I Violated a Code of Conduct

Him talking about supports a code of conduct was like listening to a shooting victim talking about how they support gun rights. It's like walking into his hospital room, him sitting up, and instantly going into a monologue about how the 2nd amendment protects us from tyranny. It reminds one of the the "Leopards eating faces" meme. If this post sold a code of conduct as a way to fight back against trumped up charges by being able to compare your behavior to stated rules, and expose arbitrariness, I think he might have actually made code of conducts sound like a great thing. Yet instead be defended CoC's by questioning the character of their critics with the line

>the anti-CoC crowd might jump on this as an example of problems with codes of conduct more generally, or might point at this as part of “cancel culture” (a concept I vehemently disagree with, since what is referred to as “cancellation” is often just “facing consequences”).

That's just such a bizarre and weird response given he did literally get cancelled regardless of if he likes it or not and is making a post arguing he's not just "facing consequences". He's like the person in the welfare lineup who thinks everybody around him is a lazy bum.

haha... 'Everyone else who gets accused of some transgression and is afforded no due-process is in fact guilty and deserving of punishment. Mine is the unique case of an opaque and capricious CoC process being applied unjustly.'

I find it funny that this fellow personally experienced the injustice of being caught up in an unfair CoC enforcement process run by some petty tyrants†, but refuses to believe that this may happen to other people, that his case may not be a wild aberration but a predictable norm, given the system and culture. I wonder what it would it take for Jeremy to say "Maybe this process has fundamental problems. Maybe a lot of the other people who have been burned by this have also been treated unfairly."

If someone can keep the faith even when they personally experience the injustice of a system like this, I don't what would change their mind.

† according to his account. As jpeloquin notes ITT, little is known to us third parties about the facts of the case.

This seems like a pretty reasonable use for a CoC in my view--flirting isn't ubiquitously taboo (unlike racism, trolling, or overt sexual harassment) nor should it be, but it's understandable that a community would prefer to just prohibit it outright and set that expectation clearly up front.

CoCs should focus narrowly on this kind of thing (of course, without giving the impression that these are the only offenses that a person might be kicked out for), and proponents of CoCs should talk about this. Instead, much of this thread is talking about racist trolling, as though CoCs are necessary or sufficient for dissuading a racist troll (everyone understands racism is unacceptable; if you're motivated to cross that line anyway, a CoC isn't going to deter you).

> but they're usually (as evidenced by this very OP) applied inconsistently, politically

Do you have the impression OP was a political disagreement?

> Professionals tend to act professionally.

Yes, but people aren't robots. These are still human interactions between people. You develop personal relationships at conferences, or fail to. People with a hostile attitude toward minoritized groups, whether explicitly expressed or not, are going to make these people feel less welcome, and as a result, they will have a worse outcome at the conference.

You don't hear about the system working right because it's inherently non-controversial.