Runa216 said:
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 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.