And having a code of conduct is a sign that this place is so terrible so regularly that it needs a code of conduct to get people to be civil to each other.

OR, everyone in power is a satirical HOA tyrant type character whose primary hobby is rule-making.

Either way, code of conduct is also generally code for grumpy and to be avoided, lest your time there be spent in moral lectures and petty arguments instead of on whatever the ostensible topic is.

I try to go places where people get along without a codified list of civil behaviors, because then I know I'm in the company of adults.

More likely the uncivil behaviours go unnoticed by you.

This kind of thing is what I see all the time and it's just exhausting at this point. One is always apparently blind as quick as they present a view of things not always being so bad without a legal document to direct behaviour. It's the assumption that people are barbarians by default and need to be herded like cattle rather than the possibility of them having some decency at all that I find the most saddening. You can have a welcoming and inclusive community without such a document and having one doesn't make you much more inclusive as it's people rather than the document that provide what you're asking for.

Trust until broken and gratitude for upholding good values is the path to a better community along with giving a chance to do better. Quick punishment only leaves a sour taste for everyone.

Also, a good rule is to wait 5-10 minutes or more and see if what you've written aligns with what and how you want to say it or at least expanding on your point a bit further to avoid being misinterpreted.

YES!

It reminds me a bit of the many discussions I've had with far-right buddies of mine about IQ. The topic would be IQ in relation to 'ethnic groups' or 'geographic regions', sub-saharan africa being a popular topic for them. Also Ashkenazi Jews and their (apparently?) higher IQ. They really found those interesting, without making judgments, of course.

And while for the past decade or so I've been happy to talk about IQ, it's meaning, it's implications, ethical or otherwise, there was something about these conversations that felt off to me.

Then at some point I realized that what bothered me was the focus and specific complaints, the 'meta' aspect of these discussions. Stuff like "we hide IQ research because it might expose ethnic differences and the leftie researchers don't like that", more explicitly, but generally it was just the fact that these friends seemed obsessed with IQ in relation to ethnicity.

I realized that, having studied psychology but also always having had an interesting in the topic of IQ, until recently there were SO many other interesting questions to discuss. What 'is' IQ? How does it relate to what we consider 'intelligence'? Why the Flynn effect? Why are people with high IQ just as susceptible, or even more, to manipulation and marketing? How does IQ correlate to empathy, and how does that correlate with how our moral compass works? etc.

IQ in relation to race, no wait, ethnic group, was just one of those interesting questions. it felt like a more sensitive topic to discuss, especially in its implications, but it was just one of many.

I realized that the fact that these friends focused on this ONE topic at the expense of all the other ones (and often complete lack of knowledge) was in itself signifying something (and in my opinion not always racism, but inevitably racism if you followed them to their sources).

It's an important question, though. The belief underlying lots of policymaking right now is that any inequality of outcome must be due to bias. If that's actually untrue, then we're going to end up trying to eradicate something that doesn't exist, with likely negative consequences.

I would argue that the increasing trend to eliminate objective admittance criteria to schools are an example of this. (I think standardized testing is a huge boon to socio-economically disadvantaged kids; it certainly was for me.)

Oof, well, I don't entirely disagree with that.

I will say as a general statement that I do think there are systemic biases against various minorities (or women in some cases, who aren't really minorities in the counting sense at least), and that some 'solutions' definitely don't help.

But my main point was that elevating this complex problem, which, again, is well worth having nuances discussions about, and which, to my knowledge is generally very much discussed in 'intellectual circles'. well, it's raised to red-scare totalitarianism-is-right-around-the-corner levels of discussion that I believe cause more harm than good.

For me the debate between Jordan Peterson and Slavoj Szizek confirmed and illustrated this view. if you haven't seen it, watch it and observe the dynamic. The expectations that in particular Peterson had of this 'Marxist' he was finally going to talk to. It's fascinating how often they agree, but also how bad his hyperbole-pretending-to-be-intellectual shit falls apart.

Thanks, interesting points. I haven't seen the Szizek/Peterson debate; I'll check it out.

That's just an assumption on your end. I'm not the one going against social norms and making people pay special attention to me or else I cancel them. If anything, these codes of conduct are to LGBT what gay parades are to homosexuals like Alan Turing.

> If anything, these codes of conduct are to LGBT what gay parades are to homosexuals like Alan Turing.

Righting a horrible wrong? I'm not aware of gay parades re Alan Turing but I sure as hell commend any efforts to right that particular wrong! or even just make people aware of it.

I mean it as a movement that is meant to louden people's voices but ends up perpetuating stereotypes and slipping homosexuals who don't stand out and aren't flamboyant into such a profile.

In the spirit of truly wanting to find understanding: could you elaborate? I found the initial comment difficult to fully get in the first place (which might be entirely my fault!).

I explained my entire point of view. As an ESL I can't do better. Thank you.

I'm an ESL too and you did a truly terrible job 'explaining'. You just threw out a bunch of sentences that - I think - makes somehow light of Alan Turing's suffering for being gay. I was hoping you could explain further so I wouldn't stick with that conclusion.

EDIT: So I guess you're saying flamboyant gays ruin it for those who pretend to be straight in all the right ways well enough?