The White Man’s Burden - Change slightly?

[Romance and Reverie]

The White Man's Burden is about discrimination against Albinos, insinuated to be rooted in superstition. The most sensible option comes with teaching atheism though, as if being religious and being reasonable/rational are inconsonant.

This isn’t a black and white issue, and skin-deep solutions won’t tackle the root causes,” declares K, a divisive atheist demagogue.

“Ignorance and superstition are to blame for all this, so let’s stamp them out. Raise awareness about what albinism is and isn’t. Teach people that albinos are normal people, just like you and me.

We must erase the absurd primitive thinking that drives these attacks. Teach rationality, teach science, teach atheism!

A nation could want to teach rationality and science while being religious. Being religious and being superstitious, especially in a malevolent manner, can be mutually exclusive.

I don't think any major religion discriminates against Albinos, and the Wikipedia page on Albino Discrimination shows primarily primitive people and witch-doctors.

Suggestion:

Replace "teach atheism" with "eliminate senseless superstition".

The person remaining a "divisive atheist demagogue" is fine, though it could be changed as well to show that religious people can also be against insensible, superstitious nonsense.

A replacement could be "a divisive rationalist whose religious devoutness is oft questioned by the citizens of X".

[The Marsupial Illuminati]

Tally ho, bonjour! Oui oui, je suis le auteur de la issue The White Man’s Burden. I’m on a phone, so I can’t provide a long-winded response.

All I can say right now is that yes, the speaker in that option associates being religious with being superstitious. This is satire, and precise nuance is not present by design. Options’ speakers and their arguments are often constructed in such a way as will be unsavory to some. I am against any changes to the issue taking place based on the above request.

[Romance and Reverie]

This is satire, and precise nuance is not present by design.

This is like the default response regarding everything concerning issues. Not singling out administration either, most players give this answer as well.

I don't think there's any humour/satirical value present in this instance of impreciseness.

A kid's lemonade stand being shut down by my overbearing socialist government is absurd, but hilarious and charming.

That's the most memorable/lovable issue I've encountered, so I quoted it, but many other imprecise assumptions in issues also had satirical purpose. I don't think it's present here, but maybe I just don't see it.

All I can say right now is that yes, the speaker in that option associates being religious with being superstitious. I don’t think any changes to the issue will be taking place.

This is fine though, I don't feel too strongly about this issue. Just thought I'd bring it up since I've been on an issue-criticizing-spree recently. Consider the matter closed. =)

[Servilis]

I was just doing this issue on one of my Card Farms.
Unfortunately it was on one of my Tyrannical Farms, so I had to go for the discriminatory option.

But yeah, find it weird how it's specifically Atheist for the Inclusive part.

I think the second option should be worded to be Secular.

[Golgothastan]

Discrimination against albinos in Africa is definitely rooted in African folk religions and animism. Not major religions like Christianity and Islam, no, but still, it has a religious context. The linkage doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

[The Marsupial Illuminati]

I should also add that, besides satire, the game also aims at making the player make trade-offs. The game will not just let the player select an option that is absolutely acceptable and benign to the player. How boring and unchallenging would that be, to always have what you desire, a perfect solution that is totally unoffensive to your sensibilities. The game wants to give the player a kinda difficult time in choosing an option, and that goal would be defeated if the game caters to the player in this sense. The game aims to never present you with a perfect option that offers exactly what you want and nothing more. You must compromise and realize that decisions will not pan as you envision, as real life leaders must.

[Romance and Reverie]

I should also add that, besides satire, the game also aims at making the player make trade-offs. The game will not just let the player select an option that is perfectly acceptable and benign to the player.

How boring and unchallenged would that be, to always have what you desire, a perfect solution that is totally unoffensive to your sensibilities. The game aims to never present you with a perfect option that offers exactly what you want and nothing more.

Many, many issues have unchallenging, simple, and reasonable options. It's why I don't get the opportunity to complain that often.

I believe this issue is limited to religious/spiritual nations though, so perhaps it's intentionally irking. That'd be a fine justification.

You must compromise and realize that decisions will not pan as you envision, as real life leaders must.

I'd counter that such a thing ought to be reflected in the consequences, not the decision making.

Decisions made would always be sound and internally consistent. Its consequences however, wouldn't pan out as one envisions.

For example, if my suggestion were to pass, perhaps no change occurs in my nation because the populace believes the rationalist is a heathen, unworthy to be heard.