> you might find they have a very specific idea of what "don't be an asshole" means that maybe doesn't quite match what you'd expect.

For example, it says "Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include: The use of sexualized language or imagery [...]". That is codifying a very specific value, namely one of sex negativity. If you are sex positive, you are at risk of being labeled an asshole for that. (And mind you, that quote continues "[...] and unwelcome sexual attention or advances", so it is clearly in addition to what could be reasonably considered a neutral "respect others' personal boundaries" sort of "don't be an asshole").

Then, there is this whole problem of not considering people who have deficiencies of sorts with regards to social interaction, and it seems to me that that is very much part of the ideology. Try to read the kernel CoC from the viewpoint of an autist, and try to reflect on how included you feel from that perspective when you are essentially told "because we want to have a welcoming environment for everyone, we shun people like you".

And more broadly, not necessarily directly tied to the specific authors (I just don't know the specific authors well enough to be sure), occurrences like this come to my mind: https://www.berkeleyside.com/2017/07/21/kpfa-cancels-richard...

"Inappropriate" and "offensive" are so subjective that you could argue the "code" doesn't really codify anything, it just is a tool to use and to interpret as you see fit if you have the power to do so, while claiming that it's somehow a more objective judgement that you arrive at based on "rules that have to be followed".

Which parts of the code do you think are unwelcoming to people with autism? Most that I know are neutral about it or are pleased that neurotypicals have started to recognize the benefits of explicit rules. I know of a couple of organizations where someone on the spectrum led the adoption of a similar code.

Well, yeah, sure. But someone else can be sex positive and feel like using sexualized language, can't they? I mean, I am obviously not saying that the CoC should say that everyone should be forced to use sexualized language. And the fact that you can be a sex positive person and still feel like sexual things are more of a personal thing for you, say, doesn't change the fact that banning people from using sexualized language is sex negative, does it? Some sex positive people feel like anal sex isn't their thing. Making a law against anal sex is still sex negative, isn't it?

If you don't feel like using sexualized language, sure, more power to you as far as you expressing yourself is concerned. And really, as far as expressing myself publicly I'd generally be among those, it's not really my thing, at least not currently. What I object to is the authoritarian style of enforcing a particular set of values that have no direct relation to the goal of the project. And even moreso if it's done supposedly in the name of "being more inclusive".

If you are suggesting that someone could be sex positive and think that sexualized language should be banned in a "public global all-ages quasi-professional environment", really, I don't think so. Sex positivism in a nutshell is the view that there is nothing bad or shameful about sex per se. It's a thing many people do and enjoy, just as many people do and enjoy eating ice cream (and others don't, and that's fine, too). If that's your view, I don't really see how you could go from there to supporting a ban on using related language, pretty much no matter what the context. Either you think sex should be a taboo or you don't!?

> Which parts of the code do you think are unwelcoming to people with autism? Most that I know are neutral about it or are pleased that neurotypicals have started to recognize the benefits of explicit rules. I know of a couple of organizations where someone on the spectrum led the adoption of a similar code.

Do they prefer rules over no rules or explicit rules over implicit rules? If there is a rule that is enforced against you anyway, it's probably better to have it spelled out explicitly (than to be surprised by the enforcement of a rule you hadn't picked up on). But that does not justify introducing any particular new rule, only writing down what's already there anyway. And even then writing down what's already there does not justify those rules, it at best creates the opportunity to reflect on the appropriateness of those rules, and to possibly throw some of them out for good. I would think the objection is to being held accountable to rules they aren't aware of, not so much to not having rules.

Also, I'd be curious how similar that code really was. For example, "other behaviors that they deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful" is very much the opposite of "explicit". It's so vague that if you think about it you realize there isn't actually any rule there. The only thing that's really there is the "rule" that the maintainer gets to decide the actual rules on the spot.

Edit: As for something not actually being a rule, I think this is a good test: Could you possibly use it to defend yourself against an accusation? No matter what you did, you could never justify your behaviour by saying "What I did was not deemed inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful by the maintainer(s)".

The people I know on the autistic spectrum understand that there are never "no rules". With respect to language like "other behaviors", they understand the concepts of loopholes and judgment calls. They also understand that the people in charge can always make new rules even if the rules don't say so.

I don't think I said anything about sex being "just like ice cream", because that doesn't really mean anything. I specifically pointed to treating it as a taboo subject, and in that regard I would think the general consensus is that sex positivity implies considering sex to be just as non-taboo as ice cream.

> Is it also authoritarian to allow only one of them in the office?

Yes?

Just to remind you, none of this is about getting on people's nerves with topics they don't want to discuss or intentionally making people uncomfortable for the sake of making them uncomfortable or anything of that sort. This is about a ban on a certain kind of language, and only that particular kind. Isn't it strange that there is no ban on talking about death? Also a taboo for many people, also something you can make people really uncomfortable with, and also something some people don't mind. But for some reason, sex is banned explicitly, death is not.

> The people I know on the autistic spectrum understand that there are never "no rules".

I think you misunderstood my point. When I wrote "no rules" that was meant as "within a given scope", not as a global qualifier of "a world without rules".

> With respect to language like "other behaviors", they understand the concepts of loopholes and judgment calls.

The problem isn't the "other behaviors", it's the "deem[ed] inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful". Those are highly subjective criteria. It's like writing criminal law that says "The judge can sentence the defendant if they don't like what the defendant did". And doubly so for autistic people, given that your best chance at avoiding punishment is to guess what the other person finds inappropriate, threatening, or offensive.

> They also understand that the people in charge can always make new rules even if the rules don't say so.

Which is besides the point. First of all, it's trivially true that people who do have power can use it, but that doesn't automatically justify their actions. But more importantly, none of what I wrote is about whether new rules can be made, but about the fact that applying new punishment rules retroactively is unfair, and that non-rules such as "[...] or to ban temporarily or permanently any contributor for other behaviors that they deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful" are necessarily de-facto applied retroactively as the rule itself does not specify the offence.

Proper criminal law specifies in the law itself what the offence is and how it is going to be punished. The point is (a) that it's up to public consensus to decide what is punishable and what is not, not to some judge, and (b) you are supposed to be able to look into the law to find out whether what you want to do is forbidden or not. None of that precludes new laws being added. But you cannot be punished for things that weren't forbidden yet when you did them.

For some, that means finding bizarre loopholes far outside any reasonable intention of the rules. For others, it means attempting to enforce the rules with such rigidity that almost anything can be seen as a violation.

I think a healthy community will realize that it is not their rules that makes them resilient, but rather their ability to use sound judgement and be flexible about problems and solutions. Linux will not be destroyed by a CoC that tries to be more inclusive even if there are attempts at abusing that CoC.

If the leadership interpreting those rules are reasonable then they wouldn't need these rules in the first place, if they are not reasonable then the rules are useless.

Especially since CoC are most often applied in a very Hypocritical way. The CoC states "Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences" which is however only true if you have one of the approved viewpoints. Which we are seeing right now with the Linux CoC. Of course no one does anything about all the slanderous accusations that get made to oust someone with the CoC even though those accusations themselves are violating the CoC.

It is also especially worrisome that these pushes for CoC or language policing come mostly from the outside and try to dictate the rules you need to follow and the rules that you need to make people in your project follow.

What exactly do you believe that this CoC addresses by the way? I am generally unconvinced that a CoC does anything positive at all, but what is it that you believe that it does?

The way a CoC would work, I think, is hard to quantify.

Sure, it may mean that some folks rage-quit on principle, some will continue bad conduct and get themselves kicked out, some will subvert the intent of it one way or another.

But if a CoC is "successful", it will mean that gradually you'll start to see folks who were previously under-represented start to contribute. You'll see more diversity and less fear and loathing. Is that a worthy goal? Yes, for many.

"Worthy Goal" Has that worked anywhere in practice? Who is underrepresented right now and why? Do we know?

The type of diversity archived by a CoC like this is litteraly skin deep anyways and might cost you diversity of thought. We already see "wrong" think beeing excluded.

It is also suspicious to me how this change was seemingly not discussed in any way prior and that it was a very sudden change for him.

> Linux will not be destroyed by a CoC that tries to be more inclusive even if there are attempts at abusing that CoC.

Also, apart from the fact that this isn't an argument in favor: How do you know that?

Also, how does it try to be more inclusive by declaring more behavior off limits? I mean, it's a set of rules that mostly specifies what you can be banned for. Now, you might also dislike those things that are declared unacceptable ... but that doesn't really make it more inclusive, does it?

And mind you I am not saying that being more exclusive is necessarily a bad thing, but I very much dislike this kind of newspeak because it seems manipulative to me.