PC Gaming

8521 readers

517 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

Be Respectful.
No Spam or Porn.
No Advertising.
No Memes.
No Tech Support.
No questions about buying/building computers.
No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
No off-topic posts/comments.
Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Hogwarts Legacy sales top 22 million (www.gematsu.com)

submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

61 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago (2 children)

You can't buy chocolate and a ton of other common ingredients without supporting slavery. There's no ethical consumption under capitalism, the HP franchise is a small drop in the ocean of suffering. Expecting peole to be aware of all those things and also boycott every single one is not feasible and should be solved top down.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

"No ethical consumption under capitalism" isnt supposed to be used as justification to support shitty people. Lots of decent people write fantasy books. Buy their shit instead of a bigot's.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

No, it just means it's pretty much impossible to buy stuff and not support something shitty, Rowling is just more visible than like a forest somewhere that was cut down for paper to print books or some child slaves operating printing presses. Like yea, Rowling is a massive asshole but compared to something like Neste she'd be an angel and you can't have the expectation for every individual to boycott everything harmful, it's just not doable.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I can't argue with that for sure, but here it's specifically against Rowling. You can't pretend to be boycotting her and keep giving her money through her licenses.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Oh yea true, if anyone is claiming they are boycotting Rowling then they can't really buy any media associated with her while still boycotting her, that's just a contradiction.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Lol OK, no shit, but that's not what I said anyway.