This is a an argument built on appeals both to Eric S. Raymond and the last several years of Twitter/Tumblr drama. It doesn't even discuss the CoC; instead, it adopts as a premise that any CoC that refers to "safety”, “welcoming” and “respect" must be tool of Twitter oppressors. There are valid arguments against widespread adoption of CoCs (for instance: they can end up as window dressing). But this isn't an example…
I see no appeals to ESR (just a "for-further-reading" reference). Did we read the same article? And claiming an argument is "built on twitter drama" is a meaningless abstraction.
> It doesn't even discuss the CoC; instead, it adopts as a premise that any CoC that refers to "safety”, “welcoming” and “respect" must be tool of Twitter oppressors.
This is a silly and naive argument (unless it's just flat-out dishonest). If you proposed selling ground beef hamburgers at a vegetarian restaurant, would you expect the response from the vegetarians to include a detailed dissection of the proposal? No, it would just note that it involved a proposal to sell meat and thus wasn't appropriate for the restaurant.
There's no agreement that a Code of Conduct is even necessary. Jumping right into debating the details of the CoC means you've skipped over that very crucial argument of whether a code of conduct is even a good idea in the first place, regardless of what is in it, specifically. It's dishonestly narrowing the frame of the discussion to favor the decision desired by the CoC faction.