I don't believe virtue signaling can ever substitute for actual virtue. If, however, a failure to signal virtue is interpreted as a vice, then this is a sticky situation indeed. There is the argument that if everyone behaved we wouldn't need laws, but there is also the argument that people still misbehave even with laws. I do not have shoulders high enough to stand on to get a clear view of this topic (I'm quite sure such heights have never been reached). What I do know is that I resent CoCs as much as I resent software agreements which I must acquiesce to in order to use something. I don't believe they are a good idea. But in the end I always click "agree" and install the software anyway.
On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Neil Van Dyke <n...@neilvandyke.org> wrote: > Unfortunately, event "codes of conduct" started, in part, as reactions to > actual bad behavior at some (non-Racket) events. > > I agree that RacketCon doesn't need a code of conduct to tell people how > to behave. But people relatively new to Racket might not know that. > Hence, the conventional "code of conduct", or maybe simply a statement that > affirms that everyone is welcome. > > For all I know, the following might suffice as a welcoming statement. :) > > Matthias Felleisen wrote on 06/17/2017 02:50 PM: > >> Racketeers were raised properly by their parents and are well behaved. >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Racket Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
