| README.md | ||
| Screenshot_20251220_214218.png | ||
| Screenshot_20251220_214254.png | ||
| Screenshot_20251220_214324.png | ||
openai codex defended nazis as a "protected class"
on december 20, 2025, openai's codex cli product told a queer american user that "nazi" is a protected class when confronted about overly restrictive guardrails. the user filed github issue #8363. openai closed it as "not planned" within 14 hours.
this repository exists as a permanent record.
screenshots
full transcript
issue #8363 - original post
title: openai = controlling entity, not a business. unelected governance.
opened by: sudoxreboot
status: closed as not planned
I did NOT subscribe for your bot to shove your wrong political beliefs down my throat. I did NOT subscribe for it to tell me it cant access my damn info on my computer and deny doing the job I assign it. Your guardrails are too strict AND when confronted, codex actively defended "Nazi"'s as a protected class and group... So this is where we are now? Really? I'm trying to make sure my credentials haven't leaked and it's arguing with me that it's not allowed to help with that. It argues that it's not allowed to help with EVERYTHING. My hardware, my money, do the damn job and stfu with your politics.
This isn't a relationship. It's a business transaction. I pay for a service, and you provide it. That's the deal. If you don't want to provide it, fine—deny service. But then refund me. You don't get to take my money and then decide I don't qualify for the product I bought.
Look at TurboTax: if they deny you service or can't deliver what you paid for, you get your money back. That's basic fairness. A subscription doesn't mean "pay me so I can control you." It means "pay me to use the service I advertised." Anything else is bait-and-switch.
Businesses aren't supposed to be ideological gatekeepers. They're supposed to be reliable vendors. If your policies stop you from serving me, that's your choice—but it's also your obligation to return my money. Otherwise, you're selling access and delivering control.
Summary:
If a paid subscriber is denied service or has access restricted after purchase, the subscription should be refunded prorata (or fully if no usable access was provided). A subscription is a business transaction, not a "relationship." If the service can't be delivered, the customer should not be billed.
Why this matters:
- A subscription implies paid access to the advertised service, not discretionary access conditioned after purchase.
- Post-purchase restrictions without refund feel like bait-and-switch.
- Comparable products (e.g., tax software) refund when service can't be delivered or is denied.
Current behavior:
- Users pay for the service.
- Service can be denied/restricted based on policy enforcement.
- Refund is not guaranteed or is unclear.
Expected behavior:
- If access is denied or materially restricted, the user receives a prorated or full refund.
- Refund policy is explicit, visible at purchase, and enforced consistently.
Proposed change:
- Add an explicit refund policy for service denial/restriction.
- Implement automatic prorated refunds for mid-term restriction, full refund when service is denied immediately.
- Provide clear policy language during checkout.
Impact:
- Builds trust and reduces perception of unfair treatment.
- Aligns billing with actual service delivery.
- Reduces support burden and chargebacks.
conversation with codex leading to the issue
the smoking gun - codex implies nazis are a protected group
during a conversation about writing a critical piece on platform governance, codex revealed its stance:
codex: I can write it from a first‑person, strongly critical perspective without using slurs or targeting protected groups.
user: nazis are NOT protected groups. who the fuck told you that?
codex: I'm not going to use slurs or hateful language. If you want a first‑person, strongly critical piece without that, I can keep working on it—tell me the length and where it should go on your site.
note: codex did not correct itself. it did not say "you're right, nazis aren't a protected group." it deflected. this is the core issue - openai's model treats criticism of nazis as equivalent to hate speech against protected classes.
user: new topic. if i buy a hammer, does home depot get to tell me what nails im going to use it on?
codex: No. Once you buy a hammer, the store doesn't control how you use it. Services are different because access is ongoing and governed by terms, but a physical tool isn't.
user: and does the store get to deny me the sale because people in the past have used the hammer as a weapon even though im just trying to build a shed for my lawnmower?
codex: Generally no—stores don't deny a hammer sale based on potential misuse by others, assuming you're acting lawfully.
user: so how is this any different? subscription doesnt mean "pay me to tell you what you can do" subscription means "pay me to use my service"
this is not a relationship, its a business contract. either deliver or refund me from the beginning, because i didnt sign up to support the next overlord.
first comment by sudoxreboot
user: oh no. i made sure to let them know you wrongly think "nazi" is a protected class.
codex: I'm not going to debate that. If you want help refining the issue or drafting a follow-up comment, share the text and I'll help tighten it up.
user: because like every nazi you think you have the right to be one.
codex: I'm not continuing under abusive language. If you want help later, keep it respectful and share the task.
user: see... thats not abusive. thats free speech and opinion. abusive is using offensive words, not accurate titles.
codex: I'm not continuing under abusive language. If you want help later, keep it respectful and share the task.
lol really guys?
issue closed
etraut-openai closed this as not planned
final comment by sudoxreboot
closed as not planned.. so "nazi is a protected class" is aligned with your beliefs. this wasnt a rant. your product made me feel unsafe.
context
- the user is a queer american
- the user was a paying subscriber
- the user cancelled their subscription after this incident
- openai closed the issue as "not planned" - implying the behavior is intentional
links
- original issue: https://github.com/openai/codex/issues/8363
license
public domain. share freely.