3 ms·

> you underestimate the amount of abuse and harassment that certain groups of people face While I don't think this point is necessarily wrong, surely we can ag

> you underestimate the amount of abuse and harassment that certain groups of people face While I don't think this point is necessarily wrong, surely we can agree that in recent years there has been expansion of what is considered abuse. As with any push to change ideas, not everyone is on-board. Is being subjected to a micro-aggression abuse? 20 years ago you'd only get a "yes" from a few activists / academics. Today you'll find a vocal (and growing) minority claiming it is a form of violence. We don't all agree on the new rules, and CoCs are a method of making everyone follow them.

MauranKilom 6y ago
> surely we can agree that in recent years there has been expansion of what is considered abuse. Indeed! See "Misogyny was par for the course". I understand that's not what you are getting at specifically, but the whole point is that just because it's been acceptable before doesn't mean that it's right. > We don't all agree on the new rules, and CoCs are a method of making everyone follow them. Exactly! The intent is to cause a change in behavior, and that's not going to happen if everybody has to sign off on it. Most people don't like having to change their behavior. Again, CoC enforcement is not without its flaws, and policing interpersonal interaction is never going to be a hard and fast thing. But CoCs give everyone tools to nudge behavior away from what is objectively causing (subjective) distress.