>>53241647Pokemon as a concept are bound to that. The points that I want to get across are the way the series goes about it and by showcasing it's deliberate by showing word from the people who run, worked on and even created the series.
Those post are a manifestation of all that work. The whole point is that people pick up on context clues even when the subject are fantasy creatures. Being able to talk or what have you doesn't detract from that, and the Pokémon series is very conservative on that front anyways. This is why I brought up other examples like Snoopy being able to read and write, create a novel and things like that, it doesn't detract that Snoopy is still a dog and Charlie Brown's pet dog at that. Yogi isn't anyone's pet but a bear that lives in a forest reserve. His cave may be styled after a modern home but it's still a cave, he lives in the forest and the series presents him as a bear.
With Pokémon the series is very unsubtle about it, they beat you with that fact everytime you interact with your Pokémon and the anime does the same too. This are the things that shape the perception people have over Pokémon. And The Pokémon Company has done a great job at this based off the arguments that occur here, comments shown in other websites and how people in general see Pokémon. The Viz video with the comments has over a million views with plenty of people making the pet/critter comparison.
In the end Pokémon is unapologetic over this subject. This is why it's important to note the things the series does, including the rejection of the supernatural for Pokémon and even the label monster. Early product guides were telling 3rd parties not to refer to Pokémon as monsters, and Shudo very rarely uses the terms, instead writing that the anime staff decided to think of Pokémon in *animal* terms, never as monsters. In Scarlet and Violet there's a rejection of Pokémon as monsters as part of the main story too. It's all a peculiar construction.
