This *formalizes* the role of a CoC as a power-grab. Contra CoC, meritocratic (and fluid) power-structures determine who has the power to exclude. *Democracy* gives the power to a (yet another unacknowledged) power structure of socially powerful tyrants and bullies. https://twitter.com/hikikomorphism/status/1054458396164964352 …
not sure where you're getting democracy from - this is more of a bill-of-rights situation, that is, something meant to _constrain_ any democratic process
-
-
"As a solution, Freeman suggests formalizing the existing hierarchies in the group and subjecting them to democratic control." Who has the power to dictate the terms *and the interpretation* of the CoC?
-
I linked it for the criticism of structurelessness as a solution, not the suggested solutions.
-
In the context of that criticism of structurelessness (which presumes that structurelessness is *more* unfairly tyrannical than structurefulness), the question still stands: Who has the power to dictate and interpret the CoC? If it's not *democratic* nor *meritocratic*...
-
If you had a structure, you might know
-
So... constitutionalism? I'm for it. The most progressive, rational, and just constitution puts enormous restrictions on governing bodies to censure and censor speech.
-
voluntary organisations usually have different concerns than nation states
-
If we are talking about protection of individuals (as you said, a "Bill Of Rights"), then individualistic freedom of expression, as a force for progress and error correction, is a phenomenal idea at any level of political analysis.
-
once again, though, that's something more suitable to a nation-state. This is more analogous to, eg, a hackerspace where it makes sense to have rules about how you can and cannot interact with other residents (eg, no persistently hitting on uninterested people, etc)
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.