Let me give you an example: you have a group of friends. Two of your friends have recently experienced a miscarriage. The implicit rules in your group have now expanded to include "no dead baby jokes" (depending on how dark your group's humour was, this might always have been a rule). The reason for this expansion is that two members of the group will now be hurt, upset and offended by those jokes. Making a "dead baby joke" is now a good reason to think the offender is an insensitive idiot, who probably isn't someone you want to be friends with.

This is no different from "no jokes about fags" when your group includes gay people. But sometimes, some people insist on being able to make "fag jokes" because "snowflakes are over-sensitive". Of course, they may not know the group includes gay people, and the gay people in question may not want anyone else to know their sexual orientation (none of anyone else's business). So it's better to spell it out explicitly that "fag jokes" are not allowed, even though there are apparently no gay people in the group. This is what a Code of Conduct does.

Yes, there are Purity Spirals that end up pushing this to extremes. But that's a separate issue. Codes of Conduct are still a really good idea.

In public discussions there has to be some baseline ability by the reader to accept that they can be offended while the value of what was said to the rest of the audience may outweigh their own feelings. The implicit rules of what is acceptable to talk about, especially online, have been getting stricter to the point of being ridiculous in my experience.

The core reasoning behind Codes of Conduct is sound.

Quite agree. Thus my proposal to create smaller, more controlled discussion groups. The larger the group, the more difficult it is to build a code of conduct that will satisfy all participants.

But it is very likely same sensitive people will jump and say "how can one be quiet when XYZ minority group is getting harassed/attacked/bullied/doxxed ? Say something don't be quiet on grave injustice." By saying something most likely means always in favor of over sensitive folks. If one tries to bring in different POV which does not fit the offended person's worldview, the person who said something is now racist or some kinda anti-minority douchebag.

So to me COC have one main point that is to attack on people who you do not like.

Try organising an event without one and with one, and you'll see. They an extremely useful tool. The fact that (like most tools) you can also weaponise them doesn't make them not useful.

Should a CoC have a "no politics" rule? No profanity (in an 18+ group)?

In any group you will need to agree on a set of rules about these things. A Code of Conduct doesn't change that, just makes it explicit.

The reason that Codes of Conduct are good is that it makes the life of an organiser so much easier. If Bob is being weird around the ladies (again), then an organiser can take him to one side and point to the "no being weird around the ladies" clause in the CoC. This is a massively easier discussion than without the CoC, where they would have to explain to Bob that his behaviour around the ladies was causing them distress, etc.

Yes, this includes "grey" areas, because it involves human feelings and emotions. Charles might behave in a similar manner to Bob, but not be "weird" about it, and people find him funny not creepy. Therefore he's not breaking the "don't be weird around the ladies" rule. That's down to human perception, unfortunately for Bob.

But that rule already existed, and was already "grey". Without the CoC, the organiser would still need to take Bob to one side and have the chat. Because weirding out the female members of the group is a dick move regardless. And Charles would still get a pass because he wasn't being weird. The CoC hasn't changed anything, just made it explicit.

So it's all down to the interpretation (of both the CoC, and whether behaviour falls within it) of the organiser? Especially under such vague standards as "being weird" or "being creepy?

This sound like the exact problem with CoCs. And the "rule-breaking" aspect goes both ways. It's eventually a way to streamline the process by shutting down group dissent. Work fine if the rules, and their enforcement are just; not so much otherwise.

> But that rule already existed, and was already "grey"

No it didn't. The reasoning behind the rule did, but not the rule. Once the rule exists people can appeal to the rule directly without considering the reasoning behind it; Much like arguing that abortion is bad because it is murder, without reconsidering why murder is bad in the first place and re-engaging with that logic in the context of abortion.

What you're missing is that this is something that will happen anyway, explicit CoC or not. Someone with power will always be in a position to judge the rules and enforce them in his own way on someone without power, by definition.

But if there is an explicit code, you are warned in advance of the actions that will more likely trigger enforcement, instead of finding them after the fact.

Therefore, you can decide to avoid those actions, or avoid the event entirely. In some ways, an explicit CoC is giving more power to participants over the organizer, not the opposite.

True, but maybe a CoC gave them that power. A CoC is a sufficient-but-not-necessary condition for such abuses.

> an explicit CoC is giving more power to participants

In the sense that it gives an opportunity to self police. The biggest army never needs to fight.

Until a topic (think BLM kind) came along that people thought should be an exception; The usual arguments: this wasn't politics, this was basic human rights / existence; It was offensive not to allow, is was oppression to not discuss.

Basically, enough people cared more about <topic> than their continued membership, or even the continued existence/stability of the group, that may become fractured by <topic>, that they where willing to leave and make a big stink about doing so, enough to potentially give the group a bad reputation, and leveraged this threat against the policy.

If social norms change and you want your group to have continued legitimacy, you may need to change with them. Not having a code of conduct doesn't make things any different.

The you'd describe being apolitical as not being "legitimate" is chilling.

In some sense, what I'm saying is that it's not possible to be apolitical. Politics is just lens through which we analyze human interaction. You can't have social groups without politics.

If you mean specifically "politics" in the US democratic/republican party sense, that's in theory a more attainable goal, but keep in mind that under that definition you excuse what is objectively bad behavior (IBM supporting the Nazis, as an example). Not to mention that the political parties in some sense have a vested interest in making things that shouldn't be political issues "political".

And you also get into the question of what is political? Are facts political? Is saying "black people are killed by police at a higher rate than white people" political? You're ultimately just advocating for a different form of censorship, which is fraught with all the same problems as any other form, but additionally with the duty to appear unbiased in how you define what is or isn't political.

That's an inherently conservative position to take. Which you should recognize if you want to take it.

The difference now is that these codes are being challenged by outsiders to the former dominant class; and making the new groups work requires the code of conduct to be enumerated explicitly, in order to define and coordinate the new, non-classical values.