Originally Posted by
unholytestament
It's almost like we are and have always been criticizing the legitimacy of peoples' actions and not the mere fact that they are making them.
Like how we mocked a certain pop culture critic not because they dared to criticize the monolith that is video games but because they chose to do so with blatant lies, stolen content, and many sociological statements you're supposed to take at face value because they don't back them up and can't back them up because actual research has failed to prove those claims.
As someone who actively participated in this it's puzzling that you now choose to completely misrepresent it and accuse others of hypocrisy.
I share this doubt (to the effect that I don't believe any significant number of people who fall into this category exist). My statement was more to the effect that the news of this is spreading far and wide and there's now likely people who have never heard of both and will now forever associate the two, and because of the headlines all pointing out he is racist said association is not of benefit to the game.
Whereas in an alternate universe I find it more likely that a headline to the effect of "Playtonic refuses to comment on the political views of youtuber with cameo role in their game" (though real journalists would probably have something more succinct) wouldn't be quite as attractive as clickbait and probably wouldn't get shared much outside the circles of people who look for social issues to be upset about.
I don't support any boycotts of this game. I still sit on the fence of waiting to see its release and if it's actually any good. I just find it funny that many people have fallen into saying Playtonic is avoiding drama by doing something guaranteed to create it.