Interesting. You've linked to a thread that both you and I participated in. Do you recall the context? I do. It wasn't about gaming materials.
The entire thread was about gaming materials, i.e. controversial content in such materials. That some people (including you) saw fit to extend that topic to include "bigoted nonsense" is a very clear indicator of how "controversial content" was viewed in terms of gaming materials.
You indicated that if someone is expressing a bigoted opinion -- the example on the table was that Jews are greedy -- the best response is a well-researched rebuttal. It had nothing to do with equating undesirable gaming content with bigoted nonsense.
Yeah, no. That the people against controversial content spun that out to try and include that particular example as being indicative of what said content included is all the proof you could need that claims of moral corruption were being put on the table. I can understand not wanting to think of it in that manner, but it is an accurate representation of the position that you and others took in that thread.
No, it's not clear. That's what you've inferred. But one can point out that the foundation of some gaming materials relies on racist tropes and bioessentialism without casting moral judgement on the creative team.
First of all, it's "judgment," not "judgement." Sorry, but that always bugs me.
Secondly, leaving aside issues surrounding the correct identification of such tropes, and any discussion of any inherent moral issues they have, the idea that one
can cast judgment on them without actually impugning the people writing them is a distinction that is lost more often than not. Even if you cite the creators as "well intentioned, but ignorant" or something like that, it's still casting judgment on their character, creating a chilling effect with contributes to a climate of fear which is ultimately to the detriment of the community. Saying "it doesn't happen" ignores that coded language and dogwhistling are things.
