https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1i8w428/meta_my_proposals_and_suggestions_to_the/
created by Pashahlis on 24/01/2025 at 14:04 UTC
305 upvotes, 38 top-level comments (showing 25)
The most important rule of this community is the 20 year rule. It exists to make answers and questions more objective and impartial, and to wait out some fallout from historical events as well as wait until more research is available. It is a good rule. This is a history-related sub, not a politics sub. However, I think circumstances have become so dire that this rule must be temporarily broken.
Many would argue that one of the prime motivators behind learning history is to not repeat the mistakes of the past and to put the happenings of the present into a proper historical context. The past informs the future as they say. Under that light, I think it is important to discuss recent, ongoing, and potential future developments in the USA with a focus on the historical context.
On 20.01.2025 Elon Musk openly did a Nazi salute in front of live cameras. Twice. And the audience cheered. Shortly before these happenings the US inaugurated their first felon president, who did not receive any punishments for his law breaking due to a recent Supreme Court ruling that gives the president unprecedented immunity from most crimes committed while in office. Shortly thereafter, Trump pardoned every single January 6th insurrectionist, including those that committed violent offenses.
In his inauguration speech, among many other very concerning things, Trump announced the intent to expand the United States territorially “which hasn't happened since 1947” as well as overturn a century old precedent regarding birthright citizenship in the 14th amendment. Weeks before, Trump announced intentions to take over Greenland, Panama, and Canada, and for the former two cases he did not rule out doing it by military force. Recent executive orders include a repeal of decades to centuries old precedents, such as the 14th amendment and the Equal Opportunity Employment Act of 1965, a major part of the Civil Rights agenda of president Johnson.
There is a lot more one could talk about, but you get the gist of it. To call these recent developments concerning is, I think, a severe understatement. American democratic institutions are rapidly disintegrating.
I think the gravity of the situation demands special attention to be given to this topic by this entire community. While not everyone here is American - I am literally German - and as such this could come off as too Americacentric, I think it is important to note the influence America has on the worldstage. A conflict regarding Panama, Canada, or Greenland would also affect people in other countries. Furthermore, Elon Musk has openly stated his intent to help far-right parties such as AfD and ReformUK help win their elections. Therefore I think this is a topic that is of interest to everyone, not just Americans or even just Westerners.
In the past when important things happened, the mods would occasionally sticky a META post describing the historical context. For instance, 2 months ago during the election, the mods would create a post discussing America and Fascism as well as Fascism in other countries.
However I do not think that this will suffice this time. I think it is important to analyze current developments in light of history in order to present a better perspective why the thing Trump is doing right now is so severe. While it is also expected that questions concerning the historical context behind new developments will arrive plenty, as they always do, I would like to propose a more organized and in-depth approach to this topic:
1. This post should serve as a more casual discussion topic regarding my proposal as well as the recent developments in America (as long as people respect the rules of course). It should serve a similar purpose as the comment section of the aforementioned Fascism and America post did.
2. Starting sometime in the future, the mods create weekly/bi-weekly/monthly/unscheduled (stickied) posts about a particular topic regarding Fascism and America. These posts should give a brief overview of what is currently happening that demands this special attention and then delve deeper into the historical context behind those developments. For that purpose, flaired users could be asked to prepare in-depth articles about the topic and then in the comments other flaired users could add their more additions to the topic. For instance, here are some topic ideas with potential bullet points in no particular order and it is not an exhaustive list:
Comment by thebigbosshimself at 24/01/2025 at 17:36 UTC*
230 upvotes, 3 direct replies
It should also be noted that quite a few of these bullet points have also been brought up as questions and have received in-depth answers, including the history of the salute, the history of the 14th amendment, the end of fascist regimes in Europe and that was just in the last few days. I feel like as soon as something becomes topical, it almost always gets asked on the sub and there's a good chance it receives an answer(or at least a link to an older answer)
Comment by crrpit at 24/01/2025 at 14:41 UTC*
366 upvotes, 4 direct replies
First of all, I want to acknowledge that this META has been the product of constructive conversation with the mod team already, and while I had reservations about the way you originally framed it, it's been made very clear that you're being sincere with these suggestions. While I still don't fully agree with your suggested course of action, I think that disagreement is well within the bounds of what sensible people can bring to the table when dealing with difficult issues. I'll also add the caveat that I’m speaking more for myself than the modteam as a whole, because I don’t think this is something we can speak about collectively at this precise historical moment.
For me, the crux of the present issue is ‘how do you run an anti-fascist history subreddit to achieve the most good in the present?’ *I do not know the answer to this question*. It’s something I’m actively thinking about as a historian and as someone deeply committed to this project, and while the modteam is meaningfully diverse in terms of worldview, we are broadly united in our rejection of fascism both historically and in the present.
There were no shortage of historians in recent years who warned people that Trump could be best understood as a fascist. Even some historians like Robert Paxton who were previously on the fence about this or viewed it as an unproductive conversation came around in light of January 6 and the recent campaign. As a field, we’ve been sounding the alarm about Trump(not to mention other far right leaders and movements) in very unambiguous terms. It didn’t work, obviously.
As such, it’s not clear to me that our joining these voices more explicitly than we already have would move the needle anywhere, or that more broadly completely reorientating our content towards the current situation is the right move. I realise very much that this can be read as a convenient excuse for inaction, but I personally don’t see it that way. I am involved in this project because I believe it serves a civic purpose to have historical knowledge translated responsively to what people actually want to know about the past. I don’t think this need will diminish under the kind of government the United States has – quite the reverse.
The reason we can do this in the absence of the kinds of platforms and social status afforded to the most senior scholars in our fields is that we have a public commitment to a certain ethos and set of norms, and we do our best to collectively embody them. These rules are not designed to render our project apolitical or ‘neutral’, but they are designed to allow us to build and maintain credibility for a diverse audience, many of whom do have explicit expectations that ‘real’ historians *are* neutral. Our judgement – which I think is correct, personally – is that certain moments, topics and approaches allow us to speak more authoritatively within the bounds of how our audience understands our project, and pushing those boundaries wouldn’t just fail to convince the unconvinced, it would actively undermine our ability to speak and function in the future. We have proven in the past, I think, that we are very willing to take ethical actions relating to how the project itself is run and the platform it exists on, as well as take opportunities to be more explicit about how present events have longer histories and contexts that we think are important additions to discourse. We have ongoing discussions about such actions, when they are useful and when they are not, and they’ve only grown more urgent in recent weeks and months.
Your concrete suggestions about what this might look like also raise a few practical issues. The first is about intellectual and mental resources - only a segment of our community has the expertise needed to substantively discuss topics like these, and we very much do not want to burn these people out by initiating such an ambitious programme of planned content. The same goes for mod team resources - threads like these can suck a lot of oxygen from our other priorities, and many of us didn't sign up to moderate a current events sub. We don't want to burn out our team either. Lastly, and from another direction entirely, our experience in creating content here leaves us skeptical that this programme would actually get the kind of engagement that would justify it. Content like this gets stale surprisingly quickly, and even tools like pinning posts tend to mechanically limit rather than stimulate engagement.
What we have tended to find is that public interest and concern translates into questions and engagement organically. Even within the scope of the 20 Year Rule, it's possible to ask very pressing and pointed questions (just look at recent submissions!) I very much expect that we’ll be fielding more questions about the history of fascism, resistance and survival. Providing a platform to help ensure those questions get useful answers is perhaps our core mission in relation to current events right now – our minds are certainly not closed as to how that might be best achieved, but we are not fully convinced that your concrete proposals here are workable.
Comment by lonewanderer727 at 24/01/2025 at 17:23 UTC
246 upvotes, 1 direct replies
I don't agree with this idea.
I do agree that using history to analyze current events is an important skill and one of the useful ways to actually *use* the study of history in a meaningful way. However, you must be careful - we have a tendency to create false patterns where they do not exist, draw faulty causal connections and make comparisons that are inaccurate. That isn't to say yours are entirely off-base, but these kind of discussions open up the floor for people to ask questions where people can present historical evidence and draw faulty conclusions that we are repeating historical events, when we are always making our own history. As another commenter said, history is not a predictive tool; we can see patterns and similarities, but we should not jump to view current events through a historical lens.
You would be shifting away from the intention of this subreddit by opening up questions & discussions that blur the line between historical discussion and something of modern context - which requires a heavy level of subjective interpretation. Similarly, I believe it is very difficult to give an accurate, *historical* reflection of these current events to the standard that we hold them. Particularly when considering events as they stand now, people cite and use conflicting sources of how events took place. Media sources omit details, retract incorrect statements or add additional details as they become available which can change the narrative or provide an entirely new perspective.
Nothing is stopping someone from asking about the "history of fascism in the US" right now. People can ask about the history of birthright citizenship, the 14th amendment, LGBTQ+ rights or the history of the Nazi/Roman salute. Asking people to take that history AND provide a detailed analysis of how that history connects with modern events goes beyond expert, historical analysis. This creates subjectivity, introduces politicized opinions and sets the stage for charged arguments rather than historical discussion.
This is a space to provide *objective* information (as much as possible) about historical events/trends/etc., and hopefully provide people with the tools & information they need to then use that in further research or analysis of their own.
Also, I should add that in some of these questions, the *way* that you frame them influences the answer you will receive. For instance, asking the question - how does MAGA compare to fascism? Aside from the fact you are likely to get answers focused primarily (if not only) on fascism and its similarities/differences to MAGA, you are limiting your scope and receiving a biased answer through this question. Asking "how does MAGA compare to forms of right-wing ideologies movements in world / US history? What does it share with nationalist / authoritarian / right-wing populist ideologies, etc?" This question in itself has a shifting framework, because we are in the beginning of Trump's 2nd term and the answer to the 2nd part of your question changes as time rolls on. We can not predict how Trump's term will proceed based on historical analysis. And the rolling frame of reference can and will change our analysis as we evaluate current events. By it's very nature, that portion of the answer is non-historical, non-objective and falls outside of the scope of this subreddit.
Comment by Downtown-Act-590 at 24/01/2025 at 14:59 UTC*
83 upvotes, 2 direct replies
I see it as a nice suggestion, but more for some newspaper than for this sub with very specific purpose.
I liked the META posts by mods during important events, but they were really merely small notes of an FAQish nature. This is something completely different, far more exhausting and way more difficult to execute objectively.
edit: I would personally find it more appealing to add a small guide on how to ask questions relevant to the contemporary events. A lot of these questions appear poorly phrased and as such get immediately deleted for breaking the rules or downvoted. Maybe a small checklist for this specific purpose would help these people get their questions across.
Comment by holomorphic_chipotle at 24/01/2025 at 16:31 UTC
98 upvotes, 4 direct replies
I believe your heart is in the right place, yet you are asking too much of the mods and of the regular contributors who would have to bear the brunt of your suggestions. I wouldn't mind a flagged post detailing the history of resistance to fascism — I think that more people need to be made aware of the fact that fascist regimes rely on popular legitimacy, and that organized massive protest can influence the actions of an authoritarian regime — but this sub remains one of the few good places[1] on the internet, and in my opinion should continue to be "an oasis of truth in a world that seems to be constantly renegotiating it". Why would you want to take that away from the users who come here for that very reason? Moreover, I'm willing to bet that many historians disagree that history exists to teach; while it does provide the tools to understand the past, it lacks predictive capacity.
1: https://theoutline.com/post/6428/a-good-place-where-nothing-is-fake-and-there-is-no-news
I'll also be frank. I don't care about the stupid distractions of a drug-addicted plutocrat; I worry about the thousands of people whose lives are slowly becoming a nightmare, and that a society which coined the term *Vergangenheitsbewältigung* failed to properly confront a right-wing extremist who called Hitler a communist. Not living in the United States, I can't do much about the first; however, I think that this platform can be at its most influential if it continues to fight misinformation about the past, rather than getting caught up in debates that we are too close in time to properly place in their historical context.
Comment by Previous-Friend5212 at 24/01/2025 at 18:29 UTC
55 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Please don't. If people want this kind of information, it's already overwhelmingly available on the internet. It would be nice to keep this little slice of the internet focused on its core purpose instead of jumping on the current hot topic bandwagon.
Comment by DonnieMoistX at 24/01/2025 at 19:05 UTC
53 upvotes, 1 direct replies
This is a history sub. Not a current politics sub.
There are hundreds of subreddits where you can talk about modern politics. Have that discussion there.
This sub is for people to discuss history. That’s what it should be for.
Not every single subreddit has to be about current events and politics. You and everyone else will be fine if you can only have that discussion on a hundred other subreddits instead of this one.
Comment by Abdiel_Kavash at 24/01/2025 at 22:13 UTC*
33 upvotes, 1 direct replies
I would like to add my small voice to those who disagree with the OP. I am not a flaired user, I am not a historian, I barely post anything here, I have asked only a couple of questions over the years. But I read AskHistorians nearly every day, and it is by a big margin one of my favorite communities on reddit, if not on the internet as a whole. But I come to AskHistorians to read about history. I come here to read about Rome, about life in the middle ages, about exploration of the world, about cultures spatially and temporally distant from my own. I don't come here to read about whatever the latest stunt the clowns down south have performed this week. As others say, there is more than enough other media already covering it, and in fact I would be grateful if I could *block* more of it, rather than have to engage with these news from even more places.
The 20-year rule is one of the golden standards of this subreddit, and it has very good reasons[1] for existing. In my opinion, many of the recently asked questions (including some of the topics suggested in the OP) are really just thinly veiled attempts to break the rule. A redditor asking, "what was life for ordinary people during the rise of fascism", is quite likely not *actually* looking for an answer about Germany in the 1930s. What they really want to know is "what will my life be like in the USA in the coming months or years". This question is obviously against both the rules and the spirit of the subreddit, so they settle for the closest analogue. I don't want to cast too wide of a net, because discerning other people's intentions is always difficult, especially over the internet; but some questions in the last few weeks have not even tried being subtle about this.
1: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/glj8c4/rules_roundtable_xii_the_twenty_year_rule/
I, once again, as merely a frequent reader, with no stake in the community, would welcome a move in the *opposite* direction from what the OP suggests: tighten enforcement of the 20-year rule, and apply it to discussions which are clearly (beyond reasonable doubt) just asking about current events, and are not interested in the broader historical context.
Comment by TheCloudForest at 24/01/2025 at 18:24 UTC
59 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Can we *not* ruin the best place on the entire Internet? Please?
Comment by Wanderous at 25/01/2025 at 03:12 UTC
10 upvotes, 1 direct replies
As an avid reader of this subreddit, I don't really appreciate how many questions recently are thinly-veiled political statements. I understand that current events are inevitably going to spur discussion and interest about parallels in history, but there is a greater context here that I think is important to note: Almost every single subreddit is currently dealing with an influx of political posts that very much stretch the boundaries of what those subreddits are supposed to be about -- it isn't just r/AskHistorians.
To put it bluntly, I don't think the vast majority of these recent questions about are coming from an honest desire of wanting to learn.
Comment by jschooltiger at 24/01/2025 at 18:40 UTC
21 upvotes, 0 direct replies
It may be worth pointing out that we already have an open thread for discussion of pretty much anything (as long as people are nice to one another). The Friday Free-for-All thread runs on Fridays and is, well, a free-for-all. It’s a bit like the podcast in that it’s been around forever and doesn’t get pushed by the Reddit algorithm, meaning you have to look for it, but that space is open and welcoming.
Comment by bth807 at 24/01/2025 at 22:37 UTC
20 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I am just a avid reader, not a mod, not a professional historian. With all due respect, I would be strongly against this. Turning AskHistorians into a subreddit of current events or political discourse is not what this subreddit is about, and there no shortage of places for this type of discussion. While I sympathize with and understand the OP's desires, my non-counting vote is a strong "No".
Comment by dhowlett1692 at 24/01/2025 at 18:35 UTC
21 upvotes, 2 direct replies
Thanks, OP, for giving the mod team and I your thoughts. I wanted to bring up an side of AskHistorians that I'm doing my own personal research on as a side project, and while its not the sort of separate feature thread that you're suggesting, you may see overlap in the AskHistorians day-to-day operations and the sort of discussions you want to see.
User are bringing their concerns about the present to AskHistorians via historical questions. This has been a long time trend between current events and subreddit posts. First, this isn't surprising, As E. H. Carr wrote in What Is History?, “we can view the past, and achieve our understanding of the past, only through the eyes of the present.” Users on AskHistorians are interpreting the past according to our present reality. Some questions are more subtle than others, but once you start seeing the current events themed posts, its hard to unsee. And users are responding to it- on a post yesterday asking about modern societies that curbed fascism, we received a user report stating "Can we please get rid of thinly veiled American political questions?" So I would first suggest that the type of discussions you're looking for are happening, but the framing and focus of those conversations are happening in accordance with AskHistorians being focused on historical events and scholarship.
I would also note that some of your explicit concerns- such as Elon's salute being a Nazi salute (which it was- at least many Nazis on X seem pretty confident it was too)- is one of those moments breaking through with historical questions. In the last couple days, we received so many questions about saluting, the Roman salute, the Nazi salute, etc... See here[1], here[2], here[3], here[4], here[5], here[6], here[7], here[8], here[9], and here[10]. It doesn't take a lot of brainpower to question why its suddenly a popular topic, we all know what we saw. I think its part of the value of AskHistorians to provide a space for historical context to current events without the distractions or the extremely high potential for soapboxing by including modern political discussions.
1: http://reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1i69jrr/was_that_actually_a_roman_salute_we_saw_today/
9: https://reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1i8hs67/what_is_the_historiographic_evidence_for_the/
I would also add that your concerns about the United States crossing into a new political moment is also extremely prevalent. In August 2024, I actually presented at a conference where I discussed current events on AskHistorians and noted the canary in a coalmine we saw that summer. Following the U.S. Supreme Court's presidential immunity decision, we received a lot of fascism history and Nazi Germany questions making pretty obvious parallels. For example:
Was There Anything Non-Nazi's Did To Accelerate Hitler's Rise To Power In The Early 1930's?
Were the German population okay with the Enabling Acts of 1933?
Is this the first time “American Democracy” has been perceived to be in jeopardy?
Now, I don't say all this to suggest the mod team is patting ourselves on the back and thinking we've done all that's necessary and won't do anything else. We are going to look at what you wrote, what commenters are saying, and we'll see what ideas come from it. We are limited by the Reddit format- for example, the userbase on Reddit and the experts who can comprehensively answer a question aren't always complimentary or the algorithmic visibility means a post doesn't reach the one person who can write the answers. We also have a specific mission to provide serious, academic-level answers to questions about history, and that informs how we address the current political climate.
So maybe there is already a grassroots version of what you're looking for and the mod team will reflect on the discussion here. I don't know if or what we'll do, but we appreciate the conversation here are take it seriously. Let me conclude with this-
Everyday, AskHistorians users bring us questions that reflect their anxieties about the world, their fears for the future, their moments of curiosity, and their excitement to learn. Users share themselves with us in their questions. Right now, a lot of those questions come from a place of concern for where humanity is heading, and I expect that trend will continue for a long while, but maybe there is some hope in that too. None of us are alone in watching the current political situation, and there are hundreds of thousands of people looking to the past to make sense of our contemporary lives. I am not speaking for the mod team right now, but I can say that we remain committed to ensuring the integrity of answers throughout whatever the future holds because you, and millions of users like you, know the importance of past and deserve trustworthy historical information to navigate the present.
Comment by rubicon83 at 24/01/2025 at 18:08 UTC
46 upvotes, 2 direct replies
Just start a different sub for this crap. Keep it out of ask historians.
Comment by JedaiGuy at 24/01/2025 at 22:14 UTC
14 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Please do not.
Comment by hexennacht666 at 24/01/2025 at 17:55 UTC
27 upvotes, 0 direct replies
This is a productive and thoughtfully written suggestion, and not at all what I want from this sub. I’m in agreement with the general premise about learning from the past, and certainly many questions here seek to do just that. *But* I’m confronted with this unpleasant reality enough in my daily life, I don’t wish for another corner of the internet to be crowded with it.
Comment by xavras_wyzryn at 24/01/2025 at 17:01 UTC
45 upvotes, 1 direct replies
If I would like to read about politics, I can open the papers, check r/politics or turn on the TV. I'm not here to read about politics.
Comment by Ok_Classic_7487 at 24/01/2025 at 22:38 UTC
19 upvotes, 0 direct replies
This idea that the "20-year rule" should be broken because of current events in the U.S. is a flawed one. History isn't shaped by the immediacy of current political events; it requires the context of time, research, and perspective to allow for a more nuanced understanding. While it is important to consider the lessons of history in addressing today's issues, bringing in ongoing political developments prematurely risks distorting the objective nature of historical analysis.
Seems like your objective is to use Reddit as a platform to push your personal political views. The suggestion that recent U.S. events like Trump’s policies or Elon Musk’s actions are tantamount to historical movements like fascism overlooks the complexity of both history and current affairs. Not only is this dangerous because it mixes contemporary politics with history, it also dilutes the space for meaningful and unbiased discussion. Using the history community to amplify personal political narratives is problematic because it disregards the importance of impartial research and reflection.
Comment by neuroid99 at 24/01/2025 at 15:58 UTC
27 upvotes, 1 direct replies
What about a separate/sister sub for historical analysis of current events?
Also, if you're not familiar with her, Heather Cox Richardson is an active historian with a daily substack about us politics and the historical context.
Comment by erissays at 25/01/2025 at 09:22 UTC*
5 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Preface: I approach answering this question as a) someone whose profession is politics, b) someone with a field of specialty that often forces me to skirt the 20 year rule when answering questions (American comics), and c) someone who has answered a question here[1] directly on a topic you named (the history of birthright citizenship and the 14th amendment).
1: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9snl6v/comment/e8ray91/
Two things can be true:
1. The twenty year rule exists for very good reasons and helps neutralize both Big Feelings and obviously biased narratives about intensely complicated and nuanced topics.
2. The twenty year rule is occasionally a barrier to explaining full and proper context when answering someone's question.
Members of this sub have debated the purpose and continued utility of the 20 year rule on multiple occasions, resulting in several clarifications and extended explanations of why this rule remains in place (most notably in the sub-wide Rules Roundtable threads[2] the mods hosted a few years back).
2: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/glj8c4/rules_roundtable_xii_the_twenty_year_rule/
While I would appreciate a weekly theme on some of the topics you mention (which I think would open up new and timely discussions about certain historical events or topics), it's also worth noting that various users have written *extensively* about many of those topics in the past. For every bullet point on your list, there are at least 4-5 questions on that topic that have been asked and answered quite thoroughly at some point in this sub's history. And frankly, talking extensively about the current political environment in relation to those topics would do very little to improve the kinds of answers you would get on any given question. Most of the users of this sub are not political scientists, politicians, or political staffers; they are historians, whether professional or amateur, and attempted political analysis of current events while also trying to provide academic-level answers to historical questions would do far more harm than good.
AskHistorians is a sub focused on public history outreach. It's only natural that current events spark questions that people want answered, but just because "everyone" knows what a question is REALLY asking doesn't mean that those specific current events need to be directly referenced, discussed, and contextualized to properly answer a given question. There are plenty of other subs where you can have the kinds of conversations you're talking about—many of which the flaired users of this sub frequent! I've taken my AH-level posts and answers to other subs several times over the years due to the 'no current events' rule here.
Additionally, the twenty year rule does not prohibit *mentioning* relatively recent events (as I proved when I noted Trump's comments about birthright citizenship in my answer and countless askers prove when they mention a current event in the body of their historical-focused question); it prohibits posting questions or answers that *center* around current events.
The point of this sub is to post historical answers about historical questions; skilled users are able to ask probing questions and answer questions properly while keeping within the rules of the sub. IMO, the 20 year rule has made me a much more creative and efficient writer because it often forces me to think about alternative ways to provide an answer and the resulting answer is usually much more complete and well-rounded than it otherwise would have been.
Comment by GlumTown6 at 24/01/2025 at 15:30 UTC
18 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Wouldn't this violate the sub's rules? I've seen questions get deleted for engaging in current politics, this whole curriculum engages in current politics.
I'm not totally against the idea but there would have to be some rewriting of the rules and changes in the way topics are allowed.
Comment by Isulet at 24/01/2025 at 20:29 UTC
17 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Please don't. I don't need yet another subreddit inundated with this stuff.
Comment by rivezack at 24/01/2025 at 18:10 UTC
7 upvotes, 0 direct replies
This is an interesting idea, and I can't contribute much to think about it.
I just want to point out that, while the USA position as the hegemon in the global order makes its politics everyone's business, I'm a little afraid that this change can open the doors for a too much US-centric forum.
Comment by Redditor_From_Italy at 25/01/2025 at 13:30 UTC
5 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Politics are not history. Give them 20 years or so and they might become part of it. To suggest otherwise is just recency bias.
Comment by Civility2020 at 24/01/2025 at 20:06 UTC
17 upvotes, 1 direct replies
If the 20 year rule is repealed, this subreddit will be overrun by the (obvious) coordinated, financed, astroturfing campaign currently in progress across the Reddit platform.
If you want to be r/Politics/Pics, etc, repeal the rule.
If you want to remain a serious history site, keep the rule that has served you well to this point.