Maybe they could be persuaded to address just one, and see where it goes from there? The first charge I set out to refute was soooooo off base I was provoked to extreme bluntness, and was so agitated by the injustice of it that another week went by before I could stomach typing up a refutation of another charge.
WARNING: the link here is to something exuding outrage. If that’s not something you can tolerate, don’t click it. No profanity, but no attempt either to disguise anger under a temperate tone.
- Defending “reverse racism” and “reverse sexism”, concepts not backed by empirical evidence, which could be seen as deliberate intimidation or creating an exclusionary environment. click here
During the ban, I saw someone mention the very same charge in this topic, and ask how it could be justified. That was around October 9, although no traces remain visible to us now. They were civil but their post got hidden by flags, and they tried to post it again. That violates “the rules”, and their Discourse account got suspended (for 2 weeks, as I recall).
The questions they asked then bear repeating:
I’m content to stop there on this charge, but for some others I’d go on to ask “is this something a reasonable person would consider to be a CoC violation?” For example, this very post contains the word “content”. That’s evidence. Saying that it contains “content” is fair and accurate. But a reasonable person would not consider the appearance of the word “content” to be a CoC violation. Notwithstanding that some person may sincerely believe it is.
Regardless, I’d be fascinated to hear that anyone found this charge to be justified. Same ground rules: if you do, and say so, I’ll gratefully take it into account, but won’t reply unless you say you want to discuss it. Everyone play nice, please 