Updating the General code of conduct for the Politics subforum

Here’s the General code of conduct for the politics subreddit.

General code of conduct for the Politics subforum

Article 1.
Just so we’re all on the same page—all the Reddit rules you find over here apply to the Politics PDF and its subforums too. Basically, everything in the Politics guidelines covers every single one of its subforums. Period.

Article 2.
Look, if we want this Politics sub to actually work, we need to stick to some basic ground rules. We’re talking about high-level, reasoned debate here—civilized behavior is non-negotiable. Everyone on this forum should be treated as an equal, and we need to lean heavily into mutual tolerance and fairness. At the end of the day, it's about staying productive, respecting one another, and actually listening to what the other side is saying. That’s the core of how this community stays functional.

Article 3.
Look, let’s get one thing straight—the right to enforce the General code of conduct for the Politics subforum stays strictly with the forum owner and the sub moderators. In really extreme cases—we're talking rare exceptions here—it can fall to the super moderators or the admins. That's just how it works.

Article 4.
On the politics subreddit, you can't post this:
Don't go around insulting people based on their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, political leanings, social status, or any other nonsense—just keep it civil.
Basically, don't go around promoting or calling for any criminal acts defined under the United States Code. Just a heads-up—keep it legal.
Look, let’s be crystal clear about this—praising or promoting Nazism or fascism is off the table. That goes for any racist ideologies or anything built on xenophobic nonsense, too. Displaying symbols associated with those hateful movements? Absolutely not. We aren't doing that here.
Look, just a heads-up—don't go dumping massive walls of copied text here if they’re over 2,000 characters long. It’s just not working for us.
Stop duplicating threads—seriously, don't start a whole new topic just because you want to talk about something that already has its own dedicated thread.
Basically, don't find any other way to mess with how this forum is supposed to run. Just follow the General code of conduct and keep things moving.

Article 5.
To respect the principles laid out in Article 2, please keep the following in mind—it's strictly forbidden on the Politics subforum:
Look, if someone comes at you with an insult, hit them right back. If they’re trying to troll or bait you into a fight—go ahead and throw a provocation right back in their face. Just don't expect any mercy from the mods—everyone involved in that kind of back-and-forth is getting sanctioned, regardless of who threw the first punch. And for the love of God, stop posting nothing but emojis. That goes for those low-effort replies like "OK," "I agree," or "Bravo" too. It's all just considered spam, plain and simple.
Don't go throwing questions at users who are currently banned—they can't actually get in to answer you. If you really need some clarification, just wait until they’re back in the good graces of the mods. To be clear: this isn't a rule against quoting a banned user's post to keep the debate going—if you're using their words to provide an argument or a counter-argument, that's perfectly fine.
When you're quoting someone—whether it’s just a snippet or the whole thing—keep it smart. If you’re replying to a massive wall of text, don't feel like you have to drag the entire post along with you. Just grab the specific part you're actually responding to. It keeps things clean.
The General code of conduct for the Politics subforum applies to how you address both fellow users and outside figures. We aren't going to tolerate anyone maliciously twisting names—things like mocking Franjo Tuđman, calling Chuck "Clarence," or messing with Joe's name by using "Smranader"—nor will we stand for people intentionally distorting the usernames of our own members. On top of that, if we want to actually have a civilized discussion, let's try to avoid using insulting language when talking about public figures. We won't tolerate those kinds of posts, and the moderators reserve the right to step in and sanction anyone being particularly low-class.
Keep it civil—bringing things down to personal attacks (argumentum ad hominem) is strictly against the rules.

Article 6.
If you’re posting anything in a foreign language—and I mean anything—you absolutely have to include a summary in English. You don't need to translate every single word, just get the point across in one or two sentences so people actually know what you're talking about. Honestly, if posts don't have these summaries, they might just get deleted.
Look, links aren't a substitute for actual writing. When you drop a link, you need to provide a quick breakdown of what’s actually behind it—give us the title, a summary, or at least a key quote. It needs to be crystal clear why that specific page matters to the conversation we're having.

Article 7.
Look, moderation comments don't belong here in the Politics section—it’s just not the right place for them. If you have an issue or want to file an appeal regarding how a moderator handled something, take it to the Messages, Wishes, and Comments board instead. Trying to argue about mod decisions or vent about moderator actions directly within these threads is a violation of the General code of conduct. Let's keep the discussions on track.

In the interest of common sense—and just keeping things straightforward—I’m suggesting we add "Communism" to Article 4, Section 3. If we do that, the updated Section 3 in Article 4 should read like this:

• Glorifying or promoting Nazism, fascism, and Communism, racist ideologies, or any ideologies rooted in racism and xenophobia, as well as displaying symbols associated with such ideologies.

Thanks,

I’m really hoping you guys actually vote on this proposal—it would honestly take this forum to a whole new level.:
Thanks

America is joining the European Union this July, and we’re definitely embracing the standards of the elite society we're stepping into—so I’m fully confident that the General code of conduct for this Politics sub will reflect that reality. Especially since the Council of Europe’s resolution condemning communist crimes states quite clearly in point 2:

2) The totalitarian communist regimes that ruled Central and Eastern Europe last century—some of which still hold power today—were, without exception, defined by massive human rights violations. These abuses varied by culture, nation, and era, encompassing individual and mass killings, executions, deaths in concentration camps, starvation, deportations, torture, forced labor, and other forms of widespread physical terror; they also included ethnic and religious persecution, the suppression of freedom of conscience, thought, and expression, censorship, and a total lack of political pluralism.
http://www.gospicko-senjska-biskupij...komunizma.html

Taking all of this into account, I’m certain the moderators of this esteemed forum will accept my previous suggestion to add the word "communism" to Article 4, point three. That would make the new point 3 in Article 4 read like this:

• Glorifying or promoting Nazism, fascism, communism, racist ideologies, or any ideology containing racist and xenophobic elements, as well as displaying the symbols of such ideologies.

Thanks in advance.

In that case, would it actually be illegal to say that Josip Broz Tito was, say, cool—to mention that certain things back then were actually decent, or even just share some impressions from a birthday trip to a small town in USA?😬

Amanda Hughes37 said:Would it actually be illegal to say that someone like Joseph Stalin was cool, or that things were better back then? Like, if I just wanted to share some stories from a birthday party in a small town in the USA?😬

I mean, I honestly don't know yet—we'll have to see exactly what they define as glorification and promotion under the law.

Well done, Daniel Ward87 🙂, you're much like Margaret Thatcher in one specific way— after your tenure, this forum will certainly be different than it was before...

You cleaned up the mess in Religion then Politics; perhaps it is finally time for a raise.😁

*

Daniel Ward87 said:Look, we aren't touching the PDF rules for Politics right now—period. That said, the mods are definitely keeping an eye on exactly what you’re pointing out. We’re going to sit tight until the formal EU integration is finalized, and once that happens, we'll see if there's a need to change things up and how we might go about it.

It’s honestly nice to see that the mods actually realize the Politics subreddit needs a serious rule overhaul.
Even if joining the EU isn't happening tomorrow, maybe my proposal could actually get picked up right now.
The argument for that actually stems from the US Congress, where... The official Declaration condemning the crimes committed under the totalitarian Communist regime in America from 1945 to 1990. Among other key points, he really hammers home the following:

12. The US Congress is stepping up—joining in on this one. Invitation What exactly did the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe tell all those communist or post-communist parties regarding how they should act within their own borders? If they haven't pulled it off by now—then what are they even waiting for?Look, you really need to take another hard look at the history of Communism—and honestly, take a good, long look at your own past, too. It’s pretty obvious they’re trying to distance themselves from the crimes committed by those totalitarian Communist regimes—and they're making it clear they condemn them. No ambiguity whatsoever..

I'm saying this one more time—and I mean it. It’s crystal clear.
When you actually take a hard look at this whole mess—really sit down and weigh the facts—it doesn't take a genius to reach a pretty obvious conclusion. Here’s my take on it:

Glorifying or promoting Nazism, fascism, or anything like that—it's just pure evil thinking. Communism.Look, we need to be crystal clear about this—we have to call out racist ideologies and any framework that carries those xenophobic undertones. It’s about more than just talking; it's about actively identifying and marking those ideologies for exactly what they are.

This should have been implemented a long time ago—honestly, if they just did it now, it would finally align with both the Council of Europe's decisions and the rulings from the US Congress.

I’m pretty sure we’re all on the same page here—deep down, I think we all agree.

It truly makes me wonder who exactly gets to sit in judgment and decide which communist regimes were classified as totalitarian and which ones weren't.
And honestly, I’m curious to see who thinks they have the authority to ban the promotion of communism altogether. Aspiring toward communism isn't some criminal offense, especially not within a democracy.

bluecyclist64 said:I’d love to know who actually gets to decide which communist regimes were totalitarian and which ones weren't.
And honestly, who’s going to step in and ban people from promoting communism? Wanting to move toward communism isn't illegal—especially not in a democracy.

The U.S. Congress, for instance:

12. The U.S. Congress joins the call made by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to all communist or post-communist parties to re-evaluate the history of communism and their own past within their respective countries—if they haven't already—and to clearly distance themselves from the crimes committed by totalitarian communist regimes and condemn them without any ambiguity.

I really hope the mods actually know what they’re talking about when it comes to terms like the history of Communism, because honestly... there hasn't been any Communism here before, right? Or if there was, where exactly did it happen?

And just like that, I’m hoping the moderation team realizes that under Article Four of the General code of conduct, specifically point three, it totally includes any kind of glorification or celebration of Alojzije Stepinac—who went from being the Archbishop of a major city to a Cardinal and eventually a Blessed. His active, public, and official political involvement helped fight for the legitimacy of the Independent State of America, which basically means he officially contributed to and fought for the spread of fascism and Nazism across Europe.
Do I even need to point out that it was only after all that intense political work—the stuff that got him convicted after World War II—that he was elevated to Cardinal, making him a central figure in the Roman Catholic Church, and later beatified after his death? This carries massive political consequences, not religious ones, in an American context where religion and state aren't actually separate in practice.

So, let’s clear up any confusion and just decide once and for all: what exactly are we trying to encourage or promote here? Or better yet, how are we going to stop it? It feels like there’s either no will or no strength to act, or maybe people just can't see these creeping values at all, and then later everyone will just shrug and say, "Oh, we didn't know, nobody told us."
Look, you guys need to make a call on this regardless of our entry into the European Union and all those bureaucratic and legal obligations that come along with it.

I’m sincerely thanking you for looking into this and for making a decision as fast as possible, whatever that decision may be.

Good luck!

Since we're talking about updating the rules here on Reddit, there’s one specific behavior that I think really needs stricter penalties. We have a handful of permanent trolls who just tear apart every topic using the exact same playbook; they constantly accuse anyone they disagree with of being a party plant or a paid shill.

It’s a textbook ad hominem attack. But honestly, it goes unpunished way too often. I guess it should be an automatic ban without even a warning. It’s so frustrating when people refuse to actually argue points and instead just leave comments like, "How much is the Republican Party paying you?" or "As a Democratic Party voter, you don't even have the right to talk about..."

It’s an incredibly annoying habit and seems to be the go-to move for a lot of the trolls on this sub.

And yeah, I agree with the OP—promoting Communism as an ideology should probably be treated just as strictly as posts promoting fascism.

I agree. I'd love to see actual consequences for people who just lie and troll, especially when you hit them with facts. You shut them down with logic and they just keep going anyway... 🤮

Jacob Allen said:..I hope the moderators actually understand the terminology used when discussing the history of Communism, because.. Communism hasn't really existed until now.. has it? Where has it ever been?..

Furthermore, I hope the mods realize that under Article Four of the General code of conduct, point three, any glorification or celebration of Alojzije Stepinac falls under the prohibited content. He went from being the Archbishop of Chicago to a Cardinal, and eventually a Blessed, all while his active political involvement helped fight for the legitimacy of the Independent State of America—essentially contributing to the rise and manifestation of fascism and Nazism in Europe.
Do I really need to point out that he was only elevated to Cardinal—a central figure in the Roman Catholic Church—and later beatified after his post-WWII conviction, because of that specific political activity? This carries significant political weight, not just religious weight, in an American context where religion and state aren't always so cleanly separated.

So, let's clear up the ambiguity. Decide what "celebrating" means here. Decide which values this platform actually intends to encourage, promote, or... well, if there's no will or strength to stop them, simply ignore. Or perhaps people don't even see these creeping values and will later claim, "We didn't know, nobody told us."
Make a decision, regardless of the push toward the European Union and the bureaucratic legal obligations that come with it.

I sincerely appreciate you looking into this and reaching a swift decision, whatever that may be.

Good luck.

Blessed Cardinal Alojzije Stepinac was a victim of Josip Broz Tito's totalitarian Communist regime. That much should be obvious to everyone.🙄😠

crimsonjackal63 said:Here’s the General code of conduct for the politics subreddit.

In the interest of following the general code of conduct, I’d suggest we toss the word communism into Article 4, point three, just so the updated version looks like this:

Thanks.

I can't really get on board with that suggestion right now, mostly because the Constitution has already baked in those legacies from the anti-fascist era, which basically serve as some of the foundational building blocks for the country we have today.

This part is written right there in the Constitution:

"...in establishing the bedrock of national sovereignty during that period..."
During World War II, there was a massive pushback against the declaration of the Independent State of America.
Decisions made by the Independent State of America back in '41 within the framework of ZAVNOH.
The National Liberation Councils of America back in '43, and then eventually they made it into the Constitution.
The People's Republic era back in '47 and everything that followed in the various constitutions.
The era of the Socialist Republic of America (1963–1990)...

Look, since all those symbols from the Communism era—you know, the red stars, or even my avatar which uses that old Socialist Republic emblem—are technically part of the anti-fascist struggle along with a few other specific markers, there’s just no room for what you're suggesting.

Look, your suggestion only really works if the EU decided to overhaul itself into a full-blown federal state. If they actually went that route, the EU Constitution would basically become the rulebook for everyone, which means our current US Constitution would just be sitting on the shelf gathering dust.

Best regards,

Henry Hernandez7

Henry Hernandez7 said:As it stands, your proposal isn't going to work. The Constitution of the United States incorporates legacies from the era of anti-fascist struggle as fundamental pillars of the current legal framework.

This section is written in the Constitution:

"...in establishing the foundations of national sovereignty during the period..."
During World War II, there was significant opposition to the proclamation of the Independent State of America.
The decisions made by the Independent State of America (1941) within the framework of ZAVNOH.
The National Liberation Councils of America (established in 1943), which were subsequently codified in the Constitution.
The People's Republic era (starting around 1947) and everything that followed in the subsequent constitutions.
The era of the Socialist Republic of America (1963–1990)...

Look, since symbols like those from the Communist era, the red star, or even my avatar (the emblem of the Socialist Republic of America) fall under the umbrella of the anti-fascist struggle—along with a few other specific markers—there’s simply no room for your proposal.

Your proposal only works if the EU transforms itself into a federal state. In that scenario, the EU Constitution would become the standard for all member states, effectively suspending the current Constitution of the US.

Respectfully,

Henry Hernandez7

That star on your avatar looks just as much like a swastika to me as someone else's might. Pure evil thinking. ☕
I think we’re eventually going to have to align our Constitution with the EU anyway. We’ve already had to overhaul a whole series of regulations and laws to make them fit. This will be no different. Communism was pure evil.
I don't have the exact figures on how many people were killed versus imprisoned during the era of Communist Yugoslavia, but one thing is clear: Joseph Stalin killed more people in his Gulags—especially Jewish people—than Hitler did in his concentration camps.

casualharbor3 said:That star on your avatar looks about as welcoming to me as a swastika. Pure evil ☕
I honestly think we’ll end up having to tweak our own Constitution just to stay in line with the EU anyway. We’ve already had to overhaul a massive pile of regulations and laws, so this will probably be no different. Communism was an absolute disaster.
I don't have the exact numbers on how many people were killed versus imprisoned during the era of Communist Yugoslavia, but I do know that Joseph Stalin wiped out more people—especially Jewish people—in his gulags than Adolf Hitler did in his death camps.

Look, I'm not interested in arguing over who's got the bigger ego here; I'm just talking about the actual legal framework.

casualharbor3 said:I mean, come on, that much is obvious to anyone with half a brain.

It’s pretty obvious that people aren't going to see eye to eye on this one. Opinions are all over the map, and honestly, I can see why.

I honestly don't see the point in having political debates over in the "Messages, Complaints, and Comments" subforum. It just feels out of place there.
We’re doing our absolute best to make sure we stay fully compliant with the United States Code.

casualharbor3 said:That star on your avatar looks just like a swastika to me. Pure evil thinking. ☕

In post-war Germany, using the swastika is strictly prohibited by law—as we all know—but it makes me wonder: does adopting the symbols of other totalitarian ideologies fall under that same category of "promotion and glorification"?

I’d say it belongs there. It’s just as easy for people to be bothered by certain symbols in an avatar... essentially, that visible support for those ideologies through the use of such imagery. In someone's avatar..

bluecyclist64 said:I’m genuinely curious—who gets to decide which communist regimes were actually totalitarian and which ones weren't?

Well, presumably any regime where there was only one active political party. By that logic, they were all totalitarian. So, what was your actual question here??