We are naive when we think, as we all do at times, that humans in our <group> differ from the others - that we have no politics or biases and aren't affected by those things, and we form some just, meritocratic ideal.

When we find ourselvees thinking that, then we are part of the status quo - the system is designed to suit us. It's very easy to think that status quo is the entire universe; just keep doing what you're doing. Instead, to avoid perpetuating the bad aspects of the system, it's essential to curiously and closely look for its boundaries, look outside it, notice the humans out there who are not being served, who may express unhappiness.

Take them at their word; they may seem absurd, but that's your human response to someone violating norms - the norms being the status quo. Their expression may include being disruptive or unpleasant. 'Disrupt' means 'violate the status quo'; it shows you the status quo's limitations.

No, it's just entryism. It's not inevitable. Long march. I was naive once, too.

Their is a lot of sociology and other research that suggests that ironically these attempts at stricter social/etc codes mostly arise in communities that don't really need them. this happens for various reasons, but it makes intutive sense if you think about it - thoughtful, well-run communities tend to think about stuff like this. but they also, because of that, mostly don’t need it. that doesn’t mean that that it is true in every case, of course.

As someone formally trained in many forms of dispute resolution, I'll also offer many of these have a significantly misguided view of effective dispute resolution. They often think some neutral and objective group of people evaluating a situation is an effective way to resolve code of conduct disputes, in part out of a desire to be fair and objective. But these are social disputes and not contract or other legal disputes. Applying mechanisms meant for one to the other does not make a ton of sense

> They often think some neutral and objective group of people evaluating a situation is an effective way to resolve code of conduct disputes, in part out of a desire to be fair and objective.

This claim is increasingly difficult to reconcile with an awareness of who gets chosen to evaluate situations, what reasoning they present as "neutral/fair and objective", and how they go about their resolutions.