Just got a new dish, my internet is now four times faster, and yet this is STILL a stupid thread. I'm now getting the same load of bullshit, only now it gets to me in a quarter of the time.

"What, are you discriminating players with chars other than L/G? Are they not allowed to have fun their way too?" And... everything else you can imagine which sounds like valiantly defending other players favorite taste of alignment while actually is about selling more books.

And by the thread title I naturally assumed we are already in a new be drunk & prank around thread :P

This isn't a stupid thread at all, and the OP is right to be worried about internet censorship. You wouldn't dismiss it like that if Trump wanted to censor the internet.

Oh trust me, trump does want to censor the internet, but that's not what I meant. The past has shown that political threads in here just don't work. I don't care how innocently or civil they start or what ideology they OP embraces, it is only a matter of time before it turns into a shit storm, and that is why they always end up being closed. Soon this one will be too.

Please tell me my fortune, too! Didn't know you work part time as fortuneteller? What divination techniques do you use? How did you learn that, from where? You caught me off-guard here, i make certain to know almost everything on Donald, yet i never got wind of such a thing...

Well maybe, but why does that have to concern you if the thread gets closed in the end? And if you don't like political threads, it's not like you have to read them. It's somewhat unfair to spoil those political discussions for people who enjoy them.

My good friend tinyE is the forum patrol police, since a long time now! He pesters the poor moderator all the time with this and that, it really shucks. I did him (my pal tinyE) the favor to self-censor myself almost all the time though, mostly because i really feel sorry for the poor worker at GOG, he must have a really tough time. Well, don't you know SJWs, son? Their main occupation is ruining the fun for everyone else who isn't "theirs", on pretty much everything that they themselves don't like, don't approve, etc. Either a place conforms to their demands completely, or they badmouth said place to extinction. Not long ago, they even threatened to never again buy gog games and convince other gamers not to, unless the forums get the new-style patrolling and moderation that was ultimately instigated. And then, those poor people come out to say "we fight for everybody's rights and freedoms"! The people who censor an online place all the way to hell and patrol 24/7 for what someone might say/discuss/suggest, the very same bunch nag against internet censor. And go so far as to accuse someone else who never wanted that, without evidence too, that they are preparing to bring it; simply because they don't like his mug.

They need understanding and a hug. NEVER talk back at them. Triggered person = scary experience... Especially parallel universe dwellers.

Seriously, it's a game forum, aren't enough places to talk politics on the Internet? You know what's sad about them? Not the fact that you people talk about politics, it is the fact that you (the politikers) repeat the same things over and over again. I think a single thread about Politics is enough, you people couldn't fill a thread page with different ideas anyway.

If you need to be passive-aggressive, do it in your own thread. Thanks.

I have a lot of ideas, and they're all extremely interesting.
But anyway, this is a thread about INTERNET censorship. Which is at least tangentially relevant to gaming and internet communities in general like this one here.

This is not a game forum, it's a general discussion area.
The "Game specific forums" can be found under the....well, I think it's obvious.

Most sincere condolensces for the poor teens, in that music event. I can't even find words... Even i have my limits and am appaled beyond

Yes, that's a problem. Meaning of something is what people agree on. Of course people never agree on anything. And they often rely on simplifications. However, simplifying things can make them also quite wrong.

Being conservative doesn't have to mean you have to be for a lean government or for freedom, even though sometimes it might mean that. For example, the meaning of liberal outside of the US is quite different (almost the opposite).

Using only one or two words for describing like half of the population (somehow conservatives are always like half of the population) seems like you make them more equal than they really are. it doesn't respect the individuality of the people which could for example support social and free policies at the some time. So maybe we should have learnt something from the Chaotic Neutral Paladin, that politics has more than one important dimension.

Btw. this is also a strong argument for more direct democracy (i.e. referendums on particular issues). If you vote for a party in a representative system, the party that is closest to you might only agree up to a certain point with you, so voting for someone else is always a compromise to some extent. Direct democracy has other problems like to decide when to vote about what and how often, but this definitely speaks for it. It also kind of advocates more than one or two parties. The more parties, the better everyone should find one that fits him/her. Of course at some point they become too small to form stable coalitions, so maybe 5-6 parties in parliament are like optimal.

I'm sure you do, just like the people above talking about internet censorship. Unfortunately, they seem to talk about it, in some cryptic English from some parallel universe.

Yeah, and "Game general discussion forums" are where?

Oh goody. Politics. I mean, dragging politics into this cesspool of humanity always turns out well, amirite? I see that it's already attracted in fuckwits like Bradley and Spudius like flies to shit.

Anyway, ignoring the obvious far-right idiots here, I just wanted to address one problematic post from someone who is otherwise generally a lot more rational:

There are some key problems with your definitions.

This is awfully loaded. One sign of a functioning and healthy society is a steady pendulum effect bewtween conservatism vs. progressivism. A society will often alternate between conserativism and progressivism with semi-regularity, depending on whether the society in question needs to slow down the pace of progress or speed it up. Progressive values take time to be absorbed by a society, and too many at once causes teething pains, so to speak, so periods of conservativism are inevitable, but if a society remains conservative for too long, the conservative establishment becomes entrenched, oppressive and authoritarian.

People elect "conservativism" to maintain the status quo, others elect "progressivism" to change it.

Conservatism isn't inherently racist or exclusionary, but conservative movements tend to attract racists and other assorted supremacists because the claim of "preserving traditional values" is easily manipulated to fit a racial or religious supremacist narrative along the lines of "protecting traditional values against foreign hordes" or something along those lines.

Over the past decade or so, many conservative movements have been "hijacked" by the far right to accommodate racial supremacist, authoritarian ideologies, who have then gone on to dress them up under the guise of "preserving cultural identity". People call this "right-wing populism" in a vain attempt to defuse the debate by avoiding the word "Nazi", but it really has just become national socialism in a posh suit, along with most of the hallmarks of it: strong militaristic tendencies, excessive demonisation of perceived enemies, and affinity towards a mercantilistic approach towards free enterprise with strong national protectionist policies.

That's a mistranslation of the German words "sozial" and "unsozial", which aren't the same as "social". Its closest translation is probably "socialist", but the term "sozial" also encompasses other more centrist movements like social democracy and the Third Way that embrace robust social security mechanisms and labour protection.

It's the same way that the German word "national" often gets mistranslated into English as "national" when it actually means "nationalist".

Is this a mistranslation of "rechtsstaatlich" and "unrechtsstaatlich"? If so, you're looking for the terms "rule of law" and "arbitrary rule".

What does this even mean?