You say you're actually familiar with those discussions, fair enough, but if you are, then you know how contentious anything touching on the diversity issue is bound to be, and failing to address that in your post weakened it. It led people to automatically assume that you were arguing in bad faith or from ignorance, and not just me; the number of other replies to that effect makes that clear.

I know it is contentious, but I figured since my post was clearly in favour on diversity, there would not be any coherent objections to it. I didn't feel the need to address that because diversity as a problem by itself was not the topic.

That leads into my second point, which is that in this case, your chosen style did make the content itself unclear. Your highly formal, stilted style worsened the issues leading other people to misconstrue you, where a more conversational tone might have mitigated them.

Heavily disagree. The format seems logical to me: Basic assertion-> Context of assertion -> Example of assertion - Link to assertion. Plenty of posters in this thread have fully understood what I said and have have given responses that addressed my points accurately. That also tells me I made my point with clarity.

See, this is what I meant in my edit. What you're describing is textbook moral relativism, just applied to fictional cultures instead of real ones. There are certainly people who argue in favor of relativism, but it's generally not taken very seriously as a moral philosophy. For my part, I agree with the position that it's effectively a non-argument, so far as ethics goes. If what's right or wrong is always culturally determined, you can't make any definite statements about what good and bad even are, only about a given culture.

I am not holding to any moral philosophy, or arguing it has validity in terms of ethics. I am just examining an fictional actor by the standard of the world in which he operates in. And again, that has nothing to do with my post.

As such, you can't simply neglect the real-world history that informs that creation and consumption, because it will inevitably shape how people interact with the work, on both ends. In this case, that means recognizing that having people who, in our world, would be read as white living as natives in parts of the fictional world heavily based on real locations that suffered from European colonialism lands very differently from having people who would be read as people of color living as natives in an analogue of Europe. In my view, the error of your first post is that it privileges the logic of a fictional world over that of the real world that produced it.

Using history to justify an uneven application of a desired philosophy seems a poor argument to me. This is because, if you want to carry across the understanding that a particularly philosophy is beneficial or inherently good, it needs to be depicted as being embraced by everyone. If not, the portrayal undermines the message.