>>50342568>This is a guide for 3rd parties on the anglophone marketMARKETING. IT'S FOR MARKETING. NOTHING ELSE. YOU EVEN ADMIT IT YOURSELF WITHOUT REALIZING IT.
>not a translation of anything. You specifically said TPC had a hand because you had to double back on your bad argument when you said they didn't. Now you're doubling back again because you were caught in a lie.
>How is explaining the Pokémon world a form of censorship? Or how it functions?Because you don't understand how language and culture works, it's as simple as that. It's already been explained to you.
>fair number of theseBut not all of them? So you're cherry-picking what you like and throwing out what you don't, just like you've been doing today.
>Pokémon literally eating dog food in the anime, or never referred to as people for another.They also ate multiple berries, treats, puffins, whatever you want to call them throughout the games. Also referred to as equal to humans in the games. You didn't play the games so you wouldn't know this.
>I'm guessing they're implying Pokémon also eat hayBad argument, BUT you're not wrong. This doesn't support anything you're saying though
>This are not the imagery you want to enforce on a love partnerWe also have minigames where you fight giant robots or bounce on the clouds. We also have games where Pokemon have human emotions, words, and understanding. You're cherry-picking more examples. Pokemon is not a consistent series.
>And the marriage story is a mess because it doesn't tell us absolutely nothing.So... it does tell us things? Yeah
>People laser focus on marriage part but ignore the "were the same" part.It specifically said marriage and was localized to something more "tame" for western audiences. Stop denying reality.
>That changed in legends of arceus to coperjahYeah no shit, that was the anon's point. It also works against you by showing how inconsistent the series is.
