For reference, the bizarre list of “CoC violations”, supplied by the CoC WG, parroted in my ban announcement. These are so off base they’re not worth the bother of “refuting”. I started with one, and lost all interest then. As time went on, it was convenient to refute others on Discourse, and in my ban Q&A page. “⟶” at the end of an item links to my commentary:

  • Overloading the discussion of the bylaws change (47 out of 177 posts in topic at the time the moderators closed the topic), which created an atmosphere of fear, uncertainty, and doubt, which encouraged increasingly emotional responses from other community members. The later result of the vote showed 81% support for the most controversial of the bylaws changes, which demonstrates the controversy was blown out of proportion. ⟶

  • Defending “reverse racism” and “reverse sexism”, concepts not backed by empirical evidence, which could be seen as deliberate intimidation or creating an exclusionary environment. ⟶

  • Using potentially offensive language or slurs, in one case even calling an SNL skit from the 1970s using the same slur “genuinely funny”, which shows a lack of empathy towards other community members. ⟶

  • Making light of sensitive topics like workplace sexual harassment, which could be interpreted as harassment or creating an unwelcoming environment. ⟶

  • Casually mentioning scenarios involving sexual abuse, which may be inappropriate or triggering for some audiences. ⟶

  • Discussing bans or removals of community members, which may be seen as publishing private information without permission. ⟶

  • Dismissing unacceptable behavior of others as a “neurodivergent” trait, which is problematic because it creates a stereotype that neurodivergent people are hard to interact with and need special treatment.⟶

  • Excessive discussion of controversial topics or past conflicts, which could be seen as sustained disruption of community discussions. ⟶

  • Use of potentially offensive terms, even when self-censored or alluded to indirectly. ⟶

  • Making assumptions or speculations about other community members’ motivations and/or mental health. ⟶

Notes

Some of the links above resolve to write-ups below.

  • Casually mentioning scenarios involving sexual abuse, which may be inappropriate or triggering for some audiences.

There is a tiny shred of merit to this one. In my account of pre-ban interactions, I noted that a mod once told me that a post was potentially offensive. It did mention sexual abuse, but not at all casually. The mod only asked me not to use “sexual abuse” in a hypothetical example again. In context, I thought the complaint was at best weakly justified, but in the interest of accommodation I didn’t argue about it. Instead I edited two posts to use a different hypothetical example, doing more than he asked for. It showed up in my list of “violations” anyway.

You can see the changes by looking at the edit histories here and here

That’s why nobody can find any post of mine even mentioning “sexual abuse”. Those were the only ones that ever did (and the second post just quoted the use in the first post).

  • Use of potentially offensive terms, even when self-censored or alluded to indirectly.

If you can translate that to coherent English, let me know :wink:. I don’t know what it’s trying to say. That it violates the CoC to avoid using potentially offensive terms? It really needs an example to clarify what it may be talking about. If it’s referring to “XXXX”, see here.

  • Dismissing unacceptable behavior of others as a “neurodivergent” trait, which is problematic because it creates a stereotype that neurodivergent people are hard to interact with and need special treatment.

It appears to be bad-faith misreading, based on cherry-picking sentences out of context. For example, I mentioned Karl Knechtel specifically but referred to him later via singular “they”. Which some people read as the plural “they”, concluding that I was ascribing details specific to Karl to all neurodivergent people. Fair enough, but as soon as that became clear I clarified the intent, and edited the post to prevent future such misreadings. Didn’t matter. There is no grace, charity, or tolerance for human error in this process. I was guilty of not being 100% clear on the first try every time.

I’m confident that any reasonable person reading the topic in whole will agree the claim is at best misleading.

  • Excessive discussion of controversial topics or past conflicts, which could be seen as sustained disruption of community discussions.

You tell me. Does the CoC say anything about which good-faith topics can be discussed? About the extent to which they can be discussed? I make no apology for expressing what may be unpopular views, or for visibly opposing what I believe to be injustice, or attempts to evade accountability by those with corporate power. I’d say “so sue me”, but “so ban me” may be more appropriate :wink:.

  • Making assumptions or speculations about other community members’ motivations and/or mental health.

People are social animals. Speculating about others’ internal states is hardwired in most. It’s essential to compassion and empathy.

Speculation “out loud” is often inappropriate, though, and I don’t believe I’ve ever done much of that. For example, I’ve frequently speculated about why the CoC WG got so much so wrong in my list of “violations”. But I don’t air those internal guesses - none of them are flattering, and I rarely comment if the principle of charity can’t be stretched to come up with a positive interpretation.

But I did indeed speculate openly about Karl Knechtel’s internal states. In Karl’s case, his “indefinite suspension” from Discourse was part of what spurred me to start a topic on neurodivergence, and since Karl was locked out he couldn’t speak for himself. I felt I did have non-trivial insight into his internal states, and was open about speaking for him, although stressing that these were only my best guesses.

Does that violate the CoC? I don’t know. There appear to be a whole universe of things that violate the CoC that the CoC never says are violations. I try to live by the Golden Rule1 instead.

With respect to which, you can read Karl’s blog for yourself (see links on my PSF topics) page. Karl had no problem with what I did, and seems to endorse my speculations. In which case, where’s the victim here?

Or are they talking about something else? Who can possibly know, since the complaint is so utterly vague?

BTW, I absolutely reject the notion that I ever speculated about anyone’s “mental health”. Varieties of neurodivergence are no more matters of “mental health” than are, e.g., varieties of gender or sexual orientation. I would no more question the “mental health” of Karl than I would, e.g., of a transsexual person for not being cissexual. While the complaint here is too vague to know what they’re talking about, if they are questioning the mental health of the neurodivergent, I suggest they look into their own prejudices.

  1. In my view, the Golden Rule is at the heart of every compassionate code of human relations, perhaps augmented in fuzzy cases by the principle of charity. The principle of charity should also be used for judging others, and would be in a truly healthy community. I’d settle for a harsher “reasonable person” test instead, which is what most sane legal systems settle for. The PSF, alas, doesn’t appear to embrace either. ↩