"Site about computer games" "site about computer games" "site about computer games"
I am still not entirely sure where people get that impression from. Such discussions have happened before the vast majority of members, much less presently active, members signed up so hardly a new development. Could be something to argue for as a change in rules, though that rather goes against ideas of free speech (rather important for the hacker mindset, and if you are going to remove hacking from this site... oh dear) and I am not sure you would like the results (nor would the moderators as it would be extra work) and the exception for directly game related news (possibly also intellectual property as it is what is used by lawyers/causes most fun for the hacking aspect) also gets rather tenuous at times, even if we don't ponder some kind of balanced whatever approach (do we only report on/disproportionately report on one party and maybe exclude those running on other issues we do like if they say something dumb about copyright or games). Go the other way as well -- Earthworm Jim's author caught some shade a while back for political views, Harry Potter is probably more known today and a few years back a little indie game called Minecraft had a creator with some interesting views, another little indie game called Five Nights at Freddies also saw its author troubled by not radicalism of any shade but merely predominately donating to/supporting a party... do we have to exclude such things or put a nice little disclaimer/big tech style "just so you know" a la suspicious stories, conspiracies (in the vein of you are not paranoid if they are really after you then what if some spin doctor gets it labelled a conspiracy but actually it was true all along?) and so forth?
For instance the fun and games you might have seen in various schools, companies, airports and the like over the years would be in play. For all I imagine the majority of those that complain on a semi regular basis/pile in when someone does would imagine some utopia (others might call it an echo chamber) in which the strawmen are no longer able to say things about dem immigrants/[slur of choice] are takin' urr jerbs the similarly radical positions some hold on other ends of the various spectrums (never mind those filthy hyper centrists) would also be shut down just as hard. If indeed fumbling with genitals matching your own, eschewing fumbling entirely and reckoning you were born with the wrong ones is a political position as well (some put it forth as one, and looking around the world then in the lack of anything else to ponder it does seem to be fairly noted among political discussions) then that might also be troubled, whether the point of having to look for covert signals (all those nice trademarked colours/flags for instance) much like we would be similarly expected to be numerologists (oldie but 88 = HH or Heil the badman* of world war 2, 420 is both a drug thing also apparently his birthday which could be tricky). Drug discussions (previous example maybe not tricky after all), wars (never happen without political bents) might also fall similarly.
*censorship only creates alternative terms as well. This is well demonstrated throughout history on all manner of political sides. If nothing else to take it back to the computer game hacking the site is apparently supposed to be about in this scenario then look at all the ever changing names and alternative terms flash carts get cast as on ebay and amazon following their purging of such things however many years ago. Do we have to keep up with such things too? Might be cost of running a discussion site I suppose.
All this seems like a nightmare to manage when the alternative is the simple concept of free speech is easier to employ, does not bring up issues to contemplate (none of the fields noted don't have their own massive internal schisms either that some kind of position by site staff would have to be come to and probably still upset someone, any political stance does rather tend to end up eating its own when it is allowed to run amuck as well).
I have no issue with curating your own feed as a general rule (though I get the impression I would label many that do it for this purpose weak minded, sucks to be them and hope they end up stronger or indeed take steps to achieve it) so roll on with it if it is easy enough to do (and as forums are already hidden for non staff, different staff, non supporters...). I eagerly await the following round of "turn if off for guests/unless explicitly authorised by a hidden profile option" for it as well.