I'm a lawyer, and I'm bothered by the fact that racism isn't defined. Given that this is a rule, and given that the definition has dramatically different meaning, largely based on political affiliation, isn't it reasonable that you add a clear and objective definition of what constitutes racism? I mean some people define racism as almost anything a white person says, or even just existing. Others like the webster's definition, which is a global negative attribution made against a race. Other's use a definition somewhere in the middle where you need to say something potentially negative about another person's race, but it can only be done by certain races and not others (ie only whites can be racist).

You cannot arbitrarily define what is racism, as this is largely why a number of people left reddit to join this sub.** I think the rule is 100% fair, and I agree with it, but without defining what it is, you basically get to arbitrarily ban people just like happened to all of us from r/canada. **