Both that post, and the article, are talking about attempting to make some correction for an existing imbalance, not reversing the imbalance so it swings the other way.

Expressing any opinion in support of "affirmative action" is trolling, apparently. Now I don't mind if you disagree with me, it's a thorny subject and is definitely wide open for debate, but modding me as a troll is just not cricket. I'm all discussed-out on the actual issue elsewhere, I'm just talking about abuse of moderation here. Hopefuly it gets fixed in meta, but I've not seen the option to metamod for years, is it still even a thing?

So far it's been about fifty-fifty. The people that work for the same company as me, they're usually ok, that's why I've been here so long, and we have a lot of excellent women including in senior positions. It's the clients and their contractors that I've mostly noticed the problem most with. I work on short to medium term projects, usually a year or two, sometimes as little as 6 months, so I see a lot of different environments and I don't have the luxury of judging them beforehand and choosing based on that judgement. And in previous companies, when it's been people in the company I've worked for, well, yes I put up with it because I needed the paycheque.

Concluding that I'm a sexist pig because I'm aware of the impact of everyday sexism is a bit of a non-sequitur.

Extensive first-hand witness.

Who said that that is happening? They said there is a bias towards women of equal qualifications. If there are only a small number of women applying, then you could hire 100% of them and not make a dent in the gender balance. If a woman has to be better than a man to get the equivalent qualifications (and yes, this can be contended, but I think it's likely to be true), why not view women's CVs more favouraby than men's?

Yes. It's sexist because women are discouraged from pursuing it. It's sexist because women are ostracised if they do. If I see a woman with a particularly impressive qualification, I would hire her over a man with the same qualification, because I know that the woman had to be better than the man to get it.

Only an idiot would bother trying to persuade someone called DoofusOfDeath of anything. It's clearly a pointless endeavour.

...was built into a piece of drainpipe.

MMMM, oh the memories...
The teacher with the Phat ass, that I just couldn't resist smacking. Then the wink and smile I got instead of the trouble I expected.
But then, I didn't change anyones wallpaper to a gross-out shot.

Seriously? If I disagree with something, if I consider it harmful to society, I will say why I disagree with it and why I think it is harmful, which is exactly what the article and the OP are doing. I think it can be assumed that people with concerns like this will, as you say, go somewhere else. There's a subtle implication in your post, however, that people with such concerns should shut up about them.

Why would getting a bootleg copy help with the licence agreement? The free version produces non-watermarked files so no-one can prove that any given video was produced with a free version or a bootleg version. If you're going to commit theft or copyright violation or whatever your legal system calls it, it doesn't really matter which route you take.

You going to watch the new Game of Thrones then?