This entire argument seems to revolve around the idea of "colorblindness". It basically roots itself in the idea that race shouldn't matter and therefore it doesn't matter. By stating that race and skin color are meaningless, you lay blame on anyone who acknowledges their existence. However, this mindset does not mirror reality. In reality, skin color and race are not socially meaningless. There are a number of stereotypes and tropes which have a deep history with their ties to race and racial divides are still very much real within socieity.

I think one of the clearest ways to picture this idea is to recall the black minstrel. Black minstrel characters are often considered to be synonymous with the use of blackface, but to leave them at that is doing a disservice to the idea. Basically, the black minstrel is a character used to imply (or outright state) that black people are stupid, happy-go-lucky idiots, essentially putting forth an air of racial superiority while diminishing the struggles of the african american community (especially in the 1800s), through the repetitive use of a character fitting the same archetype.

To state that race is irrelevant to a character is to state that there is nothing wrong with the black minstrel character. There is nothing wrong with a stupid character. There is nothing wrong with a black character. There is nothing individually wrong about any of these traits, however, it is the utilization of the traits in conjunction and in repetition which creates the stereotype and it is this combination which has its societal impacts. Because the color of a character's skin does matter in fiction because it still holds societal importance in real life.

The reason the Asian Math Whiz character exists is because it is a stereotype placed on Asians in real life. As such, the utilization of this stereotype is not only lazily falling upon stereotypes, but potentially doing harm by furthering a stereotype. Yes, a Black Math Whiz character would be a different character, because it does not similarly call upon tired cliches and it does not have the same societal impact of reinforcing stereotypes. If anything, this character would be going against stereotypes.

Now, all of that isn't to say that a certain character type cannot be done. As the author of the original article states, this character was actually handled quite well. However, it does imply that more needs to be done with a character in order to establish them as more than "another".

In conclusion, the argument that "mentioning that race is a component of many stereotypes is racist", might be true in a utopia where race had no societal importance, but in reality, it is simply ignorant to the differences and struggles of the societal experiences of different racial groups.

As someone who's been in over 15 fights for being called the N word I can tell you right now it's bad. It's disgusting the things I see online. Things that if you simply remove the word white and replaced it with black they would be chastised by the community.

Yes I do the same way I would be insulted if my boss came into my office and questioned my ability to do my job because I was old and black. Your disrespecting these people by assuming that the color of their skin affects their ability to do their job. You're disrespecting black people by assuming that just being black will somehow be better for me because I'm black. Someone being black does not mean they understand my life and the things I need in my life or how to make it better. Life and people are much more complicated than that.

"It basically roots itself in the idea that race shouldn't matter and therefore it doesn't matter."

racism is discrimination based on race, if someone is choosing to use race as a distinguishing characteristic in areas where it really doesn't matter then that person is a racist

"To state that race is irrelevant to a character is to state that there is nothing wrong with the black minstrel character. "

well yes that is racist and it is a problem... so isn't it stupid to after acknowledging that perpetuate this problem even further?

the thing about this that always amazes me is how the people being controlled by this ideology never consider what the endgame is

if you(not you specifically) continue using race to attack one group of people what do you think they'll do? you don't think there's a chance that they'll start to identify with their race more and start to resent other races?

"Because the color of a character's skin does matter in fiction because it still holds societal importance in real life. "

how so? you think black people are better than white people? or vice versa?

look i understand his perspective and its not coherent you cannot reduce the perceived emphasis on race by concentrating on race even more, that's just illogical

you can't in one instance claim its wrong to use race as a weapon to disenfranchise a particular group of people then turn around and use it yourself as a weapon

for one thing its hypocritical but most importantly all you are going to achieve is to encourage the other side to be resentful and vengeful

something else i'd like to comment on here is this idea of "stereotypes"
stereotypes are simply generalised characteristics we see being repeated in a pattern within a particular social context... and you could make the argument that we shouldn't try to perpetuate them
the thing is though stereotypes stereotypically exist for a reason
lets take the comments here about the hero of this game who is an adventurer
what do you expect to see when you picture an adventurer in our minds eye? you see someone who is physically fit and tough
you don't expect an adventurer to be fat, clumsy, stupid etc etc etc

a) Distinguishing is not discrimination.

b) Rephrase please. I'm not really sure what you are referring to when you say "that". Are you saying "black minstrel character are racist", or "criticizing black minstrel characters is racist", because the former seems to contradict your point a, while the latter seems to be kind of ridiculous. As a side note, criticizing tired stereotypes is not "attacking" anyone, and certainly not attacking anyone over their race. And just so we are clear, fictional characters aren't real.

c) How is race relevant socially? I mean, you have to ignore basically my whole post to ask that question, but to give a tldr, different racial groups have different experiences regarding their race. For example, if you are black you are more likely to have certain kinds of experiences, or know someone who has, regarding discrimination by the police or the legal system, or have people assuming that you are doing something illegal when you are just going about your day. To put it very simply, race still evokes expectation. You can argue that it should not (or that it doesn't in you personally), but you cannot argue that it does not. As previously stated, that would be an argument from ignorance, not from reality.

I'm just glad society is moving away from your naive thinking because we wouldn't progress. Of course race & age doesn't determine what you know but it really informs your life experiences which is why diversity is important. Essentially what you're saying is that diversity isn't important because the things that make us outwardly diverse including gender, age, nationality, orientation, race etc means nothing and has no impact on our life or life experiences. So when people complain about old white men in politics, its not because we hate old white men, its because there is so much nuance in what's affecting young people, whats effecting other ethnic groups, whats effecting woman that they will likely overlook because they are none of these things. Politics should be filled with a diverse range of qualified people and I'm disturbed by anyone who disagree's tbh. 

This just one example of the importance of diversity and why the "old white man" critique is fair, I'm sure you'll have no issue understanding this because it doesn't involve race 

And this is what happens when you have people far removed from a culture making assumptions about it

https://abcnews.go.com/US/deaf-man-stabbed-sign-language-mistaken-gang-signs/story?id=18213488

And me being gay and black I see it first hand. Many of my black friends and family have no idea what it's like to grow up gay and have no understanding of gay culture. Meanwhile my gay friends have no idea what it's like to grow up black and know very little about black culture.

*claps*

When people defended the reviewer that complained there were no black people in Kingdom Come Deliverance, why would we expect that people wouldn't side with this guy that instead of complaining that a char is unidimensional (he isn't) he had to make sure to mention the color. And the reason people would defend the attack on the trope of gruffy white male at the same time they defend attacks on angy black woman or gangsta black man is because they think the first is good portrayl of a person so could be black and the second and third are bad characteristic so shouldn't be black.

https://kotaku.com/idiots-fight-to-keep-a-medieval-game-white-1516970808
https://www.quora.com/Kingdom-Come-Deliverance-was-accused-of-racism-for-not-having-people-of-color-in-game-Historically-how-many-people-of-color-were-in-Medieval-Europe-1300-1400-in-what-regions-were-they-concentrated-and-how-did-they
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2018-02-20-kingdom-come-deliverance-review

Let's also not forget the thread on Witcher 3 adaptation.

EDIT:

It's quite easy to see that being gruff isn't bad, so being a gruff white male isn't bad. Being angry or tuggish is considered bad, so being angry black woman or tuggish black man is bad. And most importantly when there is no reason for that characterist and the char doesn't have other traits it is a bad development, but if char have plenty of other traits and his traits have explanation it isn't a trope nor is it a bad thing.