You must log in or register to comment.
There are versions of this meme format that don’t use a pedophile
This will help remind us that he is a pedo, though. Best not to forget
I remember he is a pedo because he is one, not by making silly memes with him.
Who is he and what did he do?
Drake, he did pedo things.
Such as?
Having sex withraping children. Corrected myselfOh? When? Who?
I couldnt find any evidence last I checked – ageist folk lynched him for having a nonsexual friendship with Millie Bobby Brown when she was in her early teens, but that’s it. No ephebophilia, no evidence, no grooming, and no victim statements. And as for the rap feud between him and some other guy, “…no reasonable listener would interpret “Not Like Us” as conveying verifiable facts. The lyrics of this song constitute “non-actionable opinion”, rather than factual assertions.” [1]
drake, people have been criticizing how he has been grooming millie brown since she was young, and likely other people.
Be the change you wish to see.
I mean I don’t give a fuck about the PlayStation stuff so … not really worth my time to recreate.
Better templates for future use:
I’ve never seen that cat one before, I like it.
Perhaps like me, they know not of what you speak of.
🌍👩🏾🚀🔫👩🏾🚀
I know everyone is upset, but I feel this is where the market can really throw its weight behind a competitor that sees a gap in the market. Monopolies always seem so big until they suddenly collapse. Nokia not embracing android can be an example I think, or TV against Netflix or know that Netflix is becoming shit the high seas
*For the CEO
Corporations exist to make investors money. That is the sole reason. Everything they do must be with the goal of making money for the investors.
Yeah,. It’s a for-profit company with publicly traded stock. Their one and only concern is their bottom line, decrease costs, increase profits. If you want a nonprofit videogame co-op that’s gamer first then you’re more than free to go start one.
Yep, it’s a company like every other one on this planet. Don’t forget.
People are free to spend their money on non-profits and open source, they mostly choose not to.
There is a middle ground between a nonprofit coop and a business that screws over its customers. Do you only think in extremes?
A for profit will ultimately err on the side of profits. Any messaging or behavior suggesting they actually care about the consumer is only in service of profits not in service of the consumer aka it’s fake.
I think you’re confusing being able to explain their behaviour with it being moral and just behaviour.
I never said anything about morality. Honestly within the confines of what is legal business isn’t too concerned about morality because the goal isn’t morality or ethics. The goal is increasing profits.
But ultimately it is still run by humans who make a choice about what they’re deciding to do. They are not faceless, mindless automatons roaming the countryside gobbling up capital and turning out enshittification. There are people specifically making these decisions. Why argue as though it is immutable fact? The world can always be changed. As you say elsewhere in the thread people can choose to be different. There just doesn’t exist better motivation and opportunity to do so. Perhaps spreading awareness with discussion and memes helps create that. Would you argue that discussion would be fruitless because people can come to that conclusion without discussion, even though discussion makes it easier?
I think I would reframe this. Companies will do what they believe will make them profits aka the guy in management is going to get a raise or the CEO is going to get a pay increase / stick options because their profits increased due to their choices. Now if a community of people can put a large enough financial incentive (positive or negative) on a company they will ultimately change their behavior. If for instance today everyone started boycotting companies with practices they disliked then most definitely they would change and likely whoever was in charge before would be fired or punished somehow. They’re not going to change just to make people feel better or happy, no one cares about that so long as the money is flowing in a for-profit.
Yeah, and you’re a consumer who should be acting in your own self interest. In case or needs to be said, a company going digital only on their own closed platform is not in your interest even if you buy digital only or don’t even use the platform. So unless you like being a corporate bootlicker maybe don’t defend things that are against your self interest.
Me? I wait like 20+ years to play games so typically I just emulate roms. I donate to ROM hosting sites or buy old games and consoles from yard sales and stuff. I’m consuming content but I’m definitely not a typical gamer I think.
This is such a shit argument. Reminds me of Linux forums.
“Ya that sucks it doesn’t work, go find the repo and download the source and fix it yourself”
By this logic, Linux is for programmers. And gaming is for business people.
Weird flex, but okay.
Not really an argument, it’s more so a statement of fact. Businesses exist for one reason alone, to within the confines of the law generate more capital than they spend. If you want an organization whose goal is something else then you need a non-profit organization. A for-profit is by definition for profit. They don’t call it capitalism by accident.
You misunderstand my comment. I’m referring to this:
If you want a nonprofit videogame co-op that’s gamer first then you’re more than free to go start one.
I am well aware how corporations work.
It’s not all that shit of an argument. All companies exist to make money, not products. If they could make money without making products, they would stop making products altogether. Some are more egregious about that fact, but it remains a fact for all companies, even the ones you think are your friends. It’s possible for a company to do what consumers want and still make money, establishing a good relationship that makes both enjoyable products and decent profits, but even those companies are just one leadership change away from short-term profit-driven decisions that run the company to the ground.
You misunderstand my comment. I’m referring to this:
If you want a nonprofit videogame co-op that’s gamer first then you’re more than free to go start one.
I am well aware how corporations work.
But are you? Literally the only people who could possibly make a gamer-first video game is an organization that isn’t money-first. That was my whole point. You have never played a game made by a for-profit developer that wasn’t specifically money-first, even if the gameplay ended up being good in spite of that. Indie devs are the only people making games that sometimes break that mold, and while I wouldn’t exactly call an indie dev “nonprofit,” it’s a lot closer to the truth for the ones that truly make gamer-first games than grouping them with a for-profit corporation.
I’m not saying not to be money first. But it comes to a point where the greed gets too much. Lay off staff bigger CEO payouts. Etc.
Look at epic games and tell me what they don’t have in common with Team Cherry.
We as a people have been lulled into a false sense of security by corporations claiming “It’s okay, we can both get what we want!” as they play the long game that ended up resulting in the global situation we have right now. We have to reject capitalism in all forms as much as we can, and truly embrace only what few products were made for the sole purpose of creating something, not for profit. It’s no longer about only following what few companies use the power we’ve given them responsibly - the troublemakers ruined it for everyone, and now nobody can be trusted with it. Companies aren’t just not our friends, they are our sworn enemies.
You have to be being ironic, but I can’t tell whether you’re being serious and are just a bit of a rube.
It’s always both.
