> "Sex positivity" doesn't mean you have to view sex just like ice cream. I don't think I said anything about sex being "just like ice cream", because that doe

> "Sex positivity" doesn't mean you have to view sex just like ice cream. I don't think I said anything about sex being "just like ice cream", because that doesn't really mean anything. I specifically pointed to treating it as a taboo subject, and in that regard I would think the general consensus is that sex positivity implies considering sex to be just as non-taboo as ice cream. > Is it also authoritarian to allow only one of them in the office? Yes? Just to remind you, none of this is about getting on people's nerves with topics they don't want to discuss or intentionally making people uncomfortable for the sake of making them uncomfortable or anything of that sort. This is about a ban on a certain kind of language, and only that particular kind. Isn't it strange that there is no ban on talking about death? Also a taboo for many people, also something you can make people really uncomfortable with, and also something some people don't mind. But for some reason, sex is banned explicitly, death is not. > The people I know on the autistic spectrum understand that there are never "no rules". I think you misunderstood my point. When I wrote "no rules" that was meant as "within a given scope", not as a global qualifier of "a world without rules". > With respect to language like "other behaviors", they understand the concepts of loopholes and judgment calls. The problem isn't the "other behaviors", it's the "deem[ed] inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful". Those are highly subjective criteria. It's like writing criminal law that says "The judge can sentence the defendant if they don't like what the defendant did". And doubly so for autistic people, given that your best chance at avoiding punishment is to guess what the other person finds inappropriate, threatening, or offensive. > They also understand that the people in charge can always make new rules even if the rules don't say so. Which is besides the point. First of all, it's trivially true that people who do have power can use it, but that doesn't automatically justify their actions. But more importantly, none of what I wrote is about whether new rules can be made, but about the fact that applying new punishment rules retroactively is unfair, and that non-rules such as "[...] or to ban temporarily or permanently any contributor for other behaviors that they deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful" are necessarily de-facto applied retroactively as the rule itself does not specify the offence. Proper criminal law specifies in the law itself what the offence is and how it is going to be punished. The point is (a) that it's up to public consensus to decide what is punishable and what is not, not to some judge, and (b) you are supposed to be able to look into the law to find out whether what you want to do is forbidden or not. None of that precludes new laws being added. But you cannot be punished for things that weren't forbidden yet when you did them.