• Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.
  • Do you have audio editing experience and want to help out with the Famiboards Discussion Club Podcast? If so, we're looking for help and would love to have you on the team! Just let us know in the Podcast Thread if you are interested!

News SNK is now owned by Mohammad Bin Salman a War criminal who killed a journalist

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1250
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
GrislyRaccoon said:
This is one time I wish the big 3 at least owns them. This freaking sucks dude.
Click to expand...
Microsoft has huge military contracts that directly contribute to human rights violations.
Nintendo most certainly uses slave labor in their production model
Sony owns studios with problematic leadership that foster sexual harassment.
 
Hope y’all aren’t voting for Biden, considering that he’s continuing to sell the Saudis weapons to massacre people in Yemen.
www.aljazeera.com

Biden administration approves $650m weapon sale to Saudi Arabia

Pentagon says enabling kingdom to buy US-made, air-to-air missiles would ‘improve the security of a friendly country’.
www.aljazeera.com www.aljazeera.com

And before anyone starts crying “whataboutism”, this is literally MBS and the Saudi Royal Family’s war.
 
Saudi Arabia's PIF has tentacles into everything entertainment-wise.

Sports/video game/entertainment washing is definitely their primary strategy. I don't know that it works that much with most of the people who I know, at least. We still think of it as a regressive state, and the more informed of us also find their bombing of Yemenis to be abominable.

Unfortunately, it's hard to avoid them if you're into almost any type of entertainment, and even if you are avoiding them, you're running smack into some other terrible entity.

I should give money to some charity that teaches Saudi Arabian women to drive or something like that.
 
0
Lots of "gotcha" style posts now. People can choose when they want to make a statement, and how they make that statement. Taking a stand here doesn't mean you have to take a stand 100 other places as well for the sake of not being a hypocrite.
 
KC Hazel said:
Lots of "gotcha" style posts now. People can choose when they want to make a statement, and how they make that statement. Taking a stand here doesn't mean you have to take a stand 100 other places as well for the sake of not being a hypocrite.
Click to expand...
Not buying a game is not a statement nor taking a stand
 
KC Hazel said:
Lots of "gotcha" style posts now. People can choose when they want to make a statement, and how they make that statement. Taking a stand here doesn't mean you have to take a stand 100 other places as well for the sake of not being a hypocrite.
Click to expand...
Hm…I wonder what the more impactful stand is…not buying some random SNK game or not supporting politicians who support the Saudi Royal Family’s slaughter of Yemen to the tune of billions of dollars in weapons and planes and refueling at their air bases…
 
Ostia said:
There is no ethical consumption under capitalism. Sucks that MBS owns so much of SNK, and it would suck if any other multi-billionaire capitalist owned them too.

So it was fine when he only owned 1/3rd of the company? Lol
Click to expand...
Lol I get you're trying to be all clever with a "gotcha", but I did not know about his involvement with the company until today. So nice try I guess?
 
Ostia said:
Hope y’all aren’t voting for Biden, considering that he’s continuing to sell the Saudis weapons to massacre people in Yemen.
www.aljazeera.com

Biden administration approves $650m weapon sale to Saudi Arabia

Pentagon says enabling kingdom to buy US-made, air-to-air missiles would ‘improve the security of a friendly country’.
www.aljazeera.com www.aljazeera.com

And before anyone starts crying “whataboutism”, this is literally MBS and the Saudi Royal Family’s war.
Click to expand...

So I take it you stay home and Don't Vote huh
 
bellydrum said:
Lol I get you're trying to be all clever with a "gotcha", but I did not know about his involvement with the company until today. So nice try I guess?
Click to expand...
It’s not a gotcha, I’m pointing out to you that the Saudis owned a large stake in SNK for a while now. They also own stakes in Capcom, 2K, EA, Nexon, and many other game companies. They owned a large stake in Activision Blizzard and Microsoft just paid them $1 billion as part of that deal. They are one of the biggest sources of finance capital in the world and have their tendrils in virtually every game company and media company globally. They run huge investment funds.

It’s naive to think your personal decision to buy or not buy some random SNK game is sticking it to the Saudis. You probably bought something else today financed by them. You can buy or not buy any product for any reason, it’s all equally valid, but don’t confuse it with activism or principled stances.
 
Ostia said:
Hm…I wonder what the more impactful stand is…not buying some random SNK game or not supporting politicians who support the Saudi Royal Family’s slaughter of Yemen to the tune of billions of dollars in weapons and planes and refueling at their air bases…
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone is arguing this? But they surely have different implications. Nothing worse happens if I don't buy a video game. The alternative to a democrat in office is far worse, so I will support Biden.

But again, no one implied boycotting video games was taking a stronger stand.
 
bellydrum said:
So I take it you stay home and Don't Vote huh
Click to expand...
Nah I voted for Biden and I regret it, lmao. What I’m trying to illustrate is how far the ties between the Saudi Royal family and western governments and finance capital go. If SNK being owned largely by the Saudi’s investment group is that damning, then surely direct support for Saudi war machine should be unconscionable
 
Ostia said:
Hm…I wonder what the more impactful stand is…not buying some random SNK game or not supporting politicians who support the Saudi Royal Family’s slaughter of Yemen to the tune of billions of dollars in weapons and planes and refueling at their air bases…
Click to expand...
Not buying the video game.

The alternative to Biden is a Republican who will give the Saudis weapons and also destroy as many lives of black, brown, gay, trans, female citizens, etc., as possible.

Well, I guess in that case, not voting for Biden is more impactful because it will ruin even more lives, but as far as a positive impact, not buying Metal Slug Tactics, while marginally effective if that, is still a more positive impact.
 
KC Hazel said:
I don't think anyone is arguing this? But they surely have different implications. Nothing worse happens if I don't buy a video game. The alternative to a democrat in office is far worse, so I will support Biden.

But again, no one implied boycotting video games was taking a stronger stand.
Click to expand...
Nothing worse happens if you buy or don’t buy a video game because it’s literally doing nothing. It doesn’t matter either way.
 
DistractedByPixels said:
Not buying the video game.

The alternative to Biden is a Republican who will give the Saudis weapons and also destroy as many lives of black, brown, gay, trans, female citizens, etc., as possible.

Well, I guess in that case, not voting for Biden is more impactful because it will ruin even more lives, but as far as a positive impact, not buying Metal Slug Tactics, while marginally effective if that, is still a more positive impact.
Click to expand...
There is no positive or negative impact for buying or not buying a video game. Idk why y’all are so invested in proving to yourself that there is.

Under what logic is supporting someone who will provide direct military support to Saudi war crimes acceptable but buying an SNK game is unacceptable because some fund owned by the Saudis writes the checks?
 
Ostia said:
Nothing worse happens if you buy or don’t buy a video game because it’s literally doing nothing. It doesn’t matter either way.
Click to expand...
Alright, then you do you. No one is telling anyone else to boycott or anything. People can buy whatever they want. If a company does something someone doesn't approve of and they choose not to do business with said company, that's their choice. I don't see why you feel the need to tell them how worthless their choice is or try to make them seem like a hypocrite because they are spending money on something similar. Just seems needlessly confrontational?
 
Ostia said:
There is no positive or negative impact for buying or not buying a video game. Idk why y’all are so invested in proving to yourself that there is.

Under what logic is supporting someone who will provide direct military support to Saudi war crimes acceptable but buying an SNK game is unacceptable because some fund owned by the Saudis writes the checks?
Click to expand...
I'm not invested in it. I think you're invested in arguing against the efficacy of boycotts more than anything (which we know is incorrect - the Birmingham bus boycotts being one example whereby boycotts worked).

As for your second question, maybe you don't understand the binary political system we live in at the federal level. Supporting Biden or any other Dem with bad ME foreign policy is still better than the alternative in said system, which would be a Republican that has bad ME foreign policy and bad policy at everything else on top of it.

Personally, I don't think it's effective to boycott KSA's PIF investments because they are everywhere, and even if you could do that, you still use crude oil unless you're a hermit in the woods and are financially supporting them anyway. However, if you're a voter in the U.S. who is concerned about the KSA, not voting for a boilerplate Dem who sells weapons to the Saudis in a federal GE is completely unhelpful.

If you want to argue that it's helpful at the local or state level, sure I could get on board with that. Our system is one in which federal leadership is influenced by ground-up change. I'm on board with voting only for Dems in local and state primaries who won't sell the KSA weapons (or heck, at the federal level as well). But when it comes to a GE, Republicans are worse.
 
There are a couple things I wanna say.

1. Sucks that SNK got bought by this guy

2. Though to be honest, the material impact of Microsoft supporting the military is significantly greater than what this guy did. I feel like the fact that there's a specific face to his victim instead of MS having many indirect victims that can't be tied to them makes it more upsetting.

3. Anyone boycotting SNK - and be my guest, valid decision, don't let me steer you away from that - would be reacting more strongly than Biden did to MBS lol

GrislyRaccoon said:
So you basically saying nothing matters then?
Click to expand...

Yeah kinda lol

Like, I don't want nothing to matter, but
 
0
DistractedByPixels said:
I'm not invested in it. I think you're invested in arguing against the efficacy of boycotts more than anything (which we know is incorrect - the Birmingham bus boycotts being one example whereby boycotts worked).

As for your second question, maybe you don't understand the binary political system we live in at the federal level. Supporting Biden or any other Dem with bad ME foreign policy is still better than the alternative in said system, which would be a Republican that has bad ME foreign policy and bad policy at everything else on top of it.

Personally, I don't think it's effective to boycott KSA's PIF investments because they are everywhere, and even if you could do that, you still use crude oil unless you're a hermit in the woods and are financially supporting them anyway. However, if you're a voter in the U.S. who is concerned about the KSA, not voting for a boilerplate Dem who sells weapons to the Saudis in a federal GE is completely unhelpful.

If you want to argue that it's helpful at the local or state level, sure I could get on board with that. Our system is one in which federal leadership is influenced by ground-up change. I'm on board with voting only for Dems in local and state primaries who won't sell the KSA weapons (or heck, at the federal level as well). But when it comes to a GE, Republicans are worse.
Click to expand...
The context is rejection of support due to connections to the Saudi Royal family. All you are illustrating with this is that there is no functional difference between most Democrats and Republicans on this issue. If you take issue with buying X game from X company because they have investment from the Saudi’s then surely direct support of the Saudi war effort would be way, way worse. And yet you are making the argument that it’s actually the moral choice to support politicians who provide direct material support to Saudi Arabia’s war. If you are an American worried about Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen then voting or not voting are equally unhelpful.

People can vote how they want too, I’m pointing out the limits of this mindset. The idea that not buying a product is some form of political act is a delusion born out of liberalism and capitalism. This comparison to the Birmingham bus boycotts is devoid of context and also a huge misrepresentation, that was part of a larger strategy of direct political action on the part of activists around a government service. It’s similar to squatting on public land, refusing military service or taxation for political reasons, etc. You won’t see me saying direct political action is worthless, buying or not buying from a game company isn’t remotely similar to that.
KC Hazel said:
Alright, then you do you. No one is telling anyone else to boycott or anything. People can buy whatever they want. If a company does something someone doesn't approve of and they choose not to do business with said company, that's their choice. I don't see why you feel the need to tell them how worthless their choice is or try to make them seem like a hypocrite because they are spending money on something similar. Just seems needlessly confrontational?
Click to expand...
Because people on the first expressed the sentiment that the choice is meaningless outside of your own personal edification and people jumped down their throat for it, lol. That doesn’t seem needlessly confrontational to you?
 
sagadego20 said:
no surprise about the gotcha and whataboutism posts so pathetic
Click to expand...
Discussing the actions of MBS in a thread about MBS is whataboutism now? So what, we shouldn’t get into why he’s bad and how the US government, business community, etc are complicit in that?
 
0
sagadego20 said:
no surprise about the gotcha and whataboutism posts so pathetic
Click to expand...
I wonder how the Saudis got their money to finance a, let's be honest, completely unimportant company in the grand scheme of things, and the power to bully the countries around them hmm.
 
0
Ostia said:
Because people on the first expressed the sentiment that the choice is meaningless outside of your own personal edification and people jumped down their throat for it, lol. That doesn’t seem needlessly confrontational to you?
Click to expand...
I'm not seeing where that even happened here? No one is arguing that not buying the game will be largely effective. No one is telling anyone else to boycott. If you're referring to the drama on the first page with Brock, that had nothing to do with boycotting. People just thought his post was inappropriate, and some of us explained the purpose of the thread since he seemed confused.

You came in the thread and started telling people they better not support Biden or tried to point out a hypocritical stance because Bin Salman used to own 1/3rd of the company. It just seemed needlessly confrontational.
 
KC Hazel said:
I'm not seeing where that even happened here? No one is arguing that not buying the game will be largely effective. No one is telling anyone else to boycott. If you're referring to the drama on the first page with Brock, that had nothing to do with boycotting. People just thought his post was inappropriate, and some of us explained the purpose of the thread since he seemed confused.

You came in the thread and started telling people they better not support Biden or tried to point out a hypocritical stance because Bin Salman used to own 1/3rd of the company. It just seemed needlessly confrontational.
Click to expand...
Two people got banned on the first page of this thread because they didn’t have the “right” reaction to this news (which isn’t even new information nor is it a fundamentally different relationship between MBS and the company than already existed). That seems pretty confrontational to me!
 
I don't think we should be drawing a comparison between buying Metal Gear Tactics and bus boycotts, that would not only constitute a whataboutism, but it's also insensitive.
 
Ostia said:
Two people got banned on the first page of this thread because they didn’t have the “right” reaction to this news (which isn’t even new information nor is it a fundamentally different relationship between MBS and the company than already existed). That seems pretty confrontational to me!
Click to expand...
Well if you wanna pick a fight with the moderation team, I have no interest in getting involved in that.

As far as the boycotting argument goes, there is no one here strongly advocating for it. No one is telling anyone else to boycott or shaming them for not doing it or anything. I don't even think many people here said they were boycotting themselves? The Biden example seems like a bad faith argument that ignores all context of both situations, and for what? Like, who were you even talking to with that comment?
 
The bus boycotts were not a product boycott, they literally set up a grassroots, guerilla system of unlicensed black taxi drivers to get black workers to work as a means of crippling the city’s transportation infrastructure. The buses were a necessary public service that were being used to oppress, so they took radical action and created their own infrastructure to force the city to make concessions. Nothing in that situation is comparable to not buying an SNK game, it’s an absurd and frankly insulting comparison. @DistractedByPixels you should be ashamed of yourself for even trying to make a comparison between the two, honestly.
 
Ostia said:
It’s not a gotcha, I’m pointing out to you that the Saudis owned a large stake in SNK for a while now. They also own stakes in Capcom, 2K, EA, Nexon, and many other game companies. They owned a large stake in Activision Blizzard and Microsoft just paid them $1 billion as part of that deal. They are one of the biggest sources of finance capital in the world and have their tendrils in virtually every game company and media company globally. They run huge investment funds.
Click to expand...

No, don't shrink away just because I called you out.

So it was fine when he only owned 1/3rd of the company? Lol
Click to expand...

This is trying to point out hypocrisy in my actions. I wasn't "fine" with it when he only owned a third of the company, because I didn't know he owned a third of the company.
If your point was "I'm just pointing out that..." then you would have just pointed that out instead of framed your single sentence around me seemingly changing my opinion once his ownership rose above some threshold.
And your "Lol" at the end was clearly a cute way of pointing out the absurdity of what you were accusing me of. So... enough with that bullshit.

It’s naive to think your personal decision to buy or not buy some random SNK game is sticking it to the Saudis. You probably bought something else today financed by them. You can buy or not buy any product for any reason, it’s all equally valid, but don’t confuse it with activism or principled stances.
Click to expand...
Well, it's not your job to bring reality crashing down upon everybody you see as "naive", and if it were, you'd be doing an ass job of it.

If you still can't wrap your fucking head around why people choose not to buy games for reasons like this, then stop fucking talking to me?
 
0
Ostia said:
The context is rejection of support due to connections to the Saudi Royal family. All you are illustrating with this is that there is no functional difference between most Democrats and Republicans on this issue. If you take issue with buying X game from X company because they have investment from the Saudi’s then surely direct support of the Saudi war effort would be way, way worse. And yet you are making the argument that it’s actually the moral choice to support politicians who provide direct material support to Saudi Arabia’s war. If you are an American worried about Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen then voting or not voting are equally unhelpful.

People can vote how they want too, I’m pointing out the limits of this mindset. The idea that not buying a product is some form of political act is a delusion born out of liberalism and capitalism. This comparison to the Birmingham bus boycotts is devoid of context and also a huge misrepresentation, that was part of a larger strategy of direct political action on the part of activists around a government service. It’s similar to squatting on public land, refusing military service or taxation for political reasons, etc. You won’t see me saying direct political action is worthless, buying or not buying from a game company isn’t remotely similar to that.
Click to expand...
I mean, we agree on the limits of boycotting in reference to the KSA and we agree on the lack of functional difference between many Dems and all Republicans on KSA policy. I also don't think that any of this is relevant. We know that the KSA is intertwined into the world economy in a significant way already.

I'm also not making an argument about moral or ethical choices re: politics. I'm simply making an argument from the principles of harm reduction regarding general elections in the United States. Do with that what you will. Voters can care about KSA policy and also other things at the same time. We rank our concerns and vote accordingly based on the limited choices that we have. I don't care to walk through the moral or ethical ramifications of this. It just is.

Re: Birmingham, it is not a huge misrepresentation because, you know, I gave a pertinent example of boycotts being useful. You're just unhappy with being wrong on the internet re: your argument against boycotts, so you're laying out an argument about holistic political activity that is generally true of any major movement for or against something. Any boycott against KSA PIF products would naturally include political action outside of that sphere as well. You'd be aggressively campaigning for and voting for pols who want to stop selling weapons to the KSA, etc.

But really, most people in this thread are just unhappy with spending money on this company that makes games that they like, but that the KSA's PIF has a large share of. Everyone has their limits of what is okay with them and everyone is making trade-offs to make the best possible choices for themselves, their beliefs, world societies, etc. In that context, unless you don't use crude oil, you're supporting the KSA in some way.

I think that it's perfectly fair for people to a) acknowledge that they indirectly support the KSA bombing Yemenis and subjugating women and that b) it is hard or nearly impossible to untangle themselves from those methods of support in the modern world, but c) also be willing to do something in their power, no matter how small or insignificant, not to support the KSA. If that means not buying SNK games or not supporting the English Premier League by watching games, etc., okay. People are trying to negotiate a complex world the best they can. Let them do it without blaring out how many other ways that they are supporting the KSA, so why bother and it's all pointless, etc.

Dusa said:
I don't think we should be drawing a comparison between buying Metal Gear Tactics and bus boycotts, that would not only constitute a whataboutism, but it's also insensitive.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but no, that's not in any way a whataboutism. I think people use this term without fully understanding it. The context of the discussion was simply stating that boycotts in general have efficacy. No one is drawing a direct comparison between those two things, nor is it insensitive to use examples of political action in the past to talk about the efficacy of said political action now.
 
DistractedByPixels said:
I mean, we agree on the limits of boycotting in reference to the KSA and we agree on the lack of functional difference between many Dems and all Republicans on KSA policy. I also don't think that any of this is relevant. We know that the KSA is intertwined into the world economy in a significant way already.

I'm also not making an argument about moral or ethical choices re: politics. I'm simply making an argument from the principles of harm reduction regarding general elections in the United States. Do with that what you will. Voters can care about KSA policy and also other things at the same time. We rank our concerns and vote accordingly based on the limited choices that we have. I don't care to walk through the moral or ethical ramifications of this. It just is.

Re: Birmingham, it is not a huge misrepresentation because, you know, I gave a pertinent example of boycotts being useful. You're just unhappy with being wrong on the internet re: your argument against boycotts, so you're laying out an argument about holistic political activity that is generally true of any major movement for or against something. Any boycott against KSA PIF products would naturally include political action outside of that sphere as well. You'd be aggressively campaigning for and voting for pols who want to stop selling weapons to the KSA, etc.

But really, most people in this thread are just unhappy with spending money on this company that makes games that they like, but that the KSA's PIF has a large share of. Everyone has their limits of what is okay with them and everyone is making trade-offs to make the best possible choices for themselves, their beliefs, world societies, etc. In that context, unless you don't use crude oil, you're supporting the KSA in some way.

I think that it's perfectly fair for people to a) acknowledge that they indirectly support the KSA bombing Yemenis and subjugating women and that b) it is hard or nearly impossible to untangle themselves from those methods of support in the modern world, but c) also be willing to do something in their power, no matter how small or insignificant, not to support the KSA. If that means not buying SNK games or not supporting the English Premier League by watching games, etc., okay. People are trying to negotiate a complex world the best they can. Let them do it without blaring out how many other ways that they are supporting the KSA, so why bother and it's all pointless, etc.



I'm sorry, but no, that's not in any way a whataboutism. I think people use this term without fully understanding it. The context of the discussion was simply stating that boycotts in general have efficacy. No one is drawing a direct comparison between those two things, nor is it insensitive to use examples of political action in the past to talk about the efficacy of said political action now.
Click to expand...
Pointing to the most extreme boycott of a city service, in conjunction with protests, where the consequences for boycotting and protests, doesn't speak of t he general efficacy. If you were pointing to boycotting government services today, that would be a valid comparison. Not buying Metal Arms Tactics is not.
 
0
CastletonSnob said:
"Not buying a game is not a statement nor taking a stand".

Well, there's not a whole lot else we can do. What do you suggest?
Click to expand...
There's nothing you can do from a consumerist point of view. The 60 bucks they're not getting from you not buying the game are greatly offset by the millions in arms deals they get from the US.
 
NarohDethan said:
There's nothing you can do from a consumerist point of view. The 60 bucks they're not getting from you not buying the game are greatly offset by the millions in arms deals they get from the US.
Click to expand...
Even if it doesn't matter in the end of the day if a reduced group of people buy the game or not if enough people do buy it , from a moral perspective a lot of people (which I include myself) don't want their money to end up in SA hands if it can be avoided so for them that's enough to not buy the game even if in the end of the day it makes no difference for the finances of SA or SNK.
 
Blue Monty said:
Even if it doesn't matter in the end of the day if a reduced group of people buy the game or not if enough people do buy it , from a moral perspective a lot of people (which I include myself) don't want their money to end up in SA hands if it can be avoided so for them that's enough to not buy the game even if in the end of the day it makes no difference for the finances of SA or SNK.
Click to expand...
I mean if that makes you sleep better at night, you do you. I'm just saying there are no material differences if you do it or not.
 
0
DistractedByPixels said:
I mean, we agree on the limits of boycotting in reference to the KSA and we agree on the lack of functional difference between many Dems and all Republicans on KSA policy. I also don't think that any of this is relevant. We know that the KSA is intertwined into the world economy in a significant way already.

I'm also not making an argument about moral or ethical choices re: politics. I'm simply making an argument from the principles of harm reduction regarding general elections in the United States. Do with that what you will. Voters can care about KSA policy and also other things at the same time. We rank our concerns and vote accordingly based on the limited choices that we have. I don't care to walk through the moral or ethical ramifications of this. It just is.

Re: Birmingham, it is not a huge misrepresentation because, you know, I gave a pertinent example of boycotts being useful. You're just unhappy with being wrong on the internet re: your argument against boycotts, so you're laying out an argument about holistic political activity that is generally true of any major movement for or against something. Any boycott against KSA PIF products would naturally include political action outside of that sphere as well. You'd be aggressively campaigning for and voting for pols who want to stop selling weapons to the KSA, etc.

But really, most people in this thread are just unhappy with spending money on this company that makes games that they like, but that the KSA's PIF has a large share of. Everyone has their limits of what is okay with them and everyone is making trade-offs to make the best possible choices for themselves, their beliefs, world societies, etc. In that context, unless you don't use crude oil, you're supporting the KSA in some way.

I think that it's perfectly fair for people to a) acknowledge that they indirectly support the KSA bombing Yemenis and subjugating women and that b) it is hard or nearly impossible to untangle themselves from those methods of support in the modern world, but c) also be willing to do something in their power, no matter how small or insignificant, not to support the KSA. If that means not buying SNK games or not supporting the English Premier League by watching games, etc., okay. People are trying to negotiate a complex world the best they can. Let them do it without blaring out how many other ways that they are supporting the KSA, so why bother and it's all pointless, etc.



I'm sorry, but no, that's not in any way a whataboutism. I think people use this term without fully understanding it. The context of the discussion was simply stating that boycotts in general have efficacy. No one is drawing a direct comparison between those two things, nor is it insensitive to use examples of political action in the past to talk about the efficacy of said political action now.
Click to expand...
“Mad about being proven wrong on the internet” lmfao come on. I’m not the one who tried to compare not buying SNK games to the actions of the civil rights movement.

If you don’t see the difference between a ‘boycott’ of a necessary municipal service and creation of a parallel service by organizers to meet the civic need in order to force a government to negotiate and not buying a game, idk what to tell you. That’s not even remotely similar to a product boycott, it’s a form of civil disobedience and radical political action. One is an effective means of political change and the other isn’t.

If you were advocating that a group of developers should start using SNK IP without permission to create their own KoF games as a form of protest or something similar, that would at least be a comparison that could be discussed and wouldn’t be mind-bogglingly stupid like the one you chose to make. Or if you were advocating a BDS style movement. That’s an entirely different scenario than what you’ve been describing though,
 
Ostia said:
Nah I voted for Biden and I regret it, lmao. What I’m trying to illustrate is how far the ties between the Saudi Royal family and western governments and finance capital go. If SNK being owned largely by the Saudi’s investment group is that damning, then surely direct support for Saudi war machine should be unconscionable
Click to expand...
Shoulda voted for the guy who attacked our democracy then.
 
I mean the most you can do in this scenario is pirate and distribute free copies of the game but we don't like that here lol
 
0
Ostia said:
“Mad about being proven wrong on the internet” lmfao come on. I’m not the one who tried to compare not buying SNK games to the actions of the civil rights movement.

If you don’t see the difference between a ‘boycott’ of a necessary municipal service and creation of a parallel service by organizers to meet the civic need in order to force a government to negotiate and not buying a game, idk what to tell you. That’s not even remotely similar to a product boycott, it’s a form of civil disobedience and radical political action. One is an effective means of political change and the other isn’t.

If you were advocating that a group of developers should start using SNK IP without permission to create their own KoF games as a form of protest or something similar, that would at least be a comparison that could be discussed and wouldn’t be mind-bogglingly stupid like the one you chose to make. Or if you were advocating a BDS style movement. That’s an entirely different scenario than what you’ve been describing though,
Click to expand...

You're the one who said boycotts don't work. No one here said that not buying an SNK game was exactly like bus boycotts during the CRM. Stop lying because you are wrong on the internet and feel the need to double down.
 
This thread is so weird lol. Let people have whatever moral stance they want, it's not like anyone on Era has any real power to combat a Saudi multimillionare.
 
DistractedByPixels said:
You're the one who said boycotts don't work. No one here said that not buying an SNK game was like the CRM. Stop lying because you are wrong on the internet and feel the need to double down.
Click to expand...
C'mon, he's talking about product boycotts, not bus boycotts.
 
0
Staff Communication
In the future - When creating threads on Famiboards, use a reliable and neutral source in your OP, please keep it civil with your fellow members, do not intentionally create friction with other members, be polite in your messaging and be clear in your intentions, especially when dealing with sensitive topics as this and please remember to report the post/thread and do not engage if you see something untoward or that you feel are breaking the rules of the board.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.


Back
Top Bottom