> Again, I suggested nothing of the sort. Kinda pattern, don't you think - you claim that your opponents say or do something that they demonstrably never said or did. I wonder how many other things that you think other people said or did actually never happened? Maybe if you paid more attention to what people actually say or do instead of inventing it for them, it might turn out that there are much less evil people out to get you and much more people who you just didn't bother to understand

Ah, we're at this stage of discourse.

> Now voting for a presidential candidate who is the actual president of the US is something that one should be, if things were fair, "penalized" for but unfairly is not.

Not only did I not say that (but because of the persistent persecution complex of conservative speech, I chose to ignore that lie), but you're clearly implying that you think there are policy grievances that fall to voters and you're trying to suggest that the act of voting is a right, therefore it cannot be used to hold people responsible. You're acutely aware of the complaint and even use it in the construction of your post, but then suggest you never implied or even imagined it?

Yeah. Okay Sure.

It's also worth noting you're at the phase of tactical retreat where it's important to start casting mental credibility into play. This will make it easier for you (either in a personal sense, or within the flow of the dialogue) to disengage with the proclamation, "I have determined that you lie, so therefore everything you have said must not only be untrue, and probably the exact opposite is true!"

Observe:

> Given your track record so far, I am pretty sure he never said LGBT people are not really people and never believed it. Looks like you extensive conversations with him were just a waste of time, at least for you, as you didn't really hear him. I hope I will fare better, though maybe not.

Of course, it's a matter of public record and if you simply googled for it you'd find an extensive thread on the subject[0]. But that's not something you will do because the goal here isn't discussion or conversation, it's discrediting the Linux CoC and pushing conservative ideology as if the two are linked.

They aren't, actually. What is linked is the CoC denial and the worst sort of behavior that festers in the US conservative communities. It's not unique to the US, even. But what's remarkable is that throughout this you've gamely accepted a tacit link between all three of these concepts, never even really stopping to question this.

This is the part where I apologize for being slightly disingenuous with you. I didn't do this accidentally. I was curious if at some point you would push back on this and at any point ask, "What does this have to do with the Linux CoC?" If you had, I would have looked pretty bad, but having read a bunch of your material before engaging, I figured you'd simply accept this. The result is a conversation about written standards of professional conduct leading to statements like,

> No it wasn't and voila - there are no genocide camps. Promise kept.

False [1][2]. But cool, bro. Glad we're here.

But at least you get back to the core of your argument, "The true purpose of a written standard of professional conduct is a culture war against conservative men, who have been violating these while insisting they haven't for decades."

> [that] is not a real purpose and a real meaning of it. The real purpose is gaining power to oust the people that disagree with you (or the group that will hold the power) from the project.

The Linux CoC does indeed take away the power to be abusive and unprofessional. If you were not doing those things (out of, I dunno, some kind of higher moral principle), then you've lost nothing. Indeed, it'd be "another hollow SJW victory" as SoA says.

To you, this is about power and control. I agree, but that power has always rested in the majority of the linux contributors, as proposed by their leadership. Now that their leadership has decided on this minimal course change. That you perceive the written standards of conduct as a power loss reinforces the need for it.

I'll repeat it, for emphasis: You view a policy that condemns public abuse in a professional context as a power loss. This argument is only consistent if you felt the need to violate the CoC. No spurious arguments from final consequence, no slippery slope, no absurd category errors or examples of rules being abused can shake this single, simple fact.

> I am not sure how exactly the US nation's government is systematically terrorizing you.

I didn't say they were terrorizing me. I'm fortunate that I'm not on the top of the list. But my trans friends, they certainly are in the middle of a systematic campaign to remove hard-won rights to simply exist. We see similar reduction in legal protection of gay and lesbian people.

> P.S. please stop with the Shavian thing. It's annoying. Part of the decent behavior is not making it intentionally hard for the parties to conversation to understand.

Please stop misrepresenting your actual intent, it's annoying and part of etc etc. Please stop using your refusal to fact-check nearly anything as a basis for discrediting me, it's annoying and goes against the spirit of a fair debate. Please stop advocating for against a policy that penalizes you for being abusive and exclusionary in the workplace, it's annoying and the stakes are much higher than this conversation... in many cases it's a violation of workplace law. But congratulations on independently discovering 𐑥𐑲𐑒𐑮𐑴-𐑨𐑜𐑮𐑧𐑠𐑳𐑯𐑟, that's a good start.

Please be aware, I'm not going to reply anymore. I suspect the mods will lock this thread soon, so I'll not invite any further trouble on their doorstep.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15958365 - I quote him, "I come from an older generation of allies who supported Mark Leno et al. when they labored over, passed, and amended to full positive-rights equivalence with marriage, CA’s Domestic Partner Law", a position soundly refuted in basis of history and fact via "dragonwriter" here. I confess I was so taken aback by the audacity of the claim I did a poor job responding to it.

[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/world/americas/us-un-migr...

[2]: http://www.un.org/ar/preventgenocide/adviser/pdf/osapg_analy... and I quote, "Forcible transfer of children, imposed by direct force or through fear of violence,
duress, detention, psychological oppression or other methods of coercion;" Nevermind that under Article 6 of the constitution and our participation in the UN Genocide Convention (counting as an international treaty) the president is in direct violation of a constitutional law that supercedes his authority in all cases its been examined.