No, it wasn't. He was kicked out because his sexual proclivities include the domination of women, specifically. To quote Buytaert word-for-word:
Then he's a fucking moron, and he's going to be in for a shock when he gets condemned by the wider social justice community. Acting out Gorean fantasies doesn't mean you believe, in real life, in the subjugation of women any more than acting out Star Wars fantasies means you believe in The Force.
You are correct that traditionally it'd be conservatives making a stink about someones sexual proclivities. That has changed, and is no longer true
Conservatives still seem to be where the majority of attacks on sexual activities, especially non-"normal" sexual activities, comes from.
Do liberals do it? You'll find one or two, just as you'll find any large community has its outliers. But in reality, it's telling that the major schism that lead to the end of Second Wave Feminism and the birth of Third Wave was sex, and the degree to which Second Wave leaned towards prescribing right and wrong sexual behaviors, something unsustainable given human needs. Third Wave is known as "Sex positive", and it was the result of a sizable amount of debate involving everyone from sex workers to the BDSM community that drove Third Wave in that direction.
To put it another way: it's always been the case that the two groups have had people within them that want to control other people's sex lives. Liberals have traditionally done that less than Conservatives. And Liberals are less prescriptive than they were, not more.
Except if you are into BDSM involving fantasies of sexual slavery of women
That's right. Women and men acting out fantasies which are entirely consensual and, by definition, involve no real transfer of power, in private, are entirely fine, because nobody is subjugating anyone else.
Or you're a muslim
I've yet to hear a single so-called SJW argue that Muslims are right to subjugate women.
What almost everyone on the left believes is that simply being a Muslim doesn't mean you're deserving of hatred, that you should be dehumanized, that you should be blamed for terrorism, that you should be attacked, or that you should be forced to live in countries governed by extremists.
Kinda like we'd defend conservatives too if we were told they all inherently support terrorism, or that they shouldn't be allowed in this country if they're trying to escape a fascist regime.
Bondage, Discipline & Domination, Submission & Sadism, Masochism. (The "&"s are where the same letter is shared, not any linking of the two concepts.)
It's a generic name for all that stuff where something resembling power is exchanged in the context of a sexual relationship, in much the same way as LGBT(*) is a generic term for sexual relationships where gender/sex norms are unusual.
Within the BDSM communities, you'll find they usually use the letters "SSC", which stands for Safe, Sane, & Consensual - essentially do what you want with one another, but make sure everyone consents and that lines of communication remain open so if consent is withdrawn it can be communicated, practice safety at all times (it's relatively easy to accidentally injure or even kill someone if you restrain them, for example), and, well, snuff scenes are probably not sane.
Contrary to the grandparent's assertion, there's no opposition to BDSM from the majority of people interested in social justice - in fact, attempting to suppress someone else's sexuality is generally frowned upon by social justice types.
Dries and Acquia can't afford to have anything that could set off the SJWs near them
So they're screwed then. Because pretty much everyone who gets called an SJW is going to be up in arms about this.
The term SJW proves, yet again, to be meaningless. You'll find precious few people who believe in social justice - which once upon a time were the "SJ" in "SJW" - agreeing with the notion that other people's private, consent based, sex lives are justification for discrimination.
If the article is a fair description of what happened (and that's a big if) then this is an example of puritanical conservatism run amok. Discriminating against people for what they do in private, behind closed doors, involving consenting adults only, should have no place within the development community.
Leaving aside the fact it's rarely the case you can just sign away liability..
The GPL only applies if you decide to accept its conditions. Just installing Ubuntu doesn't mean you've agreed to the GPL and, as such, Canonical has anything to point at if your Nuclear Reactor has a meltdown because a bug in Unity swapped the "Drop fuel rods/Raise fuel rods" buttons by accident.
Sure, you might give up your right to sue if you subsequently redistribute Ubuntu to others. But even then... like I said, it's rare you can just sign away liability.
Scrollwheels used to work fine. Then some idiots at Canonical and GNOME decided to redesign the scrollbar, on the grounds we don't need it any more because we have scrollwheels, despite the fact that, actually, no, quite often we don't, and in the course of effing up the scrollbar they managed to eff up the mousewheel at the same time.
I still don't know why they didn't just revert to how things were. They fixed a problem that doesn't exist, and appear to be too stubborn to admit they made a mistake.
SAS always wanted to kill R, since forever, and Dr. Goodnight hung on to the goal way past the point when it was clear that this was a losing battle.
As somebody who used to work at SAS, I can attest that their older core products are rock solid but the new stuff is often (if not always) over-burdened with issues, and released too early. I used to work with some R&D teams, and my impression was that they are spread to thin, over too many products.
Don't get me wrong, they are committed to fixing things and getting it right. Their customer orientation is a real strong suit of the company, but early adopters nevertheless should expect some pain.
With FOSS you can can get a much better picture, early on, about the maturity of a product. Yes, it's not magic pixy dust, but it is much more transparent what you get yourself into.
So, what in AmiMojo's post mentions the Federal Government?
FWIW, yes, since the mid-nineteenth century, after the creation of railroads and the adoption of a national currency, the Federal government has had power over virtually all commerce due to the fact it's allowed to regulate interstate commerce, and the things I just mentioned makes all commerce effectly interstate. I know it's not a popular thing to say, but things change. This changed 150-200 years ago and yet there's always someone who thinks that the government doesn't have the right to regulate something the constitution now gives it the power to do.
Want to change that? Either amend the constitution, or put up real barriers between the states.
The Atrix was exactly where I hoped phones were going and I was so disappointed to see Motorola drop it, and nobody else pick up (I couldn't buy the Atrix because it was Verizon only.) At one point Canonical had an alpha of a Ubuntu/Android hybrid which was intended to be similar, but that seems to have disappeared completely too.
It'd be piddlingly easy to do in hardware to the point I doubt it'd change the cost of the device by more than a few cents - make sure the USB port is bidirectional (it probably is already) and put in an HDMI out (maybe using MHL.) The software... well, as I said, Canonical already had something, Microsoft has Windows 10, there's a few prototype Android desktops out there which, if a community rallied around them, could be made usable.
This is not hard, it's just nobody seems to want to do it.
Almost all mobile phone providers in the US are switching over. They never really offered full IPv4 in the first place, with their networks fully NATed. But they're introducing real, routable, IPv6.
From personal experience, on T-Mobile if your device supports it, you can even use IPv6 only (that is, your device only gets an IPv6 address, not even a NAT'd IPv4.) If you try to access an IPv4 only site, T-Mobile's DNS provides a virtual IPv6 address that can be used to route outgoing TCP connections to that address via a proxy.
Now, some people would be unhappy with that situation if, say, Comcast were to do the same thing. But I must admit, I suspect 99% of the population would never notice, and over time, the few that do would find, say, their employers scrambling to have IPv6 gateways etc so they can use normal VPNs (the gateways to office networks, not the proxies for bypassing Netflix nation blocks I mean), and other applications that require full two way communication.
IPv6 is very nice. It really is a shame there's so much inertia.
I was under the impression it is under the FCC's remit, as they regulate telecommunications businesses. But either way, if it's just a "We think it should be under this agency's jurisdiction, not that one" thing, then that's at least not terrible.
Like the sibling post however, I'd like to see evidence the FTC will actually step up to the plate on this.
Because, in my experience, libertarians - both self described, and described by the dictionary - would generally rejoice about any reduction in regulation, arguing instead that somehow consumers and ISPs can just sign contracts that agree to the levels of privacy they want.
In the real world, that's bullshit, because you have to hope that an ISP with a service and price level that's acceptable would consider it worth offering.
Computers don't actually think. You just think they think. (We think.)