of criminals end up like this, with only a few ending up the same as before or worse.

Like, how are you supposed to react to that??? This is the same man that's upstairs working on a charity project for orphans and cancer patients right now! You're going to be sitting at the dinner table together! The man's a father figure to most of them! What. The. Fuck.

I mean i have an answer but i dont think youre going to like it.

I think a Batman that is unnecessarily violent/cruel, or is for the sake of being violent/cruel, is a Batman that is out of character.

And i think the fact that he does enjoy being Batman, is part of it. He knows he’s violent, he knows violence is cruel, he knows he enjoys it a little more then he should. That the reason he has such a tight leash on … literally every aspect of being Batman.

Also, scolding the Robins for being too violent is obvious? Those are kids, they’re still being trained. I know fandom likes to paint every bit of parenting Bruce does as hypocritical or overbearing, but cmon on now. Being capable of something doesnt mean you have to go through with it. His kids were always meant to be better then him, and that means keeping their hands as clean as possible.

Also torture is proven to be ineffective, and if Batman is anything efficient. So thats out of character too ¯\ _(ツ)_/¯

(And Jason wasnt mentally unstable during UTRH or RHATO. He ran a criminal empire bbyboy was very stable.)

What your real question is is “Does the end Justify the means and if so to what extent” and the answer is both “no” and “it depends but probably also no”.

Also is there a reason you sent this verbatim to @frownyalfred and then to me right after i reblogged one of their posts or is that just a fun little coincidink

Edit: that last question sounds very accusatory, its not! Im just curious because this is a pretty well thought out, thorough ask, so like it does make sense that you would have copy-pasted it, but also the timing was pretty pat. Im also not expecting an answer so im not sure why i even asked.

[falliam]

Same anon as before but I do get the idea of trying to force civility. That being said, it's not my place as a cishet white person to tell people what they can and can't be offended by. Everyone who disagreed with Adam and interacted with him seemed to have the same idea that he obviously missed the political point and just meant be kind but imo, "be friends with people who have different views" as a vague idea can be dangerous, like when Ellen specifically used that good sounding idea to (1/2)

(2/2) not have to take responsibility for not using her platform to stand up against a war criminal. I don’t have a source to cite because my twitter and instagram timelines were moving too quickly but I saw more than one person say that being nice should be for the sake of being nice (which is I think how Adam viewed the message) and not as an excuse to not speak up when you see something wrong (like Ellen did)

so we can all agree that adam meant it in a harmless way, right? without politics in mind

again i dont have firsthand knowledge of the whole ellen thing and i admit i have not looked into it and havent read any articles about it or attempt to dig up her own context for this, so im just basing this on what you just told me, but yeah if someone with her potential of reach never uses their influence to bring light to some serious issues, i do think that’s bad. i don’t think turning a blind eye to things when you have to chance to change something is a good idea

i don’t think he was trying to look into her statement beyond the obvious message: the idea of treating people with kindness is generally good. i just think this was blown out of proportion and it just wasn’t necessary 

it was pretty obvious he just meant it as be kind to each other, there was no reason to like… talk to him about it or stuff since he obviously didnt mean it politically

[mavwrekmarketing]

A few weeks ago, Dries Buytaert, founder of the popular open-source CMS Drupal, asked Larry Garfield, a prominent Drupal contributor and long-time member of the Drupal community, to leave the Drupal project. Why did he do this? He refuses to say. A huge furor has erupted in response not least because the reason clearly has much to do with Garfields unconventional sex life.

More specifically, Garfield is into BDSM. Even more specifically, hes a member of the Gor community, an outr subculture of an outr subculture, one built around a series of thirty-odd books by John Norman which are, basically, John Carter of Mars meets Fifty Shades of Grey. Essentiallyas I understand ita community who are interested in, and/or participate in, elaborate (consensual!) sexual subjugation fantasies, in which men are inherently superior to women. I know all this because of Garfields lengthy public response to his ouster, self-deprecatingly titled TMI about me:

Yes, I am one of those people Despite the total lack of evidence that alternative lifestyle cultures offer any harm to anyone, there is still a great deal of prejudice and bigotry regarding it someone, I do not know who, stumbled across my profile on a private, registration-required website for alternative-lifestyle people that information made it to the Community Working Group (CWG), who concluded there was no code of conduct violation present for [them] to take any action on in my first contact with Dries, he asked me to step down from Drupal Drupal has been the cornerstone of my career for the past nearly 12 years Dries wouldnt budge on me leaving, including making it clear that it wasnt an option, but an instruction informing me that Id been summarily dismissed from my position as track chair and as a speaker at DrupalCon, per [my] conversation with Dries here I am, being bullied, harassed, and excluded because of my personal activities, which I dont even publicize much less advocate for in tech circles.

Buytaert (who is also co-founder and CTO of Acquia, a Drupal platform which has raised ~$175 million over the years and has been struggling to IPO for a few years now) retorts:

when a highly-visible community members private views become public, controversial, and disruptive for the project, I must consider the impact all people are created equally. [sic] I cannot in good faith support someone who actively promotes a philosophy that is contrary to this any association with Larrys belief system is inconsistent with our projects goals I recused myself from the Drupal Associations decision [to dismiss Garfield from his conference role] Many have rightfully stated that I havent made a clear case for the decision I did not make the decision based on the information or beliefs conveyed in Larrys blog post.

Sigh. This sad mess is something of a perfect storm of Code of Conduct conflicts. It is one which raises a number of interesting questions. It also raises several quite boring ones, so lets get them out of the way:

Does this matter? (Isnt this just prurient clickbait?)

Is it OK for an open-source community to ban/ostracize a member for being involved in BDSM, or other forms of unconventional but consensual adult sexual behavior?

More generally, is it OK for an open-source community to ban/ostracize a member purely because their belief system perhaps better described as a complicated fantasy milieu in which they happen to spend their personal time was doxxed?

These questions are boring not because they are unimportant, but because the answers are so obvious: yes (no), hell no, and hell no.

Ill unpack the first: open-source communities/projects are crucially important to many peoples careers and professional lives cf the cornerstone of my career so who they allow and deny membership to, and how their codes of conduct are constructed and followed, is highly consequential.

I really, really hope I dont have to unpack the two hell nos. But in case I do, let me quote this excellent blog post from Nadia Eghbal:

In the past, Dries mightve kicked Larry out because BDSM is a threat to family values. Today, leaders like Dries kick Larry out because BDSM is a threat to gender equality. Unfortunately, the end result is the same Beliefs are not actions. We cannot persecute people for what they believe, no matter how much it disgusts us, and simultaneously maintain a free and open democracy If diversity is our dogma, call me spiritual, not religious. I still pray for the same things as you, but I wont be at the witch trials.

Which is brilliantly put and I hope settles the previous questions. However. The Garfield Situation also raises two questions which are far more complex and interesting:

Under what circumstances, and via what kind of due process, is it OK for communities to publicly condemn people for secret reasons?

Is it OK to ban/ostracize community members for (legal) behavior which occurs entirely outside the community?

Obviously sometimes organizational decisions have to be made based on information that must remain confidential, for legal or ethical reasons. But if youre making such a decision, you really have to do so in the right way. What is the right way?

Probably something close to the opposite of what Buytaert and the Drupal Association did. Even if their decision was correct, which currently seems at best suspect, their complete lack of process transparency, and Buytaerts vaguely worded hinting-without-really-saying-anything statement, makes it very hard to have any faith in it.

Their accusations are so vague nonexistent non-accusations, really that Dries & co. could surely have told the community substantially more (indeed, anything) about Garfields problematic behavior, if any, without revealing sensitive information. For instance, they could have said theyd received reports of threats, harassment, or coercion by Garfield, if any such reports existed. They have said nothing of the sort.

(For what its worth, a well-informed source of mine reports: Its worth noting that a handful of women who worked with Larry did not report harassment or abuse from him in the workplace. We cant know for sure if he committed offenses, but if there were allegations or even rumors of his mistreatment of women we would be having a very different conversation right now.)

They could also have cited which elements of the Drupal Code of Conduct he violated, if any. They have not done so but theyve expelled him anyhow. Isnt that Code of Conduct, and its associated Conflict Resolution Policy, supposed to be what dictates the rules of behavior and interaction in the community? Doesnt overruling that written code with arbitrary decisions made for secret reasons reveal that in practice it is an irrelevance with no actual weight or importance?

I reached out to Buytaert in the hope of clarification; he did not respond.

Its hard not to get the impression, from the little that we do know, and the manner in which it has been miscommunicated, that whats actually deemed unacceptable here is that Garfields kink has spilled outside of his personal life i.e. that his real sin is that he was doxxed. Which, as noted, is firmly in hell no territory.

It is of course entirely possible that this impression is incorrect, and that Buytaert and the Drupal Association have done the right thing. But they have offered no evidence, no arguments, and no reasons for their decision. It seems obvious to me that they have a moral obligation to their community to do so. You cant ban people without at least sketching the outline of what it is they did wrong. Just trust us is not enough

especially since it also seems possible that the CTO and co-founder of a heavily funded pre-IPO company has participated in expelling a man from what his been his professional community for the last twelve years, ignoring that communitys own Code of Conduct and Conflict Resolution Policy, because it was decided he was guilty of, essentially, thoughtcrime; that no real accusations have been made, and no allegations of problematic behavior have been cited, because none such exist.

A third plausible scenario, based on the tea leaves of Buytaerts phrase actively promotes, is that Garfield has been banned for expressing views outside the Drupal community which are deemed unacceptable inside. This is not a new issue in the open-source world: I wrote about it last year, in the context of Curtis Yarvin and Opalgate:

Should communities accept people who hold repugnant views, as long as they dont express them within that community? Or should they be expelled, because its assumed that their views influence their community work in a negative way, or because their presence makes other people feel unsafe?

Personally, both answers make me feel deeply uneasy. Humans are messy, complex, and contradictory; human interactions are that squared; the results are so complex and context-sensitive that they often need to be judged on a case-by-case basis, rather than by any hard-and-fast rule.

although in those cases, the views in question were clearly expressed publicly, not privately, and were not intended as part of any BDSM fantasy world. Does that apply here? Who knows? Certainly not the Drupal community.

Its impossible to judge the Garfield situation, because all we are permitted to know is that it has been prejudged for us, by people who refuse to tell us anything about either their evidence or their decision process. It is, however, very easy to judge whether the people who have made and communicated this decision are, by the way they have done so, actually serving their community. And that answer is, once again, Im sorry to say: hell no.

Read more: http://ift.tt/2nTPgr2

 The post Sex and Gor and open source appeared first on MavWrek Marketing by Jason

http://ift.tt/2nYOid8