• @NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    8
    edit-2
    15 hours ago

    He stopped using it for that very reason, and took accountability. People are allowed to self correct, if he understands the problem with what he did and course corrected without being called out for it what would throwing more stones accomplish?

    Edit: Also, not a big enough deal to say you shouldn’t read his books. Especially considering the narrative reason as to why he was using it.

    • @jsomae@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      51 day ago

      I’m not throwing any stones, yo. I’m just pointing out you can’t exactly say he’s not problematic. I have a tolerance for problematicity so it’s of no bother to me.

      • @NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        6
        edit-2
        14 hours ago

        If he was still using the pseudonym and making excuses to keep using it, sure, but I’m of the opinion that once someone understands what they have done wrong and took the opportunity to learn from it and do better there is no more wrong doing. There are, of course, exceptions to this, but a pseudonym that someone came up with in their 20’s and had the wherewithal later to say, “That’s not ok, I need to stop doing that” and stopped doing that for the right reasons is pretty far from a reason to call them problematic, especially when it wasn’t a decision made under any form of duress and he has made no attempt at defending his choice to have used that pseudonym and stated it was not ok for him to have used that pseudonym.

        Edit: Also, it was used in a narrative context of the main character trying to throw off his identity, if They’re looking for David Wong then they wouldn’t assume it’s the burnt out white dude.