devoras: This thread is an interesting idea, but I think it won't really work. The reason being in the other threads, politics end up coming into it because people are talking about politics within the context of that particular topic, usually politics being pushed into gaming in different ways. That's the sort of thing that people in a gaming forum would be interested in as they come up, more than general political conversations.

I doubt you will have much interest in a general thread specifically talking about politics, unless specific situations are brought up. It could work as a good place to move political conversations to that come up naturally in other threads, however.

initialpresence: When politics is brought up in threads, they're shut down. The moderator's argument being that it is derailing the thread. At least that is the pretext for locking so many threads lately.

initialpresence: Politely directing conversations from other threads to a "political stuff thread" would solve the problem.

initialpresence: The main concern still remains with the conduct of the moderators, as long as they can remain neutral there is a possiblity this might work.

MartiusR: I've taken a look on forum moderator's activity... And well, I agree that cumulating in one thread any political discussions would be a step in good way. I've noticed that mod is sometimes behaving like tired parent, who is not interested in which child has started quarell and if someone is innocent or guilty, just shouting "shut up" to the one, who was currently louder. Which is in my opinion sad, because it's clearly showing that mod is having a hard time with dealing with emotions and making his duties with "cold professionalism". I'm not accusing him of anything, on the contrary, I feel sympathy and understand his grief, even if I don't consider his activity as "well done" at this moment*.

So yeah, despite the fact, that I've agreed with Zeogold earlier, I'm currently rather "for" this thread to exist (and be controlled), since it seems to be a decent way to make "safety valve", despite toxic behaviours of some users in terms of discussing political subjects.

*but let's not be hasty with evaluating his job as negative "at all", since he still have to gather experience with time

zeogold: No. No, it would not.

initialpresence: Are there already limits on free speech?
Should there be limits? If so what should those limits be?
Is the material from some content producers on the so called "alt-right", for example Red Ice, crossing a line for some of you?

initialpresence: ...politics ...
...keep it civil ...

PaterAlf: Or maybe they just didn't release Hatred, because GOG is a curated store and the game was bad, boring and full of bugs. Just a thought.

PaterAlf: Or maybe they just didn't release Hatred, because GOG is a curated store and the game was bad, boring and full of bugs. Just a thought.

MartiusR: Under "normal" circumstances I wouldn't jump too quickly to mentioned conclusion, but I've read quite a lot in polish (as well as foreign) press about those "revelations" regarding Hatred's developers and GOG didn't bothered with quality of the game at any moment. But when news about "fascist" developers of Hatred became quite popular, it pushed very quickly GOG to reject the game. I see there Postal series and quite a lot of bad indie games worser than Hatred (played in it out of curiosity), so I'm even more doubtful that game's quality and/or its violence was/were reasons.

PaterAlf: Please show me a single quote or source that GOG considered Hatred before the revelations came up. In my eyes GOG rejected the game afterwards, because it was closer to release day and they've probably seen a playable version of this boring and buggy mess.

misteryo: User initialpresence uses mentions of news or politics to bring up his agenda of promoting ethnic nationalism. He maintains that there is nothing racist or violence-inciting about this view. He maintains that he is being civil and therefore should be able to continue expressing his views.

"Ethnic Nationalism" is a racist political agenda that was conceived of by white supremacists as a way to avoid mentioning "White Supremacy" which has fallen out of favor. White supremacists did not invent the idea. It has been around for millennia, and well known historical figures such as Herodotus, Malcolm X, and Hitler have espoused some form of it. But, the white supremacists of today have adopted it as a way to disguise their racist agenda enough to gain entrance to polite society - where they then try to promulgate their ideas.

There are plenty of ethnic nationalist elements or ideas present all over the world. But the specific form of Ethnic Nationalism that initialpresence and the alt-right and white supremacists are promoting is not found all over the world, nor is it tolerated in most of the world. Initialpresence is putting forward the idea that there should be created ethnic states where habitation is restricted by racial identity. White-only states. Blacks-only states. Etc. By definition a racist agenda.

Initialpresence has said there is nothing racist about holding the opinion that people should group by race. That he is not calling for violence. That he is not promoting hate. But it is clear from history and current events (Germany under Hitler, the genocide in Rowanda, the current treatment of the Rohingya in Myanmar, etc.) that enacting the ideas he promotes produces violence, murder, genocide.

Don't be distracted by the other arguments that spring up around the above issues (GOG's apologizing for a Twitter joke, GOG not carrying the game Hatred, etc.). These are attempts to paint GOG as a political actor with a leftist agenda who is just trying to silence those who disagree with them - in order to drum up support for the idea that initialpresence is being persecuted and deserves defending. He is not being persecuted. He is in fact being tolerated to a pretty far degree. There are many places on the internet where he would be summarily banned for promoting racist political agendas.

Initialpresence has been toeing the lines of what is acceptable speech here in the forum, and it remains up to the moderators to decide where exactly that line is.

I am writing this, because I want to highlight the repugnant idea that is at the center of initialpresence's rhetoric: the creation of whites-only states as a defense against "white genocide." This is a racist agenda. This is a white supremacist agenda. I encourage forum-goers not to engage him in discussion, not to give him a platform here. Let his threads die. Let his posts go unanswered.