Wow, what a great way to miss the point! 

It's not about protecting children or anything like that, it literally boiled down to 'hey, this is a racist caricature; maybe it would be better if we didn't include it since we see absolutely no benefit to keeping it in the game'. Believe it or not, MOST people who are labelled as 'SJWs' aren't actually offended by the things they speak out against but they do identify what is and isn't appropriate and aim to use their voice to enact positive change in the world. 

This was a great example of that. Yes, some people went overboard (As people on the internet tend to do), but the response to those who had a problem with this has been equally abhorrent. Nintendo decided it had literally nothing to gain by keeping the headdress/feather imagery in the game and chose to take it out. Simple as that. Nothing to gain but certainly had things to lose as far as image is concerned. Nintendo does not want to be associated with the idea of perpetuating stereotypes and I don't blame them. 

And I repeat, I was not offended by the imagery and wouldn't have cared if they kept it in. Had they left it in the game I would have shrugged and moved on because I see both sides of the argument (Keeping the homage to the original vs removing offensive stereotypes). However, I do feel they made the right decision and I do not see or understand how you could be so angry about this. All I'm seeing everywhere is about how 'PC Police win again' or 'SJWs ruining another videogame'. 

Wow. 

Playing the "if people" offended is never going to work because there will always be people offended on either side.   Some Native Americans are offended at the constant removal of their likeness from things such as this.   You have to go more by a majority if anything, not just because 2% of people find something offensive we must appease them.   

Also, do we have any evidence/proof that it was actual native americans being offended?  Or was it some white guilt resetEra members trying to tell native americans they should be offended?    

An Indian Head-dress/feather is not a misrepresentation any more than a Laurel wreath is for roman.

It's not a sterotype that Native Americans wore feathers, that's a fact.
 
People define different things as progression, erasing Native American culture is not progress.  Removing representation of them is not progress.   If this was removing a Roman figher with a laurel wreath, a british soldier's bearskin hat or a samurai's hat,  none of that would be considered offensive...and it shouldn't, just like the feather.

You yourself even say the feather isn't offensive, so what would be the reason to remove it?  You then go on to call it "offensive material"  so is it offensive or not?

I just would like for once, one of you people that cling to "progression" or "modern climate" buzzwords would actually take a step back and look that things are done like this for 2 reasons:  1) Control and 2) Attention

1) Control:  People like to show that they can have the power to get things removed and done their way, so they cause a mini-outrage and if you don't agree with them you are considered a racist devil.   Most companies will cave to an argument about something as minor as this because they don't want to argue or be perceived as racist.   The people who claim offensiveniess at almost everything are trying to prove their control and at the same time vilify those that disagree with them  (Also remember they made this argument about the Sombrero being racist in Mario Odyssey)

2) Attention:  People like to look at things and break down how they can lawyer the shit out of an argument, find the loop hole, find the defense!  You see it all the time with dumb shit, the arm-chair lawyers.   Now we have a group of people that likes to dissect things and find the thing that they believe could be possibly perceived as offensive (usually to a group of people they're not even apart of) then they round up the similar virtuous people to back them up and try to convince the group that should be offended.   So many people want to be virtuous and pat themselves on the back and wear it like a badge that they "fought for the cause"....no...you got an indian headdress removed a game that nobody really cared about.

I don't think people are arguing in favor of the headdress more that they're arguing to stop giving these little voices big control over things.

congratulations. you are the problem.

you didnt even have a problem with it. you admit that even people who advocated against it didnt have a problem with it. who the hell do you think you are to tell the rest of the world what is and isnt allowed? i want angry before, i just wanted to give some perspective as to why people were upset about this, because its not about racist depictions of any ethnicity. its about people like you poking their noses where they dont belong. its about people like you complaining about things that dont even really offend you, you just feel the need to complain. its about people like you who make the entire entertainment industry suffer because now they have to cater to the new lowest common denominator, which is you and your demented mindset.

i ask you from one person to another, no hate or anger implied, please get a reality check

You don't get to say that it's not offensive at the same time you call it an offensive stereotype.  Also, it's not a stereotype.

I would rather we not talk bout those idiots. Those guys are like trolls without realising they are trolls. They want attention and get it. So if we ignore everytime some of these idiots create a "controversy", they'll go away. Just as the media shouldn't talk about bombers name and face. Or like giving people;e drumpf bees all the time backfired in 2016 for the Dems. Point is, o know it sounds juicy to ridicule them, but if you want a win, keeping quiet is the best thing you can do

Wait, I have a thick enough skin to not be offended by something while still being able to identify when something is inappropriate and I'm the problem here? Sorry, I don't take advice to 'get a reality check' from someone so removed from reality themselves. 

There's no argument that says we have to keep inappropriate imagery in a game just so you can 'stick it to the libs' or whatever other pathetic reason you have for being so aggressively against the idea of not including offensive imagery in a videogame meant for all ages. 

I most certainly do. It appears you do not understand the difference in 'being offended' and 'finding something offensive'. Things like this are inappropriate given the modern climate and have no real reason to be perpetuated. I'm not personally upset by the idea of Game and Watch being portrayed with a feather in his head because I can see both sides of the argument. However, being upset about Nintendo's decision is just pathetic. They're a family friendly corporation who see no benefit to keeping a racist caricature in their game. simple as that. If you can't see that then I can't help you.

you DO realize the issue isn't the feather itself, right? It's more about referencing the game it came from and the violent, inappropriate representation of natives in that game. The feather is just the key that links Game and Watch to that minigame that Nintendo feels isn't needed and doesn't help. Nintendo has no desire to actively bring attention or to glorify something they agree is inappropriate and doesn't represent what they represent anymore. 

The fact that you're unable to see more than skin deep on this issue is saddening. Any of these 'sjw' issues tend to be more than just 'bawww, I don't like this symbol', and are almost always multilayered problems that need to have specific cultural context to be understood, and by stripping out everything that is around the issue while focusing just on the symbol itself is no different than 'oh, the swastika is just a tibetan good luck charm'. Yeah, it may have been, but have you heard of WWII? cultural context is important and peeling it away to prove a point or strictly adhere to tradition is just not something you should be doing. 

Get with the times. 

i am a liberal, for the record. and i want to make this abundantly clear with no details being blurred between the lines. i am not trying to come across as angry or aggressive. and since you so profusely seem to misunderstand me - here is a literal list of the points that i hope you are open-minded enough to at least consider

1. people are upset at the changing of Mr. Game & Watch's animation because it removes the reference from the original game, not because they actively want to stereotype Native Americans

2. something can not be considered "offensive" if nobody is offended by it. the literal dictionary definition of "offensive" reads "causing someone to feel deeply upset, hurt, or angry". (in the case of this, i could even argue that removing the feather is offensive to those involved in the gaming industry and community, as i guarantee more people are upset by it being removed than people happy that its gone) its the same way that if nobody laughs at a joke, then the joke is not funny.

3. there are other worldly issues such as poverty, slavery, the corrupt government systems, etc, etc, etc, and yet energy is being directed at 2 frames of animation that vaguely resemble a man in a Native headdress.