Read upthread dude. He’s literally mocking age-of-consent laws as an “SJW invention”. Not only is it sick, it’s moronic, given that various laws of this sort have been around for at least 4000 years, and in a pretty modern form for over 700 years.
Sorry for the delayed response. My experience is that there are basically three kinds of racist:
- Trolls. They may or may not actually believe it, but they get off on the shock/horror and even if they don’t horrify you, they’ll be excited next time they horrify someone, even if that person only exists in their imagination. The only way to combat these guys is silencing. They hate it more than anything in the entire world. They’re biggest complainers about “cancelling”, because it’s literally taking away the thing they care about most - the opportunity to try to offend people and attract attention. This includes everyone from lame forum trolls to actual “journalists” or more often “opinion columnists”.
You can’t argue with them, because that’s what they want - engagement and the chance to spew more shit.
- Nazis. I.e. any actual “true believer” racist. They are absolutely set in their beliefs, and those beliefs are extremely racist and bigoted. They may more may not seek to spread them. Some know enough to be quiet, and whinge bitterly about “free speech” but don’t actually say much. Those at least don’t make things worse. Some continually attempt to engage in low-level racist invective, always trying to find an excuse which might get “mainstream” people to agree with them. They love “scientific” racism best, no matter how bullshit the science, because they’re committed to the idea they’re right.
They usually masquerade as moderate racists or non-racists until the mask slips or is taken off for some reason.
You can’t argue with them because they’re true believers. It’s like trying to argue with an extreme flat-earther or a religious fanatic. All it does is get them to spew hate. You might make them look like an idiot, but only at the cost of them shitting horrible hate everywhere, which may be funny if you’re a white guy, but less so if you’re anyone else.
- “Followers”/“Casual racists”. These are the people who just idiotically repeat racist shit, and hold dumb racist opinions. They’re a pretty wide category, including people who were just exposed to a lot of racist ideas as a kid and never had them debunked, to those who like hanging out with bigots for w/e reason, and start picking it up and repeating it.
There’s a point to arguing with them IRL as individuals if you know them, because they’re usually weak-willed and easy to persuade, or just really ignorant, and the former you can control and the latter you can help fix.
There’s no point to arguing with anonymous ones on the internet, because they’ll just fade away if you make them look dumb, or go crying to whatever Nazi Discord they’d been hanging out in, asking for help on how to “win” such argument in future.
There’s also considerable crossover with the categories. Some are Nazi Trolls, or are basically Casual Racists, but like to Troll until it backfires hard on them, but the backfire is 50/50 likely to make them repent (at least briefly) or double-down (often permanently).
So 3/3 cannot be engaged with constructively online. 2/3 cannot be engaged with constructively (short of long-term therapy/psychoanalysis/rehab) offline.
I see no case for doing anything but shutting them the fuck down, especially the Trolls.
It was a lot more succinct and straightforward, however. The big problem with your article is that it’s an extremely lengthy one-sided opinion piece (not a fact piece), which is the opinion of someone who is, frankly, ignorant and too lazy to actually do research or y’know, ask a lawyer or anything like that. It’s full of complete canards. I find that sort of thing particularly unhelpful because a lot of people are taken in by it, where they might at least be skeptical of a shorter and simpler piece.
Quite, and the issue is, whilst they make some attempt to appear non-racist, they constantly put out racist dog-whistles. In the UK, this even includes non-white people. For example, today, BoJo and Priti Patel (the latter of South Asian ethnicity), who spew racist dog-whistles weekly (and say outright racist things occasionally) and refuse to condemn racists routinely, were pretending to care that three UK footballers (all non-white) were getting racially abused for missing penalties in the Euro cup last night (and anyone who wanted to abuse Rashford, instead of feeling that deflection in their heart, literally doesn’t have a soul, let’s be clear here - literally abusing him for missing that classifies you as sociopath imho). They got criticised a bit for the hypocrisy, but only in a couple of sources, and this despite one of their MPs being part of the racial abuse (dogwhistling moronically about Rashford - maybe morons who know nothing about football should stay the fuck out of having opinions about football?).
I think we are.
It’s not what it means, @Skalpadda
Me and @alms are people who work with IT and systems that involve actual whitelists.
An actual whitelist means you exclude things until someone asks you to add them, then you check before adding them. That would be the case here. It doesn’t mean permanent exclusion as you seem to think. It means check before including. In this context it would mean, if you knew a game to be by EE devs, you’d see if any of those devs were known creeps/racists before deciding whether or not to buy it. Whereas with other part of the world, esp. English-speakers, tend to “out” themselves so it usually results in a news story meaning you generally don’t have to do this.
Personally any game that has certain content or a certain vibe causes me to check out the devs, not just EE ones. That included Factorio, note, but I didn’t find anything at the time. Generally I don’t check if it has other factors, like obviously LGBT stuff, or other things that make Nazis weep.