It’s interesting that the website is considered far-right simply because it doesn’t ban far-right posters. The website isn’t explicitly for right-wingers, but by allowing them to post on the website that’s what it’s become.
> More specifically, it allows far righters to post against its rules, but enforces them against other groups.
Source of this happening systemically? I ask systemically because for any forum there's accusations (and corresponding anecdotes) of censorship from both sides, so a few posts don't really prove anything. You see this on twitter for instance, with accusations that both the left and the right are being unfairly targeted.
How does this answer my original question? Are you just suggesting that because there is racism on /pol/, that it means that rules are being selectively enforced against non-"far righters"?
Yes. The far right is specifically being exempted from certain rules, while other rules are exempted. You can observe this because the far right is exempted from the rule that's meant to restrict them to /b/ and is instead allowed to roam free across the website (not just /pol/), while others aren't.
>Yes. The far right is specifically being exempted from certain rules, while other rules are exempted.
which specific rules are you talking about, aside from racism? Or is your claim simply that rules against racism isn't being enforced and therefore that constitutes "but enforces them against other groups"? Note that the latter is slightly different than the former. The former simply implies a rule that is written but not enforced, but the latter implies that certain rules (eg. "be polite") are being selectively used against a particular group (eg. impolite far-right posters are not punished, but impolite far-left posters are punished).
