Leartin, I think you're taking points made to you to the extreme and engaging in counter productive whataboutism.
Furries are not the same as those of the Jewish faith and I find it insulting that you'd even compare the two in the context of what content is and isn't acceptable.
Similarly, the suggestion about the Queen and Diana and if we can reasonably suggest it is a poor whataboutism.
Like wise transgenderism in any of its forms (including what used to be known as cross dressing, gender bending or dressing in drag) is separate and distinct from furry culture.
Whataboutism is a 'technique' where you deflect criticism on a topic by simply criticising something else. As an example, if someone were to create a weapon industry for Simutrans and someone starts questioning whether that's okay, it would be whataboutism to point fingers at p96c and complain about the uranium chain, asking "what about them?".
If, in the same scenario, rather than questioning whether a weapon industry is okay, someone claims that 'no pak can ship with nuclear or wartime industry.', it's quite fair to point out that the statement isn't true, by using the otherwise unrelated existing chain in p96c as proof. That's not whataboutism, it's showing a contradiction.
If that person questions why a weapon industry should be banned, citing other games that include weapons industry where it's not ill-received, that's not whataboutism, it's giving examples.
If that person questions why a weapon industry should be banned, while other 'questionable' chains such alcohol exist, that's not whataboutism, that's comparing. [It would be up to the complainer to show the difference. "Because people die from it." or "Because it's a restricted item" or "it shouldn't be glorified" - except those examples wouldn't work.]
With that out of the way, let's delve deeper.
Jews: What I did is clarify that you can be discriminated against for something that isn't factual true. In case that's still not clear, step by step: Jews are not a race. Antisemitism, the hate/discrimination of Jews, is considered racism. You cannot claim that, since there is no jewish race, discriminating against a jew is lawful. It's racism because those who do it typically believe there is a jewish race that can be seen in body features, and don't care for the religion practiced by the individual (hence it's not religious discrimination).
It's a rather simple concepts, really - you cannot check whether a person belongs to a protected minority in order to decide whether unlawful discrimination happened. You need to check the intentions and believes of the perpetrator.
I can make a harmless comparison as well: If a bouncer blocks a girl with glasses, braces and a sweater from entering the club because he thinks she is too ugly, it doesn't matter if she does the typical ugly duckling movie transformation into a hottie - despite her being beautiful, she still was 'discriminated' against for being ugly.
Once again, same is true for Furries.
Taking such an explaination and rather than digesting it just shortening it to "compares Furries to Jews" is, by the way, borderline strawman argumentation.
Queen and Diana: The question here is whether or not meme misinformation is relevant. IF meme misinformation is relevant and should be part of discussions, THEN one would need to discuss the Queen as a murderer, since that is an ongoing meme. My point is that we shouldn't need to discuss the Queen as a murderer, and in order to get there, my claim is that meme misinformation is irrelevant. However, if meme misinformation is irrelevant, the connotation of Furries to sexual activities is removed, since that's also just meme misinformation, not hard facts.
This has nothing to do with whataboutism. Here, I used an example to show you why your logic is flawed. Of course, only insofar as you explained it/I perceived it. You now have the chance to show how it makes sense to treat misinformation seriously in case of Furries, but disregard it in case of the Queen; Why Furries could be removed for being wrongfully associated with sex, while the Queen, wrongfully associated with murder, may stay.
Need a comparison for why it works that way? Okay, here it goes: Person A complains about something insignificant. Person B then says "If you don't have anything good to say, keep your mouth shut.". Person A counters "So we shouldn't talk about slavery?"
This is not comparing something insignificant to slavery, and neither is it whataboutism. Rather, it applies Person B's logic and comes to a conclusion. [In case that's not clear: The logic steps are: "I can't say anything positive about Slavery. If I can't say something positive, I shouldn't say anything. Hence, I can't talk about Slavery."] Hopefully, person B disagrees with the conclusion. That means they have two options: Rectify or clarify their logic, or show a flaw in the reasoning. Showing the flaw works if A puts words in B's mouth. For example, if A's counter was "So we never should say anything?", there would be a clear dissonance. It's not a logical conclusion from B's statement, which clearly allows to say something - just not only bad things. But if the logic is sound, B needs to rectify their statement (they were wrong and admit it) or clarify it (eg. they only meant not to talk badly about specific people in public, not to never mention anything bad, ever.)
Why involve Slavery? The goal is to show B why their logic is wrong. In order to do so, their logic must lead to a conclusion they disagree with. If it was "So I shouldn't talk about my uncle Jack?", B might just say: "If you don't have anything nice to say about him, no, don't" without even knowing Jack. It must be something that people generally would agree it's a bad idea to be silent about. "So I shouldn't tell anyone if I was mistreated?", for example, works, because it's clear that you should be vocal about it, despite there not being any good about it.
Of course it's a known phrase, so a misunderstanding wouldn't even arise, but that's what makes for a simple example.
Transgender: First of all, there is nothing "used to be known as cross-dressing" - cross-dressing is still the correct term for cross-dressing, the somewhat outdated term is transvestitism (though still in use). Cross-dressing simply means wearing clothes of the other gender - for example, Cloud in FFVII cross-dresses. Do it regularly, and you are a cross-dresser. It does not make you transgender - you can be birth-assigned male and identify as male, making you cisgender, yet cross-dresser. Actually, if you are transgender and wear clothes of the sex you identify with, you wouldn't technically be a cross-dresser.
Something does not need to be something else for a comparison to work. Case in point: Early on in this thread, you suggested using adult humor in kids TV as a guideline. That's a comparison. Simply stating "Simutrans is not kids TV" would be incredibly pointless.
Ones decision to be a furry is not in the same league as race, sexuality, religion etc. Stop trying to make it one.
That's just your claim. You don't have any basis for that, except your own believes, which you repeatedly explained to come from memes - that makes you an expert, I guess.
This is written in the ECHR.
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.
Certainly, they don't state furries specifically, but your talk about a "league" becomes very thin when sex, race and religion are equalled to language, opinion and 'other status' (which goes as far as trade union membership)
All in all: Having specific characteristics which can't be discriminate against, while all other characteristics are fair play, is simply absurd. It's the act that counts. Perpetuating lies about a group, treating them unfairly, is always wrong - and I don't care if the group mistreated is on some list or not.
Do you need to google whether Uyghurs count as race or religion in UK law to know whether China discriminates them? If people born on the 13th of the month wouldn't get jobs due to superstition, would it be okay since day of birth is not on the list? And in the very same vein, if you don't include a building in Simutrans because it's related to a group falsly rumored to do morally questionable things, should you really ask "Is that group on my list of protected minorities?" rather then treating every group with equal respect in the first place so you never have to consult the **** list?
I have a very simple rule of thumb. Just remove the specific group from the sentence in question, or replace it with other groups. It's either discrimatory against any group you write in, or it's no discrimination. "Kill all [Group]!" is always bad, while "Statistically speaking, [Group] are involved in slightly more traffic accidents than [Other Group]" is fine. And by that logic, "It's an ongoing rumor that [Group] are involved in [Bad thing], hence [Group] shouldn't be represented in the game." is simply wrong, no matter what you insert.
If it still doesn't make sense to you - well, too bad.
I am very disappointed that no where during this topic was an image of the actual building that started it linked. Without an actual image to put with the name, it is just a name and one cannot imply the stores function, or if that function might not be age appropriate.
That's because the actual building is just a plain store. There is nothing flashy about it that could imply anything.
showing blood and gore (no pools of blood around abattoir with animation of animal being decapitated, could upset some people),
showing disturbing scenes (scenes of crimes, bullying, violence e.t.c. as could upset some people) and
anything involving drugs or other normally illegal activities.
Three checks for p192c. The (S)Laughterhouse has windows showing cows sawed in half by giant circular saws; the last window simply shows processed steaks.
The protest seen in the Dictator Monument happens at another building. While there are 5 pixels of ketchup bottle, there still is a lot of red around people lying on the ground for a performance protest.
Our Coke uses the original formula with koka-leaves from the koka-plantation.
Given that even pokemon has an age restriction of 12+ and 'comic' might attract kids more than other paksets, a disclaimer seems like a reasonable idea - we can add that on the git, not sure how the installer would handle it.
