> But this is literally just a call for civility, recognizing that many people may not want to subject themselves to this kind of toxic atmosphere
The problem here is that "toxic" is something that gets to be defined by those who would use it as a hammer against everyone else. What one person considers to simply be a spirited conversation may seem as a deafeningly aggressive argument to someone else; but such is life!
The free market dictates that products will survive on their merits, and this is triply true when the product itself costs nothing - people use what works. If a particular development style ends up resulting in more contributors and better code, so be it; but there's no guarantee of that whatsoever. Some of the best code in the world has been written by megalomaniacs who would never pass a CoC sniff test.
> Added to this, note that the attack surface for such toxic behavior might be much bigger if you're a minority group.
Maybe, but there's only one group you're allowed to attack in every modern newspaper, and are not allowed to acknowledge positively in any political campaign.
> The free market dictates that products will survive on their merits
Huh? That's certainly not what the free market dictates at all. There's no sense of "merit" imbued anywhere inside anything in the free market. There are assumptions behind the shapes of the supply and demand functions (namely convexity) and a belief in price signaling information. That's all.
> Maybe, but there's only one group you're allowed to attack in every modern newspaper, and are not allowed to acknowledge positively in any political campaign.
Oh, I'm not the only one to notice the rampant transphobia in UK media and the labour party, nice.
The Labour party is having a leadership election in which Rebecca Long Bailey is an outspoken proponent of trans rights and issues. The statement you're trying (and failing) to disprove said "are not allowed to acknowledge positively in any political campaign" but she's clearly both allowed to positively acknowledge trans rights in a political campaign and is actually doing so. Thus your attempted counter-example is wrong, and I think you knew that.
As for straight white men, I'm trying to remember the last time the leader of a political party or writer of a newspaper column went to bat for those people's rights. Can't actually recall one.
You haven't proved anything other than the fact that you know exactly what I meant, and are using tactical nihilism to pretend that a tiny fraction of the population not having their every whim catered to is an issue the rest of us should care about.
The problem here is that "toxic" is something that gets to be defined by those who would use it as a hammer against everyone else. What one person considers to simply be a spirited conversation may seem as a deafeningly aggressive argument to someone else; but such is life!
The free market dictates that products will survive on their merits, and this is triply true when the product itself costs nothing - people use what works. If a particular development style ends up resulting in more contributors and better code, so be it; but there's no guarantee of that whatsoever. Some of the best code in the world has been written by megalomaniacs who would never pass a CoC sniff test.
> Added to this, note that the attack surface for such toxic behavior might be much bigger if you're a minority group.
Maybe, but there's only one group you're allowed to attack in every modern newspaper, and are not allowed to acknowledge positively in any political campaign.