> I got that too (not on HN), even though it didn't have anything to do with sex. It is terrible that some people can't engage others without trying to dismiss the opposing point of view as product of some kind of flaw in other's mind, which is not worth discussing on merits but only considered how to eliminate it.
Which slurs do people use when they call your employer and neighbors? What strategies did you employ when someone threatened to swat your workplace describing you as the gunman?
> I would really appreciate if you did not attribute to me something that I demonstrably never said. That would make the discussion much saner.
I attribute to you the behavior you're exhibiting AND the behavior you're willing to stand up for and defend. You've taken the position of owning both here.
Why do I do this? Let me quote an example of what you invoke without any actual ties to the CoC or the discussion at hand:
> I know to behave myself and I do so without any PC police around. I have done so for years before some of the PC police members were even born, let alone learned to log in to Twitter. The sad part is not "behaving", the sad part is conflating "behaving" with not veering even to a iota from the ever growing demands of the dominant orthodoxy,
Really. Even an "iota" of veering from "the dominant orthodoxy." See: you can't have this both ways. You can't restrict the conversation when it's suitable but continue to throw these little zingers in there. If you know how to "behave yourself" then this CoC is meaningless to you. A codification of rules you find reasonable. But you consistently invoke the specter of being penalized as a serial harasser, so you're offering to defend that position even if you don't exhibit those behaviors here.
> There's nothing wrong with anonymity.
Not when used responsibly. I believe this argument is used with guns as well? And we're told to blame people, not the tools? And part of that blame and penalization mechanism is a revocation of privileges for bad and abusive actors.
So what are you actually complaining about?
> But if somebody gets into a debate with you about something you care deeply about, and takes an opposing view - no, doxxing them, or trying to get them removed from their job, or trying to cause them other financial or physical harm is not the right answer. Even if you feel really deeply about them being wrong.
Ahh yes. "I'm very sorry these people are doing awful things to you that I say are wrong, but that has nothing to do with me. And I don't believe you when you say it happens because these people you accused deserve the benefit of the doubt even in an anonymous fashion, so I won't condemn them even as I condemn you for being too mean."
Sure, they suffer minor inconveniences and immediately forgiven career setbacks and I suffer threats to my life, physical intimidation and property damage but isn't it all the same in the end?
> They are people with names, jobs and livelihoods, that get destroyed because they made a joke once or disagreed with somebody on a hot political topic, or have some interests that are not mainstream enough.
Which is a overwhelmingly a polite euphamism for, "A joke casually dehumanizing someone, implying they're not entitles to the full rights of citizens, or invoking a dark history of oppression and genocide." You know, things you're invested in laughing about.
> It's their project as much as others. They are part of the community, and have a voice just as any other member of the community would.
And it has been rejected as a cruel minority who's contributions do not outweigh their harassment. We all know this. They voted, they lost. Fork Linux.
> The people who felt unwelcome before CoC could fork it too, couldn't they? But you wouldn't accept that as a solution, would you?
Actually, "go work on another project" has been the solution for women, LGBT people and introverts interested in that project. This is simply a shift in the window of acceptable behavior. This is how Linux governance is DESIGNED to work, and in the absence of finite property rules as per land consumption, it's literally the game theoretic optimal.
What you're actually defending is harassers having control of the resources and attention of the Linux project, of course. I get that.
> You seem to be under impression that majority equals being right, Didn't you just describe yourself as being a part of a minority?
The way I know you're not arguing in good faith is that you compose these smallworld arguments in the isolation of a paragraph or two, often losing the larger plot. I'm an non-binary individual who likes Bayesian statistics and Haskell. I'm acutely aware that a being in a minority group can hold a valid but rejected opinion. Obviously.
But it's rhetorically convenient to suggest that I'm allied with some oppressive, uncaring majority that has historically oppressed your people. And it's nonsense in the context of the Linux CoC, because it is an ideal democracy. You can always win the vote by forking the community and the primary incentive of aligning with the majority is to pool resources.
The truth is that more resources (in both humans and dollars) will go to the project with these changes, and that more people will be happier there. And that's why it's going to work. And that's why folks like ESR are trying to use threats and violence and galting to stop it.