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.
That last part, “… like you always do …” Is not a normal US speech pattern.
What the hell are you talking about? Of course it is. It's not just a valid construction, it's idiomatic!
Yet your uname is Southern Boy.
The Geography Understander has logged on. There are souths other than the Southern US.
It's pathetic how you immediately jump to trying to insinuate that the other user is a foreigner pretending to be American so they can do dezinformatsiya when it is neither clear where they come from nor where they claim to come from.
but when you start talking Zionism, it gets close to antisemitism
Conflating anti-zionism and antisemitism is antisemitism, straight up, and it's a form that zionists love using to silence opposition. Israel should not exist, and there is nothing antisemitic about that statement.
The conditional is right there
I'm sure Vance was lying, but if these were anything like the Presidential debates, there would definitely be a strong Democrat bias. You can't possibly think that Walz didn't get fact checked because he was a perfect little angel with flawlessly honest rhetoric, right?
Disclaimer: I didn't watch very much of the debate because, as others said, it was boring, but Harris sure as shit lied in her debate.
what’s opposing nationalisation and public ownership is and always has been purely ideological
It's private interests seeking to maintain their own profits. The ideology is downstream of that.
I hope so
I was lazy picking Wikipedia when everyone knows it's got an American brainrot problem. That's entirely my fault.
It is true that "conservative opposition to liberalism" is a thing that has exist and currently exists, but the issue is that "conservative" is a relative term, it refers not to an absolute ideological tendency (like liberalism does) but to the necessarily relative value of seeking to conserve the current order of things. This is relative because the order of things can be different, and that changes the question of if you want to conserve it (conservative), go back to some past state, real or imagined (reactionary), or advance to some future state of greater development (progressive).
So when liberal revolutionaries set the west on fire, conservatives were in conflict with them because the conservatives were trying to preserve the feudal/aristocratic/monarchic order that the liberals opposed. Now that the liberals in the west are no longer revolutionaries but overwhelmingly the establishment and without any serious contest, the acting of promoting liberalism over other ideologies is conservative and the old position of promoting a feudal/aristocratic/monarchic order is reactionary. The rise of neoliberalism, in particular, represents the overwhelming historical victory of liberalism over both reactionary and progressive forces ("There is no alternative," the perfect conservative slogan).
Of course, a political ideology can be a mix of conservative and reactionary or conservative and progressive (I'll let you decide on reactionary/progressive), and I'd say that former pair is pretty important for understanding the ideology of the Republicans, but don't let that exaggerate in your mind the piddling degree to which the latter pair applies to Democrats.
Is that a better explanation? Whether this is how you personally want to use the words or not, this will help you understand how socialists use them.
There are certainly criticisms to be made of it, but characterizing them as "the bad guys" in a conflict with Israel because they do [thing Israel has been known for for decades] is either sarcasm or rank stupidity
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.