This is unworkable. Who defines idpol? Sorry but I've spent so much time trying to educate radlibs that idpol without class is fascist-adjacent shit, but we don't need to go to the other direction where we simply talk about class without anything else. The world doesn't work like that. Yes idpol is a social construction, but so are the """commonsense"" explanations as to why capitalism spread (this is literally in marx btw). What was wrong with having a thread about it? Are we seriously going to have a leftypol where talking about racism is banned on site, but we can have a e-celeb general? Come on, I thought this place was supposed to be better than that? Are we not allowed to discuss the New Afrikan Black Panthers anymore? Theodore Allen? Stuart Hall? B.R.Ambedkar? Fred Hampton? Something I've realised (and there was a thread by someone else about this recently) is that all the things we despise "idpol" for, the hysteria, the categorisation of victim/oppressor dynamics..these are already being talked about by the people in that mileu. If you want to ban bait threads from tourists fine, but that should already be covered in the rules, but all that's going to happen is that people having meaningful conversations about the intersection of race, gender and class in a capitalist society are going to be disciplined into second guessing themselves because they will wonder if their post will be banned. Say goodbye to any effort posting on that front. Not to mention that this will also encourage bad faith posters to try and shut down threads or posters they don't like by screaming "IDPOL" and mashing the report button. The current sticky in leftypol doesn't say anything clear. it just says "the mods will crackdown". That's not good enough. Be clear about what will and what won't be tolerated.