Apologies for length, I just want to clear things up in the first place so there isn't anyone trying to make a 10 long comment chain out of this, if this is too long than sorry, I don't have any desire to start commenting past this, not a great use of either of our times.

First of all let me preface this by saying after further inspection it is less of a red flag than I originally thought, I will admit that. I was on my phone and I had just woken up so I honestly just didn't see Tac's image properly and didn't know the character ahead of time. After relooking, it is less extreme than I thought. And I did read the comment later about it being used to bait people and I fully don't support that at all. With that said, with all of that, I can still see where it could be seen to fall into a stereotype, and I am just looking at this objectively in response to people saying its not racist, I do not want to have any stake discussing how racist it is, I don't feel qualified to take part in that discussion.

Racism isn't always intention. I am most certainly not trying to say that Nintendo is being racist on purpose, the chances they were is low. It is inherently just perception, and they had many pallet options for villager, and they chose the one with the darkest color, for anything, when either of the other 7 would have worked just as well, the one they chose could lead to the perception of purposeful racism, which again, its a Japanese studio, I doubt they know most of these stereotypes in the first place. I 100% can see what you mean with the clothes, that was probably right, I don't disagree with you on that point at all. NCL and Bandai Namco likely had 0 idea of any percievable issues with the skin color and DK. But the effects of it are the issue being debated here.

I was in fact very very explicit in only picking that as an example, so no I was not "calling everything racist", as stated earlier I perceived it a lot differently earlier, Im on my PC now and I can see it in far better resolution, I don't know where you got me saying one thing should raise a red flag to be that. People react to things in different ways, don't assume everyone who leans to one direction in a reaction is automatically leaning to the extreme, most people don't do that, in fact I normally avoid issues like this because of comment sections like this, and because if I make any point it will automatically be assumed I am saying one thing or another, nothing in between. I personally don't own Smash, and if I did and I had seen this spirit, I would have likely had passed on and not noticed a thing. Whether and why someone did notice it is another issue, and honestly not one I should or need to be involved in. I am solely commenting on the observation and the comparison, and my point is, once explained to me, objectively, yes, there is some inherently racism to it, clearly not intentional, but still present in perception, and while it doesn't affect me, it would affect someone else. Is it the worst thing ever? No. Would I have noticed it in game, probably not, and if so I probably would have shrugged it off. Is it racist, it can be seen as such, yes, (again whether it is is not something I feel inclined to argue), my point wasn't this is horrible it needs to be taken out, though I doubt Nintendo would have qualms with doing so and it wouldn't hurt anyone to just change the pallet in the next update, my point was that whether people in this comment section think it is an issue or not, it is still racism, and people denying that is what I was referring to, since it does meet the definition of racism, even if it wasn't on purpose. Again, initially it came off far more extreme than it is, hence my comment.

Now of course you can disagree. But my comment was pretty mild, and therefor I see no reason to go out of your way to call me racist when I wasn't the one who made the comparison in the first place, which is what you were claiming was racist (which again it isn't, but either way I wouldn't have noticed it unless it was explained to me) and I was just commenting on it, and either way, its also, based on the definition, I'm trying to be objective here, not racist to find said comparison in the first place. I can kind of see how maybe if you read the actual definition maybe you could see it that way, but you've really got to warp that definition to make the perception of something as racist into racism. Based on the clear definition, it really isn't.