It’s better now! (It’s still terrible.)

Incredible to veer away, at the last minute, from the obvious “but your children won’t experience any of this, because home ownership is unaffordable and global warming is making snow ever rarer” to “Muslims are coming for your fireplace and cartoons”

I only just learned that Molly Bloom exists, despite there being an eight-year old Sorkin movie about her, so I guess I’m part of the problem

“Economics” literally comes from the Ancient Greek for “household management,” so it’s actually been women’s work all along. Men are supposed to be out riding horses and getting oiled up to wrestle each other. Time to RETVRN to our traditions!

Furthermore, you have a higher responsibility to your community than enforcing arbitrary standards "impartially." You do not, "in fairness," have to print Nazi propaganda to balance out anti-Nazi propaganda. You don't have to be fair to Nazis!

But you haven't defended your decision here one way or the other; you've skewered a straw-man version of Rebel Scum. Your statement is either a slipshod hack job (which somebody sprinkled with emphatic, feel-good adverbs and nobody edited) or profoundly dishonest.

If you imagined a game set in "Mapletonia" about killing "Turbanis," your analogy would be stronger (although Republicans still aren't an ethnic or religious minority). I'm not even confident you were wrong to delist the game. You would have been justified taking that precaution against litigation.

The game clearly has a strong ideological perspective, and its use of a fantasy setting and a little novel orthography is a tiny fig leaf over its real-world politics. But the fig leaf is there. Without the words "explicitly," "professed," "openly," or "real," your statements would be stronger.

You write that the game makes "a real statement about hatred and violence toward the entirety of a broad political group." What does "real" mean in this context? The foreword conjures up a fantasy of punching "Republikans." It does not even imply real-world violence.

You write, "any book that openly condones and celebrates violence against real people goes against our guidelines," but to the extent that this passage does condone or celebrate violence against real people (debatable), it does so tacitly, NOT openly.

You write, "If the book professed or promulgated hate for people in the real world, outside of the game, it was deemed unacceptable," but however obviously it may IMPLY hatred for real-world Republicans, Rebel Scum does not explicitly profess hatred or promulgate any real-world behavior at all.

Your analogy to a game of about committing hate crimes against Sikhs is disingenuous. Canada is a real country. Sikhs are real people. "Republikans" are not, even if it's clear whom they represent. Such a game would be explicitly, overtly hateful in a way that Rebel Scum straightforwardly is not.

The language you use in this response is consistently inaccurate, using qualifiers (for emphasis?) that draw you into indefensible positions. You write, "the author’s foreword contains a passage that discusses modern US politics explicitly," but in fact the author is circumspect, not explicit.