You are making a general point, but does it apply specifically?

Here's the Python Code of Conduct for communication on official Python forums, and comm+behavior at official Python events: https://policies.python.org/python.org/code-of-conduct

What specific items do you disagree with?

* The top section "Our Community" is just general stuff like "be respectful." Is that a problem?

* The list of "Inappropriate Behavior" for meatspace Python events, what is wrong with it? Harassment, Deliberate intimidation, stalking, Incitement of violence, Insults, put downs, or jokes that are based upon stereotypes...

I'm sure we will all find some items we disagree with (really, no reference to "hugs"???) but you are challenging the very premise of a CoC.

The problem is selective enforcement and different interpretation of the listed terms. The Steering Council itself has been guilty of at least (verbal) harassment, insults, put downs and sarcastic jokes.

But they are safe.

I am challenging the very premise of a CoC. They are useless newspeak documents made only to enforce the ideology of those in positions of power and not benefit the project. “Don’t be an ass” is standard fare in polite society. Do you need to be told “don’t scream at people” every day when you leave the house? Perhaps those with low inhibition and self-control need such a reminder, but I would argue those are the ones enforcing them the hardest. They are redundant in every form and your argument is reductive. “See? You can’t complain about this part, it’s standard etiquette! And even if you do disagree, don’t we all find things we disagree with?” It ignores the entirety of the point, which is that the sum of a CoC is torturous to a project, and makes it unlikely people will want to play ball with a project due to their loaded nature.

CoCs were invented by non-programmers to push ideological beliefs to programmers, and was accepted because they weren’t immediately toxic to the community. Akin to a cancer taking time to spread.

> Do you need to be told “don’t scream at people”

Not any more, now I've been told

I am one of those people who had to be told. Glad I was to.d why people were scared of me. It was very helpful

If you do not need it, good on you. Do not read it

> You are making a general point, but does it apply specifically?

Yes. What you are missing is the separate "Enforcement Procedures" section: https://policies.python.org/python.org/code-of-conduct/Enfor... . Some quotes:

> If the incident occurred outside the community, but a community member's mental health or physical safety may be negatively impacted if no action is taken, the incident may be in scope.

IOW: they hold themselves free to go after people for stating political opinions entirely outside of any Python-related context, if someone else in a Python space deems those opinions sufficiently traumatizing.

> Does this pose a safety risk? Does the behavior put a person's physical safety at risk? Will this incident severely negatively impact someone's mental health?

Again, getting "triggered" by something is considered a matter of "safety". Some people are apparently fragile, and not responsible for their own actions, while others have a moral duty not to offend them.

> A person who makes a report should receive a follow-up email stating what action was taken in response to the report. If the work group decided no response was needed, they should provide an email explaining why it was not a Code of Conduct violation. Reports that are not made in good faith (such as "reverse sexism" or "reverse racism") may receive no response.

IOW: you have no recourse if people discriminate against you for being white or for being male. Not only that, but proposing that such a thing occurred is considered inherently "bad faith". And they will stuff terms in your mouth for this that you didn't actually use. [0] But not only that, when I was banned, they held up such an argument (by the way, the accusation that I even made such an argument was completely false) as itself a Code of Conduct violation, despite no language in that document which could possibly support such a claim.

Speaking of which, they don't even follow these procedures if they're inconvenient. See the "Follow up with the reported person" section? None of that bears any resemblance to how I was treated. (Not that it could, because I did nothing wrong and my "behaviour" had no reasonable "negative impact". [1])

There are tons of other "cultural" aspects you seem to be unaware of here. For example, defenders of the Work Group and their policies will constantly bring up (without naming names, as if anyone were unaware) the Adria Richards "Donglegate" incident from PyCon 2013. This is always described as a cautionary tale about what might happen to others like Richards without their CoC enforcement. It is never mentioned that Richards eavesdropped on a private conversation, took offense to a joke not intended to cause harm to anyone (and not even jokingly proposing any harmful idea!), and then ignored all the incident reporting procedures in the newly written PyCon CoC, opting instead to skip straight to social media for a round of public shaming.

[0] It's people with this political position who use the terms "reverse sexism" and "reverse racism"; people who correctly recognize the fact that racism can victimize white people (and be directly the fault of people who are not white, acting fully on their own agency) also correctly just call it "racism". Similarly for sexism.

[1] If you don't take that at face value, you are welcome to read my own backup of my posts related to the banning: https://zahlman.github.io/dpo_archive/ .

It's starting to swing back already, as people are beginning to realise where this ~decade of identity-over-competence is leading us.

I think people are starting to see the long term consequences now; but the problem has been building for decades.

You don't get every university across every ostensible democracy banning free speech yet permitting physical violence against 'the far right' over night.

You need to subvert and replace the establishment piece by piece.

What we're seeing now is what happens when that sort of incompetence starts to impact manufacturing, engineering, production and the training the people in the field.

So the whole damned thing is turned on its head;

Here's an example: during Covid, the only people who were not purged from the medical establishment were those who adhered to the narrative. That's disturbing - the so called health care system intentionally purged of any person critical enough to question that narrative.

And even now that health care system retains the same personal and repeats that same line.

(If you really wanna know what the actual numbers look like the only people with numbers that can be trusted are funeral homes and insurance providers.)

But right now (in the middle of a health care crisis) some of the most competent doctors, nurses, etc remain unable to work because of mandates for them to undergo an invasive experimental procedure (from some of the least trustworthy companies in the world).

(That is to say, any bloody doctor I'd be even remotely inclined to trust with my wellbeing.)

Competency purged; 100 flowers pruned.

I could go on and on, but I shouldn't, so I won't.

Adios.

Try posting something critical of the cult on r/conservative. There’s nothing uniquely leftist about censorship.

I can't; I got permabanned from the site for hate speech.

What did I say? That it's unfair for men to compete in women's sports and that TRAs use bad faith tactics like deplatforming as a means to silence their critics and avoid debate.

The weaponisation of censorship is predominantly a far left tactic.

> The weaponisation of censorship is predominantly a far left tactic.

Incorrect. It's an authoritarian tactic, which can either be left or right.

On the right today is Idaho with their new book banning law prohibiting minors from accessing books with LGBTQ+ themes (regardless of whether there was any sex or not).

On the left, you have Tipper Gore which was famous for advocating for the sticker placed on CD's to alert people of potentially terrible lyrics.

> On the right today is Idaho with their new book banning law prohibiting minors from accessing books with LGBTQ+ themes (regardless of whether there was any sex or not).

This is misleading. It's against anything pornographic being made accessible in schools / to people under 18 years old, LGBT or otherwise. "Homosexuality" is mentioned only once:

> 3. "Sexual conduct" means any act of masturbation, homosexuality, sexual intercourse, or physical contact with a person's clothed or unclothed genitals, pubic area, buttocks or, if such person be a female, the breast.

In a section that's 11 points long. Besides which, this whole section already existed, it was just amended recently and this part I quoted wasn't changed.

There is nothing that in the law that allows the libraries to defend whether a book is harmful to minors once the challenge is made. So any challenged books have to go into the adults-only section.

26% of books challenged in 2023 had no sexual content. Since the library has their hands tied, those books must go into the adults only section. Including the books on Rosa Parks.

https://idaholibraries.wildapricot.org/resources/Documents/C...

I see you are not even trying to defend your previous assertion that Idaho is "prohibiting minors from accessing books with LGBTQ+ themes (regardless of whether there was any sex or not)". Instead you have sent a couple of new soldiers into the fight.

I'm sorry, do you really need to be so damned pedantic?

Today - in the present, given the relative levels of influence of the different authoritarian groups, it is predominantly the far left that is engaged in the weaponisation of censorship.

I can't take the children's library arguments seriously any more.

Right now there are books in school libraries that are too obscene to be read from in council meetings.