I cannot accept this reversing. The policy statement clearly defines boundaries, and doing harm is beyond this boundary. I think you’re confusing community boundaries – the sort of things we do not accept – with some abstract relativist worldview. We’re not talking about enforcing stuff on people, but simply to mark a line of no-go. Following your logic, we should be complacent with fascists because they do not agree with social justice. Well, no: it is not us who harass people and threaten them.
Then we do not have boundaries. Or can we? If you can come back with a proposal that makes sense, not enforcing a single world view, I can start thinking about it, but your binary flipping of a coin does not make any sense.
This policy is to encourage diversity, not diversity-averse uniformity. Being a bigot is not being diverse, it’s being against diversity. Shedding light on a problem does cast shadows, but also marks limits.
AFAIC the main objection made by @kaniini is that it feels like making software developers responsible for the abuse of some of their users. What I’d like that we clarify is that it does not: but it also encourages that software developers do not sympathize with harmful users and communities. If you respond to a security bug, it makes sense to fix it ; if you respond to a plead for help and support from an adversarial group, it’s another story. But still, we’re not a police force. This is a line drawn in the sand, if you cross it, it’s legitimate for the community to question your presence, and it’s fair that you’re
given a chance to think about it and act accordingly (that’s the meaning of:
So, to conclude : this is not about identity politics nor a binary coin that you can flip ; it’s about unwanted behaviors and the limit we draw for active participation in this community.
I hope we can advance to actual proposals.