lonebadger6 said:Actually, the principles are there; you just might not be grasping them. Or rather, it’s not a "might," you just don't get it—just like you admitted. Either that, or the mod team operates on a different set of rules than yours, which is a problem you can't really fix unless you just decide to roll with it.
Bottom line: insults, accusations, or libel all carry the same weight regardless of where a user sits on the political spectrum.
Now, the thing you aren't catching (or maybe you're trolling, but let's pretend you're genuinely confused) is that calling someone a "thief" isn't the same level of insult as calling them a "traitor" or a "fascist"—unfortunately, we can't change how that works here. It's also not the same thing to accuse the entire American left of being traitors just because they cooperate with a neighboring country (which the right does too), or to label someone a neo-fascist just because they write moving pieces about historical figures or critique the first President for distancing himself from extremist ideologies.
So, the principle exists, and there's a clear answer; the real issue is whether you like it. No, you can't claim Hillary Clinton or Kamala Harris are sympathizers of extremist movements (there's no point even discussing the post you responded to since it generalizes the whole American left). However, if someone explicitly expresses sympathy for those kinds of radical groups, then calling them a sympathizer is fair game. It's actually pretty straightforward.
Maybe you have a point... my own principles would definitely clash with the mods. I'd probably implement a rule that applies universally.
Let me use your own logic against you:
If the principle is that a politician can be judged based on specific sympathies they've shown toward certain parts of a platform, then it's clear why someone like Newt Gingrich could be labeled an extremist. Everyone knows he isn't a literal fanatic and that he's distanced himself from actual crimes, but he has expressed support for certain radical elements of those old agendas. In that sense, criticizing him using those labels is just a way of expressing disagreement with specific parts of his political track record.
But following that same logic leads to this:
Take Hillary Clinton, for example. It's obvious she isn't a radical, but because she flirted with Americanism, people use those extreme labels to describe her because those ideologies were part of that era. You could call Kamala Harris whatever you want, but there's no real substance there to trigger a reaction... according to your logic above, anyone who points out that her policy of détente with Mexico is a mistake could be labeled a traitor. I don't see anything controversial about that either.