> It’s a bad thing because the enforcement is arbitrary and not transparent. That's not an inherent issue. Sometimes enforcement must be opaque to protect vict

> It’s a bad thing because the enforcement is arbitrary and not transparent. That's not an inherent issue. Sometimes enforcement must be opaque to protect victims, but otherwise it should absolutely be transparent. > It’s also bad because once a set of evil personas was established it became trivial to expand each of those personas to cover more and more benign attitudes and opinions to the point that labels like “racist” have lost all meaning. I'm honestly not even sure what you're saying here. Can you give some examples of "benign attitudes and opinions" for which people were found to be in violation of codes of conducts for espousing? > Maybe if only people which caused objectively measurable harm were excluded this could be called a positive thing. What, in your opinion, would constitute "objectively measurable harm"? Why do you feel that harm that can't be objectively measured doesn't matter? > As it is, it’s a power game of censoring and bullying those that don’t bow before whatever the fashionable media/activist/political opinion is on that particular day. As opposed to bullying those who have no power? I don't see how that's better. I'm also not aware of codes of conduct being used to exclude people based on political opinions. Unless you consider "people who are different from me don't deserve rights" to be a political opinion, in which case... well, I will hold my metaphorical tongue. Which sorts of opinions, exactly, are you referring to here?