> These are invariably motte and bailey style arguments and the notion that the > only reason I or anyone else could possibly resent CoCs is some desire to > abuse their absence is astonishing. How you could not find such groupthink > "censorious" is beyond my ability to sympathize with. I can only reiterate > that CoCs are not some kind of dealbreaker for me personally but as this is > an open discussion I will just say I don't think they're all benefit and no > cost. My disagreement on this matter does not constitute an admission of > guilt; to abuse a racket construct: there's a bug in your contract spec, it's > blaming the wrong party.
The important point is that a CoC is a choice to prioritize the safety, welfare, and happiness of minority groups over the privilege of individuals to say / do whatever they want. Sure, you might say that's a tradeoff, and sure, you could call that censorship, but whatever "cost" there is of hypothetically blaming a party inappropriately is worth paying ten times over for the benefit of making traditionally less-welcomed people more included. I guarantee you the incidents a CoC is designed to prevent occur *far* more often than any incidents of mis-applying the CoC to an innocent individual. Not realizing that is willful ignorance. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
