Utterly aside from the general content of this thread.

I know nothing of the pieces printed or their leanings, nor is it relevant for the purposes of this response.

That argument is the weakest of sauces, drizzled over a disappointing bad-faith steak.

A single article doesn't define a whole paper (nor was that claimed).

A papers' reputation doesn't give them a free pass for printing something outside of their normal editorial quality control.

Argue the actual claims, this bad faith deflection bullshit is fooling no-one.

If you don't know any examples, how will specificity help ?

from which dialect is "did you born" ?

You mean to say that people on this site are claiming that individuals with publicly stated agendas and goals might possibly use the fiscal and/or reputational benefits of the organisations they control to aid in the furthering of whatever goals/agendas they may have?

Point me in their direction, i shall have words...big ones...like wherewithal ...or extrapolation....prestidigitation...etc.

Clearly these people are buttering their toast with a teaspoon, seems like an incredible leap to me and i bet they couldn't even provide a single example of this happening in the modern day.....illogical plebeians.

Edit : more salt that I'd expect for zero actual counterpoints

There are many such projects that have done similar things that aren't getting the attention this one has.

The reason this one it getting the attention it is, is because of the replies and behaviour of the dev.

What you're describing is skill atrophy, it's just in skills you don't value.

It's also skill acquisition/reinforcement for skill you do value.

They even had an ending in the movie that was closer to the original , but they cut it/changed it because it didn’t test well.

I'd guess that was because it was an ending that followed the original storyline and didn't make sense without the rest of the movie also following the original storyline.

I imagine it's from all the times authority figures from religious organisations that are so zealously espousing "think of the children" have ended up being the very thing they are supposedly fighting against.

I can't speak to the lightheartedness of the intent of the author, but I can say that I personally understand the structure of the humour at play.

Plenty of times a Church has reported it's leaders who were abusing their position and co-operated with law enforcement.

And plenty of times they've done the exact opposite, enough that is is part of the cultural Zeitgeist of multiple nations that religious authority figures have been abusing their power and getting away with it for centuries.

My church's policy is that you report it to the police first.

I mean this genuinely and not as an attack.

I'm not sure how to address that level of naïveté but i will explain it as best I can.

Firstly, I can't imagine there is a single policy written anywhere that states "hide the child abuse from the police" as the official position.

Secondly, I'd wager good money that all the religious institutions and staff at all those places would swear up and down that the policy was to report it to the police and it was a few "bad actors" in an otherwise fundamentally good organisation.

The exception possibly being those very insular cults where the abuses are part of the actual doctrine, in those cases they'd admit to it because they don't see themselves as having some something wrong based on their beliefs.

There are numerous historic and ongoing cases about this, it's not difficult to find.

Even if you personally (or even all the people you know) are 100% following this guideline, it's provably true that that isn't always the case.

"But the rules say we should report them" isn't strong position to defend any size of organised religion in the face of the sheer number of accusations, arrests and investigations to the contrary.

As I said, and I mean it, this isn't an attack on you or yours. You could be absolutely correct about your circle, and I have no issues with individual faith (as long as its not forced upon others).

The issue I have is with trying to defend organised religion as a whole using small anecdotal data as a basis.

Honestly, I want you to be right but "trust me bro" isn't a good argument and you need good arguments, because weak arguments are worse than no arguments at all.

Hah, i like how you did the thing they just mentioned, in the first sentence no less and then for the entire rest of the reply.

Classic trolling, 5 stars, no notes.

Still shows up for me, though i'm almost certainly blocked by them.

On the plus side that allows me to provide solid reviews for the folks at home without having to dive in to meta-reviews of responses to me.

In a system where inherent racism didn't exist that would work, are you assuming that the current system wouldn't disproportionately skew the beneficiaries to the existing racial bias for some reason ?

That just gives you the same problem, a step down in the chain.

Systemic racism doesn't start once you hit a threshold of income, targeting the poor will still skew towards whatever biases exist in the system.

disproportionately benefit African-Americans

Either you don't understand why African-Americans would need additional help or you are framing it that way on purpose.

By what metric are you getting "disproportionate" ?

continuing to perpetuate the idea that skin colour is somehow the most important thing about people

It sounds like systemic racism is over so we can all just go back to seeing everyone as equals. /s

Again, either you have a fundamental misunderstanding or are purposely framing it that way.

To be clear, these measures aren't "skin color is most important so let's base policy on that aspect"

they are closer to

"The system is actively using skin colour and ethnicity to detrimentally target people who should really be equal in standing, let's not pretend that that isn't happening and try to address it"

I read your reply as stating that the only outcomes could be "argue and make things worse" or "don't do that", a negative and a neutral respectively.

I perhaps read only the words and not the intent, I think we are may be saying the same thing.

In case we are not :

Not engaging actively frees someone up to do literally anything else, which could overall be more positive than just the prevention of the negative.

In addition some people might consider the avoidance of the argument itself to be a positive rather than just maintaining a neutral position.