I think Jordan covered the rule existing and not to break it, but I'd like to discuss why it's there to hopefully make this more transparent. Especially since Mitch may be croaking soon also (or already did, who knows?)
Rule 6 is a necessary evil. The reason is that websites which are truly off the rails are often singled out. A mostly leftist forum would be even more likely to be targeted. Community mods should on occasion think what would these posts look like on an FBI filing, or on a hit piece on the DSA for example. Not the same morally, but famously many nationalist/racist sites have been targeted and then had their hosting or ddos protection revoked because of content on the site calling for death or celebrating it with their rules and enforcements having no such limitations.
Different levels of extremes than here obviously, but the corporate landscape and justice dept is not on our side here and so interpretations which seem obvious to you may not be made before damage has been done.
Above all, mods have a responsibility to not create problems for the site that hosts their coms, regardless of deserved or undeserved protection on someone's legacy.
Besides, it's just as easy to say, "Warmonger Graham: Never an offensive war he didn't support, never a dollar from Israel he didn't immediately allow into his decision making process, never a brown person he didn't want to kill. He has obtained what he wanted most for others, death. He can now start his final battle without his mortal coil, to start a regime change in hell."