Not wanting to divulge further on this specific topic, but how is my take biased or even a strawman on principle? Lets argue we have a discussion about american game developers as a broad topic, which is fairly neutral, its just a group of people who can be mentioned or not in a discussion and then you suddenly have a hugh group of people who absolutely hate and dehumanize american game developers, where is the sense of just banning the mention of american game developers from the forum instead of just banning the people who spread hatred and dehumanize a group of people for being american game developers. How does this not lead to the assumption that a moderator or admins who set up such a rule as a reaction is at best sympathetic and at worst alligned with the people who have a really irrational hatred for american game developers, without being open about it. After all, the hypothetical full on ban on the topic actively punishes people who just want to talk appreciative or neutrally about a topic that involves american game developers and actually ends up protecting those who hate them, as it reduces opportunities for them making statements that could get them banned or alternatively the hypothetical sympathetic moderators and admins who would reveal their own bigotry against american game devs if they would refuse to consider hatred against them as a group a banworthy offense.
I mean, sorry, the way just the mention of a specific group of people is banned, the best faith assumption is that the mods are fully aware of the bigoted community they fostered on this forum and just don't want to have to ban a lot of toxic gamer dudes because it could harm the sides traffic, so you end up erasing the notion of a specific group of people existing here instead, to protect your bottom line.