"No Politics" Rules
960 words, ~5 minute read. Planted . Last tended to .
Communities - be they discord servers, forums, message boards, etc. - tend to have rules, and you'll likely see the same rules come up often. One of these common rules is the "no politics" rule. These rules may vary slightly in wording, but all share in being highly contentious. These are easily the rules most often broken and most often fought over - for and against.
Apolitical spaces' appeal
Apolitical spaces are very appealing to many people, hence the proliferation of "no politics" rules. These communities represent anything from safe spaces to escapism, depending on the person. These are genuinely useful and absolutely crucial for some peoples' mental well-being.
Apathy
Naturally, some section of the population truly does not care about politics and does not wish to be bothered by discussions about it. However, political apathy is implicit endorsement of the existing power structures and is typically unique to those who are already benefitting from those power structures. Privilege doesn't make you feel special, it makes the world feel "normal". Therefore, political apathy is not a good reason to create a "no politics" rule, and enacting such a rule under this pretense is very much a political act in and of itself.
Mental health
Some political topics are deeply personal and emotionally exhausting to engage with, even (or especially) the important ones. For example, trans rights are a critical political issue, but demanding that trans people engage in political discourse about their right to exist amounts to a form of re-traumatization. Personally, I think a "be kind" or "no attacking others" rule suffices here though.
I think moderation should be heavy handed when it comes to protecting community members. The intolerant do not deserve the benefit of the doubt.
If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. - Karl Raimund Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies
Debate is ineffective
Debate is not about solving the issues in society and is typically rhetorical sport that cares more about winning the conversation than building consensus. It has been shown to be ineffective at changing minds, and even more rarely for the right reasons (underlying philosophy rather than rhetorical performance). Honestly, this is a great justification for disallowing politics, although later on I'll add some nuance to this point so it doesn't stifle legitimately constructive conversation.
The issues with banning politics
Everything is Political. So what "no politics" really means is very subjective and likely to differ between different moderators, and will definitely differ from at least some community members. What this really amounts to is banning controversial ideas. As described in How to radicalize a normie, that means both statements like "Nazis are bad" and "Nazis are good" can be apolitical, as the community has a consensus that Nazis are bad and the second statement is probably just a joke. But once something is controversial it becomes political, so a statement like "feminism is good" would be disallowed. In practice, since the non-controversial stances typically mean upholding existing power structures (like capitalism, patriarchy, and white supremacy), you reach a situation where conversative or fascist viewpoints are allowed (despite the "probably just a joke" argument gets weaker and weaker) but progressive statements aren't.
To be clear, I'm not saying those who add "no politics" rules support those power structures.
Moderators may also introduce their own biases, so even if you don't believe the above arguments will hold true for your community. There will still likely be uneven enforcement of the no politics rule due to the subjective differences in what is and isn't political. This will mean the line is still drawn somewhere, and wherever that line is will be a political statement, it just might not be clear where it's drawn to the members and even moderators of the community, which will cause confusion and conflict.
Alternatives to "no politics" rules
Needless to say, all communities are different and there's no "one size fits all" solution. That said, I think every rule of this list should apply to any and all communities:
- Be kind to each other. Intolerance is prohibited and will be met with decisive action.
And that's it! That's the one rule that should fully encapsulate all the forms of speech you don't want in your community, without upholding existing power structures like capitalism, patriarchy, or white supremacy. It's simple, and certainly not novel, but it's all you need. It's similarity to the golden rule should be noted, as essentially every culture in the world has arrived at essentially the same conclusion, that this rule is of the upmost importance.
Decisive action, in this context, should probably mean muting or banning. Intolerance is very important to keep out of the community. You do not owe the person your time and effort for rehabilitation, and your community does not need to risk their own members' safety giving the benefit of the doubt.
If, for the sake of clarity, you would like a longer version, you can use this:
Be kind to each other. Intolerance, harassment, and speech or behavior that marginalizes or dehumanizes others based on their identity (e.g., race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or disability) are strictly prohibited. This includes both direct attacks and the promotion of ideologies or statements that threaten the dignity and safety of marginalized groups.
Sensitive topics
Alright, I have one bonus rule for you. Certain topics are definitely more likely to have induced trauma in community members in the past. It likely makes sense to have communities that are not explicitly about discussing those kinds of topics relegate them to their own channel, called sensitive-topics or serious-discussion, and update the rules to include something like this:
Discussions of potentially traumatic topics (e.g., violence, abuse, or discrimination) should be approached with care and sensitivity, and moderators may restrict or redirect such discussions if they risk causing harm to community members.
You'll note I don't mention punishments here, but just how the situation should be handled by moderators. This is in contrast to explicitly calling for decisive action against the intolerant. This is because punishments are not good deterrents, so the main goal in reacting to a transgression should be undoing the damage and preventing future harm, which can typically be done without needing to punish the transgressor.
Decentralized Moderation
This whole conversation should be contextualized as referring to discrete communities with designated moderators. That's not the only option though! I personally think social media should incorporate porous or continuous communities through Digital Locality, which by necessity would then have Decentralized Moderation that makes essentially everything you've read here no longer relevant. Oops.