Nobody is saying folks cannot object to an action. What they are saying (and all that this CoC codifies) is that you can and indeed are encouraged to criticize any given act or product. But if the language used is applied to an individual or group and not the act itself then it's downright counterproductive. Just look at how badly your actions have cut yourself off from the rest of the community to see that as a consequence of the continued inability to draw the distinction.
Circling back to the OP to give an example:
This bit seems overly harsh. There's going to be times when folks just flat out have either bad days and leak, or get bogged down in one of their personal blind spots and don't realize they're making an ass of themselves. I'd suggest instead a progressive cooling off period. So 3 then 6, then 9 days. If they haven't cooled off in 2 weeks, then yeah, odds are they aren't going to.If the user then goes on to violate the CoC again in a similar manner, not having shown any acknowledgement to their behavior or what they have done wrong, they weill be suspended temporarily(3 days).
If they, after returning from suspension go to violate the CoC yet again, then they will face a ban.
That'd be an example of focusing on the act. Note at no point did I suggest Jeff was some corrupt or compromised dictator trying to impose his will (or whoever prompted him to put it together) in a harsh manner, nor an idiot for not thinking of an alternative himself. Didn't even mention him at all in the objection statement.
Just the proposed act.
That's really all it takes to stay compliant.
Focus on the act.
Not the Person.