Open Source software was weaponised via the virtue signalling "Code of Conduct", in particular when language categorises people into groups ("everyone" would suffice). Exclusion was always the goal of the "Code of Conduct" trojan horse.
The goal of these things is indeed to exclude people, but what you are missing is that the people it they seek to exclude is those whose behavior in the community excludes others - the goal is fewer people excluded overall.
How, exactly, is this a bad thing?
Surly you must have been exposed to "The Paradox of Tolerance" by now?
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.
Maybe if only people which caused objectively measurable harm were excluded this could be called a positive thing. 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.
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?
- Project members must be treated with impunity if they wear footwear inside or not but especially if the footwear is required to define the personality of the wearer.
- Project members must be treated with impunity if they smoke inside or not, especially if their preference is vape brand bubble gum heaven.
- Obey the law, obey the speed limit in your country.
- Obey the law, pay for your groceries.
- The contribution of code, ideas or documentation to the project is unnecessary.
A Sane "Code of Conduct", which would not be written down because it's implied by baseline civility and common sense:
- This project requires cordial behaviour from everyone involved.
- This project is to improve this particular software (and/or documentation, artwork etc)
This seems like nothing more that a textbook strawman argument, except you haven't even bothered to make the argument.
> A Sane "Code of Conduct", which would not be written down because it's implied by baseline civility and common sense
You underestimate the conviction with which uncivil people will cling to "but what rule did I violate!?".
CoCs signal to potential members of a project/community that abusive behavior won't be tolerated - they are necessary because some types of communities historically have tended to tolerate such behavior.
My comment relates to the weaponisation of open source software, oddly enough that's the topic.