Updating the General code of conduct for the Politics subforum

Susan Price30 said:and honestly, it’s just as easy for people to get worked up over certain symbols in an avatar... basically, they see someone showing support for those ideologies through their profile pic in someone else's avatar...
.

Totally irrelevant to what we're actually talking about here.

We aren't talking about feelings; we're talking about the law.

^^^ regarding what I was discussing before you deleted it—specifically those legal regulations concerning the public use of totalitarian symbols.

To put it simply: as we know from history, publicly endorsing any criminal ideology is legally prohibited. If someone chooses to display personal support for one of those ideologies—say, by using a specific symbol in their profile avatar—that is, by default, defined as glorifying such an ideology.

(And perhaps the only real question left would be whether the forum hosting the content would be held legally liable, or if the responsibility lies solely with the individual who chose that avatar, signature, or whatever else)

*

Susan Price30 said:^^^ and regarding what I was getting at before you scrubbed it—the whole legal side of using symbols from totalitarian regimes in public spaces.

Look, let's just cut to the chase: publicly backing any kind of criminal ideology has always been illegal here. And if someone decides to show their personal allegiance to one of those ideologies—say, by picking a specific symbol for their avatar—that’s pretty much defined by law as glorifying that exact ideology.

*

Basically, the ideology I've got on my avatar is perfectly fine because it isn't banned by law; in fact, it's completely legitimate and sits right at the core of our Constitution.

Henry Hernandez7 said:To put it simply, the ideology I’m representing with my avatar is acceptable. It isn't prohibited by law; if anything, it's entirely legitimate and rooted in the very foundations of our Constitution.

Are we discussing potential changes that might happen once America joins the Union, or what exactly?😁

In your post on the first page, you're talking about the current state of affairs, yet the topic is supposed to be about what happens when America becomes a member of the EU, isn't it?

That is what this discussion is about...

Susan Price30 said:So, are we actually talking about the changes that might happen once the US joins the EU, or what exactly?😁

In that first page post, you're rambling on about how things are right now, but the whole point of this thread is what happens after the US becomes an EU member, isn't it?

That's what we're here to discuss...

Fair enough, but I only jumped on your post because I had this gut feeling that your take just doesn't really fit the vibe of this discussion.

Henry Hernandez7 said:That’s true, but I only replied to your post because of one specific reason... a gut feeling, which makes these points feel pointless in this thread.

but I wasn't just talking about that; looking at everything else I wrote in that same post—in my opinion, they definitely make sense...

And it all follows logic; people take issue with things simply because they are illegal (or will eventually be once certain laws change or get more specific).

Susan Price30 said:but I wasn't just focusing on that one thing, so looking at the whole context of what I wrote in that post—in my view, they definitely do...

and it all follows logic; if someone’s getting worked up about it, it’s because it’s legally prohibited (or will be once certain laws get updated or clarified)

I mean, what's the point of getting all emotional over this topic, which is honestly way too early to be debating anyway?

Henry Hernandez7 said:What's even the point of all this emotional venting on a thread that's honestly way too early anyway?

People just want to understand how upcoming legal shifts might change the rules of the subforum they hang out in.

And it’s not like any of this is happening overnight.

Anyway, gotta run.. catch ya later.

Susan Price30 said:Alright, gotta run now.. peace

Lippert,

happy reading...

Susan Price30 said:Presumably, anyone who’s only ever been active in a single political party would fit that description. So, by your logic, they were all totalitarians. I’m struggling to see what your actual point was there.

Perhaps you should brush up on the actual definition of totalitarianism before weighing in on this.
And just so we're clear, the star isn't banned, nor will it ever be.