>I'm going to be downvoted for even admitting this? That's why I debated even posting. I don't like operating like this. I think this is a case where a minorit

>I'm going to be downvoted for even admitting this? That's why I debated even posting. I don't like operating like this. I think this is a case where a minority of people care very deeply, both about the core issue and about proselytizing it. The rest of us are a silent majority who, like you, are rubbed the wrong way by the whole situation but don't care enough to make a fuss. To add to your point, here's what boggles my mind with this new CoC frenzy: you can enforce good behavior, even without a CoC. I don't have any popular open source projects under my stewardship, but if that ever happens, I don't think I'm going to add add a CoC. This is because, in my estimation: 1. They're political tools. The people who visibly push for their widespread use tend to have a revanchist attitude with respect to diversity, inclusion and social equality. They see CoCs as a symbolic action in a turf war, not unlike spray-painting a gang symbol in an alley. 2. As you yourself have noted, it puts people on the defensive. It makes them think before posting...but for all the wrong things. It's stifling. 3. I can still ban disruptive or toxic assholes. I don't need a fake constitution to grant me those powers. See point #1.