---
title: no politics (wip)
image:
  src: 2024/mushroom-on-fence.jpg
  alt: "Picture unrelated to post. A small orange mushroom grows from the center of a fence post."
tags:
  - reference
---

This piece is unfinished and is presented in only partial form.

## Prelude

5 or so years ago, I’m in a Facebook group. Rather than my usual lefty fare, it was more all-over-the-map; it was focused on socializing, support, and advice for younger employees at my current employer.

Every once and a while, discussion would turn to something like:

> I’m facing sexism at work…

or any relevant comment about any -ism you can imagine. Unfortunately, there was no shortage of reply guys ready to diminish, second guess, disbelieve, and more. And as a “nonpartisan” space, it of course had a “no politics” rule!

You can probably see what’s coming a mile away.

---

## Politics

> the total complex of relations between people living in society

is how [Merriam-Webster defines politics](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politics){target="_blank" rel="external"}. It is not the only definition, and it is not the first definition, but it’s nicely non-circular and doesn’t get us bogged down in what is and isn’t government policy.

That might be a more expansive definition than what you’re used to. Let’s take a detour.

### The Personal is Political

The idea that “the personal is political” has been around since second-wave feminism, 1960s at least. For example, here’s the Combahee River Collective Statement referencing it in 1977, having already worked to further and expound on it:

> A political contribution which we feel we have already made is the expansion of the feminist principle that the personal is political.

— [Combahee River Collective Statement](https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/combahee-river-collective-statement-1977/){target="_blank" rel="external"}

“The personal is political” and associated political movement is pushback against an insistence on individualizing systemic issues. Crenshaw frames it as a “process of recognizing as social and systemic what was formerly perceived as isolated and individual” ([Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color by Kimberlé Crenshaw](https://www.jstor.org/stable/1229039){target="_blank" rel="external"}) and it’s *vital* in our current understanding of things like sexual assault and domestic violence as — forgive me for repeating the word yet again — *systemic* issues.

## What does “no politics” gain us?

But why might people institute a “no politics” rule?

### Easier moderation

A frequent argument that gets made is that “we just don’t have the resources to moderate that.” Regardless of whether it’s right, this is what’s effective and what we have the bandwidth for.

As a frequent moderator, I see the appeal in this. Political discussions can be tense, with high emotions and hard stances. After all, the personal is political - someone may not be speaking of some theoretical risk but to a concrete fear that hangs over their head daily. Members will get invested, and feelings will be hurt.

### Create a welcoming, “neutral” environment

Especially in environments where you want to welcome a large and diverse group of people, the aim should be to make the membership and prospective membership comfortable (possibly while also warding off trolls who want to argue).

For some, "the law isn't about shaping society, it's about who gets punished" ([I Hate Mondays by Innuendo Studios](https://youtu.be/yts2F44RqFw?si=QZMJQWqahdJ4-1Eb&t=452){target="_blank" rel="external"}). Politics are a method of assigning blame. "No politics" means no one is to blame.

## Interlude

6 or so months ago, I'm in a Discord server. Rule 1 states that no politics or religion are allowed. Interestingly, it also states that "insults, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and all other discriminatory speech" are not permitted.

## How do we better achieve our goals?

### Easier moderation

### Create a welcoming environment

---

sections

- what ethical goals does a no politics rule attempt to achieve
- how are those goals not met by no politics rules (not met/actively betrayed/only achievable for a subset of users)
- how can we better meet those goals?

notes

- there are ways to limit when and where this discussion is acceptable: create a news/politics channel, encourage spoilering/threading/using appropriate platform tools, encourage a culture that values cws and respects requests for them and more broadly respects people's boundaries
- there are ways to limit how "no politics" gets deployed: make specific rules against shutting down people talking about their lived experience, avoid backseat modding becoming the norm
- there are ways to limit your definition of "politics" so that you can more carefully delineate what you are trying to avoid, though I would be wary of this route - the fact is that a No Politics rule, no matter how well reasoned, may read as a red flag for a marginalized person

[Politics of Political](https://blog.oup.com/2018/11/politics-of-political/){target="_blank" rel="external"}
