There's no such thing as "good faith CoC people". The entire movement exists in bad faith. The fact that it even makes sense to call it a political group says everything.

Do you think open source projects just had to put up with anything and everything before they came along? No, if someone was being an active detriment to the project, they'd get naturally pushed away by the project leader, who was usually also the top contributor, in a clear and transparent manner. If the rest of the contributors agreed, that was that. If not, they could always fork. No drama needed, everyone was free to judge for themselves.

CoCs were introduced not only to to take that power from the leader or top contributors and hand it over to cliques of political activists, who often do not contribute to the project at all in terms of actually writing code, but also to allow them to invoke it in vague and secretive ways, for reasons that most actual contributors likely wouldn't agree with. Obviously, this leads to drama. You'll notice that CoC drama almost always boils down not to "this person is generally agreed to be a detriment to the project" but to "this person said or did something that offended me and thus violated the CoC".

This is not my view the only bad stories I have seen here are instances that should be taken care of even with out code of conducts. The reason why I see no problems with code of conducts is that it gets really tiresome to interact with people who are abrasive.

It is not a political thing in my view. I get more tired by the metadrama. Things did change when open source became a business. It is impossible to compare a voluntary based project with a big one. I think the issue is that most people have no experience in doing large scale self organization.