I kind of like that the review mentions historical context.
What does SJW bullshit have to do with "historical context"? First, what they are saying is wrong and looked at through todays prism of social policies.
Second, what they are saying is also wrong in the form that they are apparently usually complaining about games not including such characters, but when they do they better be in respectable roles. Can't have them have any negative attributes or *gasp* be a villain (Witcher 2 actually also did this).
Thirdly, I'm guessing that they are also likely getting it contextually wrong as so very often (for instance, what does "heavily implied" mean?), but without having played the game I can't really tell.
I'm sure there are dozens upon dozens of reasons to critique the game for (mechanically, storywise and actual historical inaccuracies abound) without resorting to judging the "morals of the story" since it isn't intended as a children's book.
As Oscar Wilde put it over a century ago:
"There is no such thing as a moral book or an immoral book. Books are well written or badly written. That is all."
It makes these kind of reviews even more worthless than they usually would be:
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/leisure-suit-larry-reloaded
http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/killer-is-dead
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/gone-home
Since they are scoring how well games apparently line up with their own personal societal values now, which has nothing to do with the inherent qualities or flaws of said products.