That’s a silly argument. Biden (aside from being an unrepentant segregationist!) acted as an active agent of white supremacy, and Kamala would have too, just like every President has.

As an aside, it wasn’t the majority of the population. It wasn’t even the majority of the voting-eligible population. It was like a little over a quarter, I think.

Conversely, other social media have been also known to suppress the right and protect the left

Where the hell are these socialist social media sites supposed to be? Are you going to say that it’s Lemmy, like that’s a comparable example?

Rights are not handed to us by God or by Nature, they are legal constructs, created by people. They are not immaculate or immune to criticism or alteration on the basis of what we think would be better for human society. White supremacy must be smashed to its very core, and part of accomplishing that task is making sure it’s as difficult for white supremacists to recruit and congregate as we can possibly make it.

It’s bizarre idealism to think that opposition to white supremacy will be overcome with no loss of enthusiasm or membership, that any interference actually has zero effect and we’re just better off letting them do what they want.

It was still a white supremacist country under Biden and all previous Presidents and it would have been so under Kamala. This isn’t something that gets changed by elections.

It bugs me just saying “the Chinese” did it. It was the Chinese company Ex-Robot.

It’s silly to act like individual values are some sacred, unassailable thing gifted to everyone’s soul by the heavens, rather than something that came from a combination of inborn human traits and memories*, i.e. they are something that is contingent, changing, and in no way above being questioned.

It’s also silly to act like it makes sense to just have a blanket acceptance of something if it’s an “individual value” even though, when we look at the world, individual values can sometimes be extremely fucked up and we shouldn’t allow people who would enact those values to abuse with impunity.

*“memories” is simplistic, but I don’t think it is catastrophically so.

I couldn’t possibly know your motivations, nor the author’s, I just find your choice to whitewash racism disreputable. Maybe you just have such a burning hatred for EA that you think that it’s expedient to run cover for racists – I think you wouldn’t be alone in that mindset, though not in good company either – but I think it’s silly to waste time on such speculation into the internal state of some random account. All I am concerned with is the result.

It sure seems to me like you’re trying to find a way of talking around the racist harassment campaign like the author in the OOP does. Really makes you think.

So what you’re saying is you’re victim blaming the people the director here is expressing sympathy for?

There is a huge harassment campaign based around flagrant racism, and there are probably some racists who are more excited to attack ubisoft because it’s a shitty company in general, but that’s just icing on the cake when the main content is racism and someone who doesn’t have a horse in that race isn’t going to be involved in the same way.

What does this even mean? What victims? Clearly you don’t mean the victims of harassment campaigns.

The monetization director should never say anything ever and should be beaten with a stick if he tries, but the standpoint the article is writing from is clear:

the unveiling of Assassin’s Creed Shadows, which quickly gained controversy for numerous allegations that Ubisoft was mispresenting Japanese heritage through unpopular artistic design choices.

“unpopular artistic design choice”, hm? What does that mean?

Neither the author’s writing nor the quote from the director actually name it specifically, but we can infer that it’s probably talking about Yasuke, which means that unfortunately this ghoul director is probably completely right and this author is no better than a concern troll.