It doesn't bode well to start a thread directly about politics when that's not allowed. A thread about good news is one thing, but this appears to be a thread about politics masked as one about good news.

*edit* though I can't say anything negative about the wheelchair guy article. You should've led with that instead of the politically charged one.

To be fair it's the first one I came across when looking for stuff to make this thread about & it is mostly what led me to start this thread.

Also, I was mainly using it to focus on the free speech angle and how various countries are handling it/trying to handle it.

Thanks for dropping in/weighing in, at any rate....all input is appreciated. :)

(Edit: As to "politics" in general....I was never a fan of that rule on the site, as I feel it;'s too broad/vague. I mean, does it forbid talking about politician's personal lives/non political actions in a non-political/good natured context? What about if someone wants to debate historical governmental systems in gaming? What if someone ants to discuss current events/topics in an non-political way/aspect which may/may not be supported by a political party at the same time in current day life(Like environmental actions/taxes/abortion debate/etc)?

It's too confusing as it currently stands, imo)

Well that's some good news.....now if only we can get other middle eastern/etc countries to follow suit and stop attacking/jailing those who are of the same alignments/mind on such matters.

Politics that relates to games, I believe, is allowed under the rules, so this wouldn't violate them.

That sounds pretty dubious, I don't think it would be allowed to post pro-Nazi comments, if "Hitler: The game" came to Gog.

Probably not, but if someone wanted to play on the "bad" side in such a game(for whatever reason....and assuming said game even had any chance of being made in today's climate) and talk about such/the mechanics when doing so/etc then that'd probably be ok if they weren't trying to glorify the actual ideology.

Didn't one of the Civilization games have "fascism" as a system of government?
So while "Hitler: The game" probably will never get made (and shouldn't get made), I don't think it's an entirely absurd thought experiment.

I don't know, but as to any games being made/not made because of subject matter: Imo if someone wants to create a game with such/other controversial ideas and release it for free/etc on the random internet then they should be allowed as long as others can mock/criticize it & point out the dangers of such beliefs. But then i'm all for free speech in general(barring a few exceptions like threats/etc).

(Also this is the last bit on this....i'm gonna try to bring this thread back on-topic and less on the topic of politics in games)

Post 6 - Officer buys mom and kids taco bell after seeing their car broken down in the drive thru, others push car to parking spot

When I see stories like this of people being selfless it makes my day and cheers me up after seeing all the other nonsense the world puts out. :)

This is the "good news" thread.

Anyone should be able to do anything as long as it's consensual, the state has nothing to do in private affairs. Less need for the approval of the state is always good news.

You include 'age of consent' laws in that argument.

Don't bother answering. I don't care.

Great riposte, that way we can justify the state meddling in every private matter there is. No other way to solve that and those laws work really great in practice as well.

Don't bother answering if you don't care for an answer.

Did the law involve preventing these people being together in the first place.

If two people want to get married with all the pros and cons that follows, and somebody agrees to marry them, why should the state be involved in the first place?

The question shouldn't be if the law is preventing these people from being together, the question should be why the law exists in the first place and why the state should have a say in private affairs.

This is just going to go around and around in circles. I'll again say: "You include 'age of consent' laws in that argument."

You don't seem to understand the purpose of marriage.

You also don't seem to understand why I'm arguing this point.

Hint... this is more about this thread than the topic of marriage.