I'm asking because you don't seem to know.
Character and characteristics are not the same thing. Please read that dictionary carefully.
I didn't say it was ambiguous. I said it had unfortunate implications. Which it did. Also, that's not what strawman means.
That's not what racist means either. Discussing race does not equal to racism. It's ok to discuss it. There's nothing wrong with admitting that different races exist. They really do. I've seen them. If you want to pretend they don't, that's your business.
I'm talking about the complete lack of outrage. There was annoyance about Doom's character changes. But not the vein-popping bile that came with Johnny's race swap.
When it comes to skin color, right? After all, the sources themselves have radically changed over decades. And again, many of those changes were sudden and out of nowhere. Why is it only a problem when it's the skin color that's wrong?
Batman's character change wasn't gradual. DC just suddenly decided, "Batman shouldn't use guns." There was no multi-story arc character change to go with that.
Superman used to kill normal human thugs. There was no story arc to change that. DC just stopped doing it.
So which source material do you want to use? The original? Or the one with the "abrupt change"?
Defending character changes as acceptable because they were gradual (despite the fact that many were in fact not) yet having a problem with the wrong skin tone because it's "abrupt" does have many unfortunate racist implications. Whether you see them or not.
After all, where's the outrage that Professor X is British? Or Wolverine is an Australian? Or that Psylocke was of Chinese ancestry and not Japanese?
FYI: yes, it is about race, or did you miss the title of this entire thread?