Does an impartial discussion of bigotry as it relates to politics violate the code of conduct?

Question

The stack exchange code of conduct clearly states bigotry is not acceptable:

No bigotry. We don’t tolerate any language likely to offend or alienate people based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion — and those are just a few examples. When in doubt, just don’t.

On most stacks this is straightforward, however, politics involves understanding potentially odious viewpoints. Obviously bigoted name calling is inappropriate, but sometimes a bigoted position has to be discussed to better understand the politics of what is going on. On this meta question, a user suggested

However, politics.SE is bound to the Code of Conduct of stackexchange, which forbids bigotry.

If an answer uses white supremacist sources, I would flag it and maybe additionally use the "Contact us" option to make sure the appropriate action is taken.

I'm not sure whether this is the right approach or not. If someone asks the on-topic question "What positions does political group X take on social issues?" If group X is a bigoted group, it probably makes sense to answer:

"Group X believes in bigotry based on race, gender, sexual orientation, and religion. The leader of group X [said] (bigoted website) this bigoted thing 'bigoted thing.' Members of group X agree with this bigoted idea based on [this poll] (source). Group X cites bigotry as the basis for these policies..."

I wouldn't say that answer is likely to offend at all, since it is purely descriptive and doesn't take a normative position. However the standard is set very high with "if in doubt, don't" and it's hard to say what might offend any of the global audience of a website. Is it appropriate to neutrally explain the viewpoints of groups whose stances violate stack exchange's code of conduct?

Answer 1

Bigoted viewpoints can be discussed by attributing them to the people who make these statements and not to the posters themselves and by putting their statements into an appropriate context. Example:

Question: The political doctrine of Antifelinism believes that all kittens should be eradicated. How do prominent antifelinists propose to do this?

A bad answer:

Antifelinists believe that kitten are evil because [this article] says that kittens pray to satan and [this article] PROVES kitten did 9/11 and [this statistic] clearly shows that kitten population correlates with catnip smuggling. Also kittens scratch and bite and I hate them. Our stupid politicians should make the eradication of all felidae a top priority and their inaction on the kitten threat shows they are TRAITORS!!! Fido 2020!

A good answer:

Answer: Fido from the moderately pro-dog and anti-cat party suggested that kittens should be encouraged to get sterilized in [this interview]. His statement was heavily criticized by various cat rights groups. He later claimed in [this interview] that he was quoted out of context.

According to [this article] Brutus from the radical anti-felinist front wrote in his manifesto (which I am not going to link because it contains hate speech) that all kittens should be killed on sight. Note that the anti-felinist front is considered a terrorist organization by the EU.