Modern, within the last 10 years, politics are not allowed per Da Rulez.
The discussion about this, however, revolves on the idea that talking about the existence and nature of political systems and making judgement calls about them are two different things. Even within 10 years, the former is fine; the latter is not.
For example, "North Korea is a communist state." is not a banned statement, even though it refers to up to the date (as of this post) "politics". It is a factual assertion, devoid of generalization and moralization.
You could even debate whether or not that assertion is true or not:
* On paper, DPRK says they have a communist system.
** Policy X, Y, and Z that were implemented [dates] at [locations] based on [evidence] are contrary to principles of communism A, B, and C according to [reference].
* Policy X and Y are temporary measures in extremis and likely to be reversed in the near future. Policy Z is apparently permanent, but only a mild deviation and within acceptable bounds of communist intent.
The above discussion, I believe, would be fine. Even though the last bit has subjective elements. They are contextual and arguable, but not moralizing.
So, let's cross the DMZ into the forbidden zone:
* DPRK's worker protections are oppressive.
VS
* The worker protections in the DPRK are radically less stringent than in Western liberal democracies.
I think the construction of the example makes clear which one would be OK and which one would not.
Let's make it a little more dicey:
* I cannot in good conscience buy products produced in the DPRK because of what I know about government endorsed worker protection policies and on-paper and in-execution environmental protection standards, as well as intellectual property laws.
This one does have a moral judgement in it.
But I am not making a generalized moral judgement about others; I am asserting a personal belief. I think the above would be fine.
Also, it's mostly a conversational dead-end, as it is unfalsifiable – no one else has authority to assert what someone else's opinions are. You could point out examples of behaviour or statements that seem to be in contradition of that principle, hopefully with citations. But even, then, a simple dead-end would be "I don't see those as inconsistent." "Well, I do."
This is how I see it, based on what is written in the rules and the way the rules have been enforced (both through action or allowances).
The Editor's mileage may vary.
"goes large."
