536
Pokémon Formally Submits to the Department of Homeland Security's Use of Ash Ketchum and Pokémon Series Theme Tune (infosec.pub)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/nintendo@lemmy.world
62 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://quokk.au/post/297392

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 15 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Imo:

  1. No
  2. It's people, but colloquially refering to a collection of board members making decisions by the company name they make decisions under is fine
  3. Yes
  4. They shouldn't, but they do for various reasons: it takes effort to find out who the specific people we should blame are, and what other companies they're associated with. It takes willpower for people to change their buying habits. It's easier (I'm guilty of this too) to moan and carry on than to make real change in our own lives.

What do you think?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I agree. I want to promote discussion on the Nintendo community so ppl can start thinking and make it easier to change their buying habits. These companies don’t care about us they care about our wallets and they’ll fuck us over from here to the moon just to get an extra couple bucks out of us.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    That's a good goal, but unfortunately it'll be tough to convince people. You're fighting an uphill battle against people's nostalgia, and against the things they find comforting, just to get them to not live in denial and to act on something that deep down they definitely already. It's hard, the world is hard enough as it is and I'm sure you can understand why people who do already know that Nintendo is just a soulless corporation will bury their hands and buy the newest Mario anyway.

    Good luck 🫡

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I think on number 2, it is not purely colloquial to use the word corporation, this is a legal definition too. There are different laws and regulations for a corporation than for a person. If a person physically prevents another from taking life saving medicine, and that person dies, they might be tried for manslaughter. But if a corporation does it via a policy decision, it's perfectly legal and is actually a great business decision worthy of investment.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •