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 …
-
-
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)
-
The problem is: this is already the "Structureless" norm. *Unless* tyrants want to dictate what "persistently", "hitting on", and "uninterested" mean, there is no reason for a CoC. My argument is that they want to use their illegitimate, bullying, tyrannical power to do so.
-
tyrants, or (((tyrants)))? This is all getting very conspiratorial.
End of conversation
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.