5 ms·
It's interesting that you have this takeaway when one of the reasons the author gives for making such a post is to reaffirm the value of a CoC. Would you elabo
by jhanschoo 6y ago
It's interesting that you have this takeaway when one of the reasons the author gives for making such a post is to reaffirm the value of a CoC.
Would you elaborate on why you think a CoC and corresponding enforcement in the way the author describes is either undesirable or impossible?
- lloydatkinson 6y agoSimply put, "cancelling" (which is already a dumb concept) someone and refusing to allow them to speak at a conference simply because they said someone else's opinion was wrong is absurd. Add on top taking a week to let them know why.
- NamTaf 6y agoThat's still a criticism of this CoC (insofar as it allowed a malicious party to wield it to achieve this outcome), not CoCs in general. Or do you disagree with the premise that there can exist a CoC that is crafted such as to not allow this sort of carte-blanche bad decisionmaking?
- disgruntledphd2 6y agoThat's not what happened. The author has chosen to no longer speak because of their experience. The article supports CoC's and indeed argues against your point in the OP.