* "the majority of coc documents" - this feels unquantifiable, but maybe you mean a particular template? Could you point me to one that you take issue with?

* "one particular in-group of people who share extremist beliefs" - which group? Is it the same group for all of the communities or one group per community? Could you help me with an example? Which extremist beliefs? Again, is this per-community or one group with one set of beliefs?

With these concrete examples, what do you personally think could be done by these communities to make would-be well-intentioned-codes more like their abstract, theoretical tool?

Words are imperfect, and there are multiple ways to interpret CoCs. But CoCs provide additional transparency, relative to the secret, unwritten rules people use without CoCs.

> the majority of CoC documents have been templated and written by one particular in-group of people who share extremist beliefs, and so it has been instrumentalized to drive their communities further into extremism and exclusionary tactics which eject people who believe differently or have dissenting political views.'

> [...]

> And that is why Codes of Conduct are vehemently opposed by people of good will, because they are designed to push an agenda and exclude individuals, not to keep the peace or make safe environments.

Lordy lordy lordy, what a mess. Let's zoom out a bit and add some context to what you've said here. The original open source CoC drama happened because one trans person got tired of being targeted with anti-trans harassment.

One of the primary arguments made against CoCs since then have matched yours in both spirit and even exact wording, as an attempt to frame harassment as "free speech" and shield harassers from the consequences of their own actions.

Your post copies, thought for thought and sometimes word for word, arguments from that time that were created by people that desire to silence and eliminate trans voices.

The real giveaway that demonstrates this is the "eject people who [...] have dissenting political views" thing. This specific talking point was invented to frame the mere existence of trans people as a thing of politics that is open to debate somehow. The emphasis of "one particular in-group" attempts to elevate trans peoples' attempts to stop being harassed for existing as some grand crusade by a strong united front of some kind.

So, for anyone that reads this thread before it's nuked from orbit, the post I'm replying to is the core counterargument from the anti-CoC crowd: they want to be allowed to be bigots and experience no pushback, nor suffer any consequences.