Ok new rule. If you're banning politics from your open source project you are doing it intentionally to build a nazi bar

There have been enough very public examples now of what happens when you start trying to ban politics from your open source project.

You don't get to play "oh I didn't know" and be all gas lightly. Nope. You know and you did it with intention. Tough shit, this is on you. You've got yourself into the position of maintaining an open source project. Just like becoming a billionaire, that doesn't happen by accident. You didn't just touch a computer for the first time yesterday and start an open source project. You know what you are doing enough to know this.
@mindpersephone I feel like there's two very distinct kinds of "no politics" that can be difficult to tell apart in places.
There's "anyone welcome, but do not talk about the genocide/elections", which can be valid. Politics can get heated and upsetting, it's fair to want a space without that. Not exactly a fan of that, big infestation chance, but still.
And there's "acknowledging the existence of women/gays/trans people is pushing an agenda", which just sucks.
@flesh the issue with the first one is when reading some projects rules is it's usually impossible to tell from the second one.

The first one is usually better served with a "keep conversations in project channels on topic" rule. If they aren't actually evil bastards, that's probably what they mean any way.
@mindpersephone It's not always easy to distinguish, but I feel like there's certainly ways to put the idea across clearly enough to make it possible.
A big thing I think is telling is whether they seem to refer to politics as an unwanted topic for comfort or as some abstract evil invasive thing that needs to be stamped out.
Also, any use of the word "agenda" or similar easily betrays the latter.
@mindpersephone Also also, good spaces should have clear rules against hate speech.
So if the rules are there and feel like a genuine inclusion rather than rote, it's probably a less hostile space.
@mindpersephone Also, I think a core difference is the former is characterised by a relative understanding that people have political opinions and just preferring to not make them come to clash or upset in the space.
Meanwhile, the latter is distinctly marked by a hostility to some description of being "political" as if just being "political" in and of itself was a sin.
@mindpersephone (I'd like to make it clear I know what project you're subtooting and it absolutely is by design a nazi bar)
@mindpersephone I'd like to add: even if by some ungodly miracle you really did it on accident, tough luck pal, that's on you. Figure the mess you've created for yourself, instead of whining about it and begging for sympathy.

@mindpersephone we need a big sign saying “being ‘apolitical’ is one of the most explicitly political positions possible,“

and then a smaller one underneath that says “specifically, a conservative position that actively enforces the silencing of the oppressed and the marginalised,“

and then under that, like a taser or a bat or something, so we can zap or bludgeon people after we drag them over to make them read the sign again.

@mindpersephone my take has always been that human rights aren't political and trying to ban defending human rights is a crime against humanity.
Say it with me: "Defending human rights isn't political!"
Doing that in itself is a political move trying to shoehorn politics into something non-political and antithetical to the rule that they're enforcing.
"Human rights aren't political and stop trying make them political."
@mindpersephone fellas is it gaslighting to say you didn't know something and apologize for doing it and stop doing it