zlacker

>>elikog+(OP)
Skimming the letter makes it look like another attempt at pushing through their Code of Conduct (RFC98) targeting "ideas rooted in fascism or bigotry", whatever that means. Now going a step further by erasing the people in charge.

>>sudden+ja
> targeting "ideas rooted in fascism or bigotry"

Is targeting "ideas rooted in fascism or bigotry" a bad thing?

>>Pareto+Gb
Yes, because "ideas rooted in fascism or bigotry" is a vague phrase lacking any clear definition, and risks becoming a cudgel for cliques to use to shut down anyone who disagrees with them.

>>skissa+JJ1
Slippery slope fallacy, however I agree the wording is too vague and needs to be more specified. Facism / bigotry are catch-all terms for a broad range of things, and the RFC should link to or include the definitions they consider, with a caveat that they may be updated at a later time.

>>Cthulh+lr2
> Slippery slope fallacy

How is what I said a "slippery slope"? And what makes it fallacious?

> Facism / bigotry are catch-all terms for a broad range of things

Why not then drop those terms, and replace them with more specific terminology?