And the first response to this sort of thing, when it crosses a line, is gentle correction. We should presume good intent and – especially in a worldwide, multi-cultural community – assume that there might be some gap between what person X says and what person Y hears.
If there’s a systematic problem, stronger action might be needed. We should try our best to resolve things using the smallest action that achieves that goal, but if dialogue and gentle guidance aren’t doing the job and we have to temporarily restrict someone, so be it. “That’s just how so-and-so is; he doesn’t mean anything by it” is not an acceptable excuse for rudeness.
It doesn’t have to be restricted as hate speech; it’s already restricted as rude and/or harassment. Continuing to espouse a position to be provocative, after being told by others that it’s not ok, violates our code already. We do not need to spell out every detail. I agree that adding “threats” explicitly is helpful, both to warn the would-be abusers and reassure the potential targets.
The current code is already more than “be nice”. It adds specific categories. I will strenuously object to any attempt to make an exhaustive list of all possible violations. That sort of thing is way too easy to abuse and weaponize. In a way, it’s what got us here. We have to be willing to invoke, apply, and heed human judgement (with transparency).