The "the evil mediocrities that enforce COCs" comment that I replied to is low-effort and worse than useless. The "all cops are bastards" phrase has a similar level of subtlety and utility. Describing all conference organisers and community moderators as "evil" is nigh on absurd, and yet that comment has been upvoted, and my reply is on -3. That's evidence enough that my reply was needed - as Jeremy mentioned in his blog post, there's an irrational destroy-all-COCs meme going around lately.
I don't actually think there's a majority in the "COCs are evil" camp - not even close, but there's a very vocal minority group that has a lot of energy and is always ready to pile into a thread that is in any way tangentially related to COCs and post comments like "Moderators are evil right guys? Remember that time it was badly enforced? That means COCs are bad!" And they get upvoted for that. It's kind of amazing.
Argue about the rules in COCs, or about the way they're enforced. Commenting things like "the evil mediocrities that enforce COCs" is just cringe-level bad.
I don't think many people are against the concept of a code of conduct itself - "hey, be nice to each other" is perfectly uncontroversial. It's when a few enforcers want to embroil themselves in a loud crusade against evil and stretch vague codes of conduct for their own gratification that we start to have controversy.
A case like this one where the rule broken was basically "you were mean" but the "victim" didn't actually care, didn't support the investigation, and wasn't even aware there was an investigation, and a full inquisition complete with intimidation and public punishment was brought out nonetheless is a perfect example of a situation where some spectators can't help but wonder if the committee is truly out to do good, or if some members are acting rather recklessly for their own enjoyment and parading around a false banner of justice to get their next high.