[colechristensen]

I think performative acts in a one-upsmanship race to who can be the most socially conscious are excellent joke fodder. In other words, the topics of these stupid code of conduct arguments have nothing at all to do with anybody's actual struggle or dignity, but just a sign that folks are running out of easy real battles to fight so they're making up new ones because they've not got much better to do.

[cubefox]

It's a virtue signalling treadmill. Demanding term X to be banned, because it is allegedly harmful, signals the unusually high virtue of the demander. But as soon as the term is actually banned, there isn't any more virtue to be gained from being against it, so some other term has to be declared harmful next. Ad infinitum.

[mindslight]

I wouldn't say we're "running out" of real battles to fight. It's more like an analog of Gresham's law or the Bikeshed problem.

[cubefox]

Elaborate?

[mindslight]

There are still plenty of real injustices and other problems in the world. Attempting to change any of them is hard work, because it puts you up against real entrenched interests who will spend real resources to maintain the existing arrangement. Whereas "speaking out", language policing, and fighting minor online injustices require much less energy. Doubly so for nitpicking to design some perfect system of bureaucratic code that's supposed to stand in for human empathy and judgement.

[refulgentis]

Are they that, or is that your opinion?

Is your opinion on that on-topic?