Sorry for the late response, was playing a few games :)!

Thats just natural, every culture is based around its history and its applied policies. Everything must be political, as it affects your culture, even if the intent is non-political, like taking your dog outside for a walk. However this doesn't mean "Should we be able to take a piss outside?" must be valued with the same scrutiny as "should we pay for clean air to breath?". A lot of people can't seperate between these two scales logically, resulting in an absolute shitfest of a discussion to have.

I see it like this. I personally feel that politics should be allowed on GOG, though topics should be seperated as I wrote. The problem, and this is pretty obvious, is that there are a lot of people who don't understand the complexities of political discussions in the first place, often boiling down into a "us vs them" tribalistic way of thinking. I think its primarily because of this that GOG might become more strict into enforcing their rules.

People should see it this way. In terms of political sciences, if we simplify things to the extreme, the result of political practise is always the creation of policies, its the sole reason politics exist in the first place even ten thousand years before democracy existed. In the more modern times since Aristotle, policies always should stem from both discussion and consensus, which is why politicians, that the people have voted, vote for all kinds of stuff. However the problem is that more and more rhetoric replaced dialectic princples, which results in a lot of dumbness online. As politicans are also just human being, you see that people are pretty quick and prone to stick to certain flawed principles. These negative principles only manifest further, making compromise and good policies almost impossible nowadays. One of those possible outcomes are as you already said "Rules for me, but not for thee". So what does it have to do with GOG and this board?

What is important to remind yourself is that realizing that a lot of people participating in such threads are at fault by their own volition. And you have to remember that politics is just like money itself, as nothing but a tool. Poltics doesn't care how you apply and how the policies people fought for turn out. So it literally doesn't matter in terms of politics if you life in a society that values liberty or a totalitarian state, apart from peoples own mental states as nobody "owns" politics and its rules. As someone who reads all sorts of threads with all sorts of different tones, it should be on the interest of every person to understand that political discussions that are actually worthwhile are nothing more than accounting for the pros and cons of certain established axioms (every culture has different politics and policies). Any other discussion about policies often boil down like video game discussions, some people want to be correct and there always has to be an enemy who is in the wrong. The people therefore become victim to their own political dogma and the way to discuss things becomes murky of any truth. And as things become more extreme, the less people want to be involved with dialectic. So in the end, the meaning of the word you say becomes less of the focus of the topic itself, rather it becomes more important if people mean that they're correct. You can be as correct as you might be, if someone is better with words, they always will "win" the debate. This is my reasoning why GOG will establish more strict rules to forbid talking about poltics on here if they want to keep things in the main discussion board and why I initially posted the previous comment inside your thread. Consider this a gut feeling, but I also feel that the next CDPR game will show the results of rheorically established policies that divided people in the end, which is often one of the many themes of Cyberpunk plots. How those were established however might be interesting.

So with this ramble written down, from my own knowledge into the history of politics is that policies can only become fruitful whenever there is compromise between parties. For instance, oppressive working regimes have become less restrictive in the last 125 years thanks to compromises for instance. The crux of the issue regarding any meta-political discussion, which is the question whether or not the people/politicans are at fault for not caring about compromise or if they're just victims of previously established policies and just following rules the simpliest way themselves is a complex issue that I don't know the answer to. Its because of that I'm usually not commenting in political thread as I don't have anything important or useful to say that actually fuels those threads. I just wish that people would see political discussions more like smalltalk and not like a "war with sides" that you have to partake in like a good soldier.