> This is the oddly standard wording used in defense of these newly-fashionable 'everything you've ever done ever can be used against you' contributor codes of conduct and I have to find it very disingenuous.

Please provide me an example of a code of conduct you find objectionable on these grounds. I have yet to see one that fits the language used both in this and the parent comment I originally replied to of being "orwellian."

Let's address first your use of the phrase 'people who want to exterminate people.'

Is that hyperbole or do you really believe it?

Do people exist who want to exterminate other people? Yes absolutely. There is AMPLE, AMPLE horrific historic precedent for this.

Okay, I see it's going to be that type of discussion. Thanks for your time.

Then name some. (And I mean people relevant to the discussion, no fair saying Vladimir Putin.)

Clearly you have not followed this topic closely, how about you look into the DruPal issues or "Dongle Gate" or the Firing the Firefox CEO, James Damore, or 100's of other examples of people being removed from projects for differences of opinions far far far far less than wanting to "exterminate" people

It's projection. The people making that accusation are themselves all-but-literally exterminating individuals from society. They are engaging in dangerous levels of othering using a cloak of false kindness.

And you believe that's the result of a concerted effort? As opposed to changing social norms?

I believe it is result of a raise in Authoritarian ideology in both technology and in wider society, This streak of Authoritarianism is coming from both "political sides"

The concepts of pluralism, tolerance, and peaceful coexistence with people whom we disagree is replaced with forced acceptance, mono-culturalism, speech controls and a rank intolerance of opposing views often supplanted with a rather obtuse perversion of the "paradox of tolerance" where by intolerant people of both political sides justify their actions actions as morally and ethically correct, as being on the "correct side of history" or other such platitudes

The "paradox of tolerance" is much better stated as the "contract of tolerance." Anyone who agrees to be tolerant, is entitled in turn to tolerance themselves. This ensures that intolerable views, such as the view that certain lifestyles are inherently immoral based on one's beliefs, are not respected. Because they shouldn't be. If your personal moral compass has decided that women deserve fewer rights, that's perfectly fine for any woman who also subscribes to that belief system to accept their reduced stature in society. Why they would do that, I have no idea, but if they want to, good for them. However you are not entitled to inflict that intolerance on other people who don't share that belief.

Ergo: if you treat everyone around you with the respect and recognition of their personhood, you in turn are 100% entitled to that same respect and recognition. If however you make statements or act in such a way as to diminish the personhood of others, you are no longer entitled to that respect.

I think it's a nice little system and resolves the paradox quite nicely. To promote a tolerant society means being intolerant of intolerance.

A forced monoculture from both sides? How does that make sense?

Easy, both are trying to enforce their view of culture on the other via law and other government regulation.

The right is most seen on this in the modern era Womens Rights, Schools, Gay Marriage, etc

The left is most seen on this with Speech Codes around "Hate Speech" and Pronouns, in Employment Regulations, in Equity Regulation (enforced by law not market) ,etc

But that's not a monoculture - those are two, very different cultures, actively competing with each other

No that is 2 very different mono-culture attempting to eliminate the other

You seem to believe that because 2 cultures exist it is "multicultural" but that is not the reality, "multicultural" would be accepting the other culture as equally as valid as your own, tolerating their existence in a legal and market framework (i.e willing to do business with them, and not use government power to make their culture illegal)

What we have today is 2 cultures attempt each attempting to banish the other both using markets, and using governments.

I think that's a vast overdramatization based upon reading the most fringe elements into everything else. The reality is the vast majority of people exist well within the edges and aren't anywhere near as fatalistic as you describe