> "Reverse"-isms, including "reverse racism," "reverse sexism," and "cisphobia" ... The examples listed above are not against the Code of Conduct.
That in itself is a little 'wow'.
> Basic expectations for conduct are not covered by the "reverse-ism clause" and would be enforced irrespective of the demographics of those involved. For example, racial discrimination will not be tolerated, irrespective of the race of those involved.
At first I was confused by this, but now I get it, and still wow. "You're allowed to be racist/sexist, towards white people/cisgendered, just don't actually discriminate against them".
"Safety vs Comfort". Huh.
"It's more important that people be/feel safe than you feel comfortable" - I agree.
But if you need "cisphobia" and "reverse racism" to feel safe, then this is hugely problematic.
Honestly, I actually am somewhat shocked that this isn't more controversial.
It also still doesn't address the core concern. If you require being able to be sexist or racist to someone to make you feel safe in your space, that's a problem.
But we are banned and censored in a systemic fashion on most social media (Twitter/X being the one, big exception), and labeled “alt right” trolls … or racists, and everyone on the left is ok with censorship being applied upon those views.
