[aikah]

> That post uses "SJW" as a slur for activists.

No, it's fitting, "SJW" are slacktivists, not activists. When James Kyles throws a tantrum and insults people working for Palantir or Microsoft on Github issue pages, he might win a few internet points and likes on twitter, but he is not making a difference in the real world.

[atoav]

I still don't see how this links to Linux having a Code of Conduct. If there is never a problem with sexism/racism/harassment, you can simply ignore this text. If there is one, there needs to be no discussion about whether it is accepted or not.

I am against thought police, but Linux is about code. It is not hard to keep your thoughts about people to yourself and instead try to critique code in a fair fashion. It doesn't matter if a man, a woman, a dog in a costume or a billion monkeys on typewriters wrote the code. Bad code is bad, good code is good.

Anything that stops people from making it about people rather than code is also good IMO.

[aikah]

> Anything that stops people from making it about people rather than code is also good IMO.

No, it doesn't, this Drupal story demonstrates that COC are useful to get rid of people one doesn't like because they somehow "hurt" somebody by doing something in their private life.

https://www.inc.com/sonya-mann/drupal-larry-garfield-gor.htm...

[atoav]

The CoC clearly speaks about harassment and not about personal lifestyle choices. If you keep your private life to yourself you should be fine.

Can a CoC be abused? Sure, if the community culture allows it. Does that possibility invalidate a CoC alltogether? Probably not.

A CoC will codify allowed behaviour which decreases the freedom for some forms of expression, most of which were destructive in nature and wasting everybodies time anyways. So in a certain sense you loose something, but you will also get something. Very talented persons who are to shy to use their ellbows all the time might be more willing to contribute etc.

IMO a ok tradeoff