[zahlman]

> I get the feeling like their insistence on things like CoCs is ultimately just used as a false flag to censor "wrong" opinions based on colorful interpretations of subjective terminology used in the policy.

I don't think the term "false flag" works that way, but it 110% is exactly that.

Consider how they frame the proposal to add other mods:

> intially phrased as a suggestion, with a stated goal of adding “diversity of opinion” and “tension” to the moderation team

> apparently trying to address perceptions of political bias by making political appointments

> despite this suggestion being immediately rejected as destructive and misguided by the moderation team

Which is to say, they think it's inherently wrong to put people on the mod team who disagree with their political views, when they don't even moderate a space that's about politics.

This is what you get when you have an unelected body that appoints its own successors and give it the power to enforce "conduct".

... Incidentally, this also perfectly describes the Python Software Foundation's "work groups" for their Code of Conduct (https://wiki.python.org/psf/ConductWG/Charter) and for "diversity and inclusion" (https://wiki.python.org/psf/DiversityandInclusionWG). (Actually, it seems like most of the work groups work this way.) I'm also amused at how both of these charters refer to "Folks" rather than, say "People". Seems to me like a clear signal of the intended culture, frankly.

[taink]

Can you elaborate on using "folks" instead of "people"? I'm unfamiliar with the difference as english is not my first language.

For reference, to my knowledge these words are pretty much interchangeable with "folks" being less formal I guess.

[zahlman]

> For reference, to my knowledge these words are pretty much interchangeable with "folks" being less formal I guess.

"folks" is indeed less formal, but there are other words in this category, such as "guys". The preference for "folks" is common among people who hold that "guys" is inherently sexist, and thus eventually becomes a signal of a particular perception of what kinds of sexism exist in the world and how sexism works. There are also those who believe that certain uses of "people" have become in some way or another problematic

In print contexts, some even further use this to signal especial interest in issues related to trans rights, by spelling it "folx". That requires the additional explanation that the "x" comes from analogy with other neologisms such as "latinx" that are intended not only to affirm gender neutrality but a non-binary view of gender. Because the reader is expected to recognize this, it functions as a sort of shibboleth.

Possibly useful references: https://old.reddit.com/r/socialjustice101/comments/agozlt ; https://old.reddit.com/r/socialjustice101/comments/itiisx ; https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/523419/ ; https://www.huffpost.com/entry/gendered-language-hey-guys_l_...

As little as ten years ago, "folks" might have been judged as quaint or outdated language, used primarily by older people (https://hinative.com/questions/51383). It was largely repurposed for this social justice signaling.

Also notably, you will find people with similar beliefs using expressions like "y'all" and other Southern US regionalisms, even if they're white Northerners. From my observations this seems to be intended as an act of solidarity. "Folks" arguably also belongs in this category.

[squigz]

> Also notably, you will find people with similar beliefs using expressions like "y'all" and other Southern US regionalisms, even if they're white Northerners. From my observations this seems to be intended as an act of solidarity. "Folks" arguably also belongs in this category.

This is uh... well, seems a bit of a stretch to me. Not once in all my years saying "ya'll" have I ever even remotely put it in this framing, nor have I ever heard of anything like this.

[zahlman]

I was speaking from personal experience, but see e.g. https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20211119-why-more-peopl... and https://www.npr.org/2025/07/16/nx-s1-5467295/yall-word-histo... .

[squigz]

I like when the news takes a simple trend in a community and blows it out of proportion.

I bet there's news stories talking about how the finger guns meme is actually an act of silent protest or some such.

[perching_aix]

It's like the ok emoji being an "alt right hidden signal" all over again.

Came across a so-far hopefully untainted, different memetic phrase yesterday: "millenial grey".

The girl in her video [0] successfully identified that it is largely rooted in a 2023 media campaign. She then proceeded to feature two supposedly "completely average" friends of hers as definitely unbiased anchors, and held a community poll, also supposedly unbiased. Predictably, everyone knew what "millenial grey" was, and quickly agreed it was the worst thing ever.

She even made a fun little browser-based pixel art minigame where people could customize a room with a number of colorful options, and an extra bland rendition of "millenial grey". I especially appreciated the false implication that your choices in dressing up a pixel art room definitely translates to your taste in real-life house décor; just like watching gangbangs on pornhub means you'd be interested in taking part in one, of course.

Considering this was the very first time I've ever heard this phrase uttered, to see it being used as if it was something you learned after saying mum and dad as an infant, it was approximately the most living-in-a-bubble type thing I've ever laid my eyes upon. She somehow managed to socialize so perfectly tuned around this, she had absolutely zero chance of actually recognizing it for what she clocked otherwise immediately: a manufactured outrage over basically nothing.

But then I do also keep my own - so far, rather short - list of political dogwhistles, so maybe I'm just being uncharitable with my parallels.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NyeK_Vi0Kc

[Macha]

Using the casual “folks” in a context that would ordinarily be more formal is considered a bit more liberal I guess.

[squigz]

> Which is to say, they think it's inherently wrong to put people on the mod team who disagree with their political views, when they don't even moderate a space that's about politics.

My reading of that is they think it's inherently wrong to add people to the mod team because they disagree with their political views. Which seems reasonable to me.

[ranger_danger]

Are you saying moderators should be chosen based on their political beliefs?

[zahlman]

> Which seems reasonable to me.

Surely the SC had other criteria in mind as well.

[squigz]

Maybe, but it seems that might have been their deciding factor:

> despite the specific candidate being rejected as unsuitable by the moderation team, and agreement from SC that at least some of the reasons discussed were disqualifying