I don’t know, I think even in real life people get silly when discussing topics they have strong feelings about, and politics seems to be one of them fairly often.
I saw an economic's professor start an argument in a coffee shop about Bernie Sanders. And he legitimately said something about Sanders's socialism leading to firing squads.
Getting into an argument like that isn't even worth it or possible to win.
And the window of correct opinion keeps getting narrower. Any time there's a chance to gatekeep morality, someone out there wants to prove they're the most .
On any of the popular subs, no one's going to read your comment in good faith. They'll see what they wanted you to say and just reply to that.
As some of the article's comments say, the answer is probably the simplest: IBM.
IBM said they'd let Red Hat operate independently, but it was a matter of time before some of that corporate "culture" (aka stock-driven decisions) started showing through.
Hopefully the employees themselves aren't slowly sinking into the IBM workload. I think a lot of them intentionally left IBM for Red Hat specifically because of the ideological difference.
The one bright side of this article is that it's coming from The New Republic, which is traditionally more conservative. And the author is calling out how sad this plan is.
edit: I'm wrong? This never happens! see reply below.
Some of them don't even know how amendments work. They think the 2nd amendment was passed down by God on stone tablets.
I've argued with a person that didn't know amendments could change other amendments. Nor did he know how amendments were voted on. But he swore the amendments were perfect when written and couldn't possibly be changed.