Both sides have very strong arguments. This is really a microcosm of the past 5 years.

* call for code of conduct. This is a tricky one, because who wouldn't want 'reasonable' rules that everyone understands? I think @mattskala is on the right track though: we're forced to choose between three classes of CoCs :
1) CoCs that are just plain restrictive, so that matters of turing completeness don't even come into play because everyone has to say what The Vanguard thinks is appropriate at the current time. (not powerful enough system)
2) The vanguard may not explicitly choose, but the CoC fails on the safe side, and restricts things that are worth expressing (incompletess)
3) The CoC allows you to say anything of value but it's open ended and you can say harmful things or wear hats that say hurtful things (inconsistent)

* ratching argument

Some, but not enough pushback on this one. "we've kicked out people for far less". No one seems to want to bite the bullet and acknowledge that perhaps, maybe, some of those people who were kicked out shouldn't have been. That one middle ground position might be "kick the MAGA hat people out" and "let more of the feds stay going forward"

* 'fire in crowded theater' argument

Some, but not enough pushback on this one. There's a call to understand the history of this issue, but surprisingly no one mentions the history of this one.

* the difference between professional provocateurs and amateur dickheads

this is an important difference

* "we should have incident management training"

Sounds sus, there was lots of pushback on this though - i think everyone in this conversation understood this