[FireBeyond]

I am having a hard time digesting that section too:

> "Reverse"-isms, including "reverse racism," "reverse sexism," and "cisphobia" ... The examples listed above are not against the Code of Conduct.

That in itself is a little 'wow'.

> Basic expectations for conduct are not covered by the "reverse-ism clause" and would be enforced irrespective of the demographics of those involved. For example, racial discrimination will not be tolerated, irrespective of the race of those involved.

At first I was confused by this, but now I get it, and still wow. "You're allowed to be racist/sexist, towards white people/cisgendered, just don't actually discriminate against them".

"Safety vs Comfort". Huh.

"It's more important that people be/feel safe than you feel comfortable" - I agree.

But if you need "cisphobia" and "reverse racism" to feel safe, then this is hugely problematic.

Honestly, I actually am somewhat shocked that this isn't more controversial.

[bitwize]

The idea is that racist remarks against, say, black people carry an implicit threat of harm, whereas racist remarks against whites do not because white people hold the reins of power. Hence, verbal racism against black people threatens their safety whereas verbal racism against white people only threatens their comfort. Implicit in this is the notion that maybe white people should feel uncomfortable, as their comfort is based largely on a system that discriminated (historically to the point of atrocity) against nonwhites.

[FireBeyond]

So to be clear, it should be a safe space, but only for some? For others, it should be a space that they are free to be attacked, as punishment for the prior sins of others? Because this isn't even equality, or affirmative action, this is saying "you are free to attack some people on the basis of their race, or sex - things outside of their control".

It also still doesn't address the core concern. If you require being able to be sexist or racist to someone to make you feel safe in your space, that's a problem.

[josteink]

Everyone outside San Francisco thinks this is problematic.

But we are banned and censored in a systemic fashion on most social media (Twitter/X being the one, big exception), and labeled “alt right” trolls … or racists, and everyone on the left is ok with censorship being applied upon those views.

[FireBeyond]

For grand irony, I am very left wing (socialize healthcare and education, de-escalate/demilitarize police, etc., etc.), and think the above is problematic.