> 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 [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
