3 ms·

I don't know why you've been downvoted, but anyone that has seen how laws have been selectively enforced since whenever should be able to easily see how this is

I don't know why you've been downvoted, but anyone that has seen how laws have been selectively enforced since whenever should be able to easily see how this is the case as well. It's the "everyone is guilty of breaking some law" principle, but applied to what is currently considered fashionable good behavior. It's a different kind of slippery slope and we'll know it when the wrong kind of people get into positions where they can enforce these to suit their needs rather than protecting marginalized communities. But speaking out against that will be seen as the same thing as an attack on marginalized, so most folks will either be quiet or move on, and these power-hungry folks will get to keep their fiefdoms.

undecisive 5y ago
I absolutely agree about both the impetus and the danger of this currently prevailing viewpoint. I will speak to the motivation however, because I'm a reconcillatory kind of person most of the time, and unlike this CoC I do believe intent is important. I believe that the intent behind those adopting these documents is protection and general social good, and I believe their adoption is very very bad because those adopting them are blindsided. Because the people writing them are not lawyers, and are not expecting them to be used as laws to be enforced, but as "good feeling reinforcers". Effectively, corporate virtue signalling (and, in some cases probably also personal virtue signalling - with all the negative connotations that brings). The fact is, when you introduce a set of rules, you have to expect those rules to be interpreted by people with some extreme biases, and ensure that the wording produces a fair outcome regardless. It doesn't matter whether you call these rules "guidelines", or a "code", or even a "statement of intent". They will be used as rules, and if they aren't, then what is the point of writing them?
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  > I believe that the intent behind those adopting these documents is protection and general social good Although that same COC says intend doesn't matter in many cases.
nonameiguess 5y ago
This is unfortunately one of those "zombie comments" because the comment you're responding to presently shows no evidence of being downvoted, but I guess it was when you commented. I didn't vote on it either way, but I will say there is some dissonance between an apparent belief that the principle of being maximally charitable in assuming the best of everyone is a principle of discourse worth upholding, but then not doing so yourself.
- acheron 5y ago
  The difference is that being maximally charitable is the right way to approach normal communication from normal people, but the people who write “CoCs” are known bad actors. You don’t assume good faith from the person that’s assaulting you.
- MadeThisToReply 5y ago
  FYI: basilgohar's comment was accurate when it was written, since my comment was downvoted at first, but has since been upvoted again.
simiones 5y ago
Selective enforcement is exactly proof that the above comment is constructing an irrelevant problem. When the rulers don't like the rules, and there is no mechanism to force them, the rulers simply ignore the rules - they don't need to change the rules. If you have bad rulers and no mechanism to change them, all giving them a perfect rule book to enforce will not produce better outcomes - they will selectively apply and interpret the rules as they want. At best, a good set of rules will make it more obvious that the rulers are acting in bad faith. But the rules themselves can't compel the rulers - only other people can.

undecisive 5y ago

I absolutely agree about both the impetus and the danger of this currently prevailing viewpoint. I will speak to the motivation however, because I'm a reconcillatory kind of person most of the time, and unlike this CoC I do believe intent is important. I believe that the intent behind those adopting these documents is protection and general social good, and I believe their adoption is very very bad because those adopting them are blindsided. Because the people writing them are not lawyers, and are not expecting them to be used as laws to be enforced, but as "good feeling reinforcers". Effectively, corporate virtue signalling (and, in some cases probably also personal virtue signalling - with all the negative connotations that brings). The fact is, when you introduce a set of rules, you have to expect those rules to be interpreted by people with some extreme biases, and ensure that the wording produces a fair outcome regardless. It doesn't matter whether you call these rules "guidelines", or a "code", or even a "statement of intent". They will be used as rules, and if they aren't, then what is the point of writing them?

raxxorrax 5y ago
> I believe that the intent behind those adopting these documents is protection and general social good Although that same COC says intend doesn't matter in many cases.

nonameiguess 5y ago

This is unfortunately one of those "zombie comments" because the comment you're responding to presently shows no evidence of being downvoted, but I guess it was when you commented. I didn't vote on it either way, but I will say there is some dissonance between an apparent belief that the principle of being maximally charitable in assuming the best of everyone is a principle of discourse worth upholding, but then not doing so yourself.

acheron 5y ago
The difference is that being maximally charitable is the right way to approach normal communication from normal people, but the people who write “CoCs” are known bad actors. You don’t assume good faith from the person that’s assaulting you.
MadeThisToReply 5y ago
FYI: basilgohar's comment was accurate when it was written, since my comment was downvoted at first, but has since been upvoted again.

simiones 5y ago

Selective enforcement is exactly proof that the above comment is constructing an irrelevant problem. When the rulers don't like the rules, and there is no mechanism to force them, the rulers simply ignore the rules - they don't need to change the rules. If you have bad rulers and no mechanism to change them, all giving them a perfect rule book to enforce will not produce better outcomes - they will selectively apply and interpret the rules as they want. At best, a good set of rules will make it more obvious that the rulers are acting in bad faith. But the rules themselves can't compel the rulers - only other people can.