Whenever people are enjoying something the left always has to ask: How can I be offended by this? I’m joking of course as that implies a narcissist is capable of higher range emotional expression required to be perpetually triggered. It is more accurate to say those who elevate themselves above the herd ask themselves how can they profit off faking outrage? Often at the expense of said target of ire or success.
There is nothing you can do to prevent this from happening. Nothing is enough for these people because there is no social credit to be gained in letting things go. Even though Nintendo of America removed gender in North America, even though it has a lesbian reference, and partnered with anti-male actress Brie Larson it still wasn’t enough to shield themselves from these accusations.
You’re probably asking yourself how much drugs do I have to do to tie Animal Crossing: New Horizons to Japanese Colonialism and follow up question why do I even care? Thankfully a piece on medium — after painting the US and Japan as evil monsters for not giving native people who conquered other people for their land only to be conquered by the Japanese everything they want — answers this question.
“Again, you are probably wondering what this has to do with New Horizons. With any piece of media it is important to understand where it comes from and who made it, regardless of how innocent it may be. Whether or not the intent was made to invoke the spirit of colonialism in a game bursting with cheerful personality, it is important to understand Japan’s history of colonial rule and how it has impacted indigenous people.”
Probably realizing their virtue signaling sounds like a desperate cry for mental help the author concludes with another disclaimer. Still unwilling to give up the point.
“I am not saying that Nintendo went out of their way to make something that could be perceived as insensitive, or even ignorant. I am only asking that people familiarize themselves with Japanese colonialism and why something as innocuous as discovering a deserted island can be read as colonialism — especially within the context of a Japanese game.”
At this point, if you’re still reading you’re probably asking yourself: Does this author not realize that in dictating how art and culture will express itself they are engaging in an act of colonialism themselves? Thus negating the entire more principle they are standing upon. This would be a very good observation because it is exactly what the author is doing. Given their intention is power dynamics over others it is not by mistake either.