Is Joja that evil?

No, my words were: "Joja is completely separate from Morris as a person". My point was that Joja is not to be judged less disfavorably no matter how nice a person Morris is considered to be. That's your second mis-reading of my statements; a pattern of misreads reduces my interest in continuing our discussion.

Joja is to blame for Jody's poor _options_; her poor choices are her own mistakes. (Your hypothetical about selling bad product to Pierre is irrelevant.)

Your assertion that I'm conflating cause and effect in a way not germane to this thread hinges on evil being possible only by intent, whereas the question, as posed, simply asks whether or not it _is_.

I edited my comment to refer to her as "his kid" even before I saw your nit-pick about my choice of words, which was originally meant to be from his perspective since part of his being a jerk in his mind could potentially be resentment against Caroline, and also the fact that it is unknown whether or not she is adoptive, given the game never says when he and Caroline became married/a couple; for all we know, Caroline could have been a single mom at the time.

 

then you need to explain your distinction clearly and succinctly. you are not saying anything that supports your case since morris' 'niceness' isn't a factor and making said distinction has no play on the original statements. he is the contact between you (the person buying repairs) and joja(the business offering repairs). joja the companey is the one that offers to repair the town and executes the repairs on the town if you so choose to have it do so which is the op's claim to begin with and using morris' name only offers a human to the flavor to the sentence without changing the intent

yeah, i can agree they can be blamed for giving her an option but this does not make them evil on it's own. she is not forced into participating. choosing garbage products is not great but that is literally ALL of her options. she is only allotted bad options from all sides unless the player intervenes which does not give any credance to your claim that joja in particular is evil because of what it allows others to do. giving someone the option to do evil does not make the giver evil. that is rubbish

the question isn't about whether it is or is not evil though. it is a question of is about how evil is joja compared to the other options(with a leaning towards 'probably not too evil')

yeah, that is conjecture on your part that isn't supported by anything in the game. you have 0 evidence from him, or anyone else, that he is negligent because he has doubts about the legitimacy of abigail's parentage and 0 evidence that they were not married before she was born. the only thing he says is that sometimes he wonders if she is really his kid which is a commonly used american sentiment offered by parents when their children are growing up and becoming their own persons(and since they had the same coloured hair when she was a child there is actually MORE evidence that she is his child than isn't)

 

I mentioned Morris only because sventex did in characterizing his intents, unaccountably, as less than evil by comparison with Pelican Town's residents.

You again misread: I stated explicitly Joja is evil _regardless_ of others' behavior, yet you claim me to have claimed Joja is evil because of what it allows others to do.

You again forget the rest of this thread in your apparent bent against my comments: your previous message tried to delegitimize my preceding comment that Joja is evil by saying this thread isn't about capitalism, and I said it is about whether or not it's _evil_, but in saying that I also definitely did _not_ also say that it isn't about whether or not it's "that evil", which is a facet I dealt with much earlier in this thread.

As for Pierre, you have 0 evidence that I'm wrong as well, and you're who brought up the issue via name-calling. As for hair color, you surely cannot defend a baby's transient color to be stronger evidence of genetic tie than adult hair color, but I don't want to derail this thread on that count any more than you already did.

 

ok, "destroying the community" then, is what i meant, by taking over all business, and his stance is pure evil, which you can see by his "oh, i have a huge discount for those who buy from us"
business like that is evil, and in reallife it is ONLY like that (although i have a feeling it's teamwork by acting like they fioght each other, making fanboys buy more and more)
sure, Pierre cares about money gain, but at least wants to keep the community together

the video's you can find about the unused character shows that Joja's boss(es) are being mean, and the smug face that Morris has is too open to forget that
you can think differently, but he's meant to be bad, and if you compare it to reallife business people, well... they also only act nice to the ones they do business with, as they do business, and only care about money
what big businessman would first think about feelings of people he wants to make money off of

sure, Pierre is acting at some point, too, but you build friendship with him, unlike Morris
if Morris wouldn't be bad, he'd talk to people, instead of being a prick who's doing a lot to get Pierre's customers
and if we say "joja is NOT Morris", then i say "he kinda is", as we can see how he does stuff himself, liek that huge discount

to me you're evil enough if you don't think about people's feelings, and that's worse if you, on top of that, make money over people's feelings
Morris is clearly aware of the community, and cares nothing about it, and only thinks about people's money
he sees how he takes people's money, even though it hurts their feelings.... how can one NOT find that evil?

but yeah, i see people here think about this kind of stuff from business standards, which is FAR from people's feelings/happiness
so i guess people like to think the same about capitalism in SDV as they do in reallife.... that's too bad
i'm playing SDV to NOT be in reallife's capitalism "life"

to me there's NO excuse to put business above human lives, but many people seem to disagree, is what i see when it's about lives of anything
which happens on the internet and reallife a LOT, with their "yes, happiness is important, BUT...."
people rather talk "smart" about business, and think it's good to have, while it harms people so much
and to put that attitude into SDV is weirder

i'm thinking the way of lives, and will live that way, especially in SDV, the peaceful game i bought to relax, and NOT feel reallife
soon i'll be sleeping, and next times i play SDV, i'll kick Morris' butt out, with every character i have

 

I quite agree with the gyst of your comment but want to again emphasize that in saying Joja and Morris are separate it is to clearly establish that Joja cannot be thought less ill of for any good-will ostensibly harbored or exhibited by Morris or any employee, regardless of the fact that employees are instrumental in implementing some ill effects Joja can have. Morris certainly bears similarity to Joja in terms of his true priorities, but that cannot ever fuse the two.

 

if we talk about a company itself, it can never be evil, the ones on top of said community steer the company wherever they want, which, in this case, is the evil way

 

So you're saying, corporations are people?

 

This statement is true in the sense that corporations, like technology or arms, are mostly effective only due to the uses to which they're put by individual agents, but the reason I think it's also valid to say that Joja is evil is because its definition of existence and success therein recognizes only reward to itself regardless of "externalities", i.e. evil impacts, and rewards its employees/agents/executives for that the most by their behaving in ways that bring about evil results. Could Joja undertake a sustainability initiative better than Pierre's support of the player's farmer that's also better for Pelican Town residents' health, for example? Theoretically, yes, and it might even be profitable, but how couldn't it be _more_ profitable to squeeze everyone and everything as hard as possible indefinitely, instead? There's even a school of thought out there that holds shareholder returns to be a corporation's prime purpose, and to its adherents, failing to devote the enterprise entirely to profiteering, as measured in the eyes of investors (e.g. quarterly reports), is breach of fiduciary duty and grounds for ouster. If that's not a recipe for evil to anyone reading this, then I don't know what could be, to them.

The case law history, IRL, was to establish that simply due to commerce occurring under the auspices of a corporation did not make it tax exempt. The corollary was that members who wish to express themselves through the means of that organization have no less protection of their speech simply for occurring by the use of means belonging to that corporation, but neither did that forge means solely unto the corporation for the use of its members, and that is where the current confusion over corporations as persons with rights resides. So, neither are corporations "people" as such in and of themselves, nor are people corporations, but merely acting under an incorporated organization's auspices; neither members nor the corporation by their interrelation are granted liberties, rights, etc. to which they are not entitled without that interrelation, other than privileges within the corporation to its resources the members grant themselves and one another. That said, money's not speech, and as I said of no entitlements/rights changing, corporate "ownership" cannot shield, for example, breaking campaign finance laws simply for being laundered through a corporation, nor deployment of illegal or otherwise unprotected and/or unlawful acts simply for using corporate-owned assets/means—not Constitutionally, at least. The US Supreme Court's 2010 ruling on Citizens United not only allows corporations unlimited election spending—itself flying in the face not only of precedent but also of the foundational underpinnings defining the existence of corporate entities, now tying the government's hands to enforce against corporate members simply for the vehicle of their collective expression's being an entity which has been incorporated—but makes no attempt to see to its equitability amongst corporate members, radically disequilibriating democracy striated along capital's lines and flouting the whole point of democracy which is to equally distribute electoral power among the governed. For what IMO is good reason, both judges and lawmakers have since called for a Constitutional amendment empowering the government to protect self-governance by enforcing limits on election-related spending by corporations. (As to the argument that the only true electoral power is the vote, that is IMO absurdly, demonstrably false and laughably naive, as any review of the historical and electoral/legislative record makes indisputably and abundantly clear, to say nothing of election spending upon outcomes: the Citizens United ruling is just the latest in the march of corporate usurpation of liberty in America, from special interests disjointing markets and politics alike in favor of its incumbents to gerrymandering to registration laws meant to exclude underclasses from vote-casting to threat of firing for failing to obey corporate orders to cast certain votes...) Sophomoric corporatists may soon find their stomping grounds, bereft of dynamics by which they cohere, crumble asunder—and they alongwith.

 

basically, they are being controlled by humans
this is in context of some replies here, and if we take away the boss of a company and the company itself, it's useless
no corporation can do anything by itself, but i think this thread is not about that, is it?

in this case, Morris controls Joja, so Morris = Joja

if we really are dividing them (Morris and Joja Co.), then we can all say "no, of course not", but i doubt that was the goal when this thread was made, am i wrong?

 

Precisely: floating Morris' ostensible moral fiber as some kind of fig leaf or vouchsafe for Joja, as I found sventex to have done, I saw to be a red-herring I wished to sever from this thread as irrelevant/misconceived. It was their post which began dithering on the subject by drawing a distinction between them relative to the question the thread posed. What is, I think, incontrovertible, is that neither can indemnify the other.

 

Yeah. I just threw that in to provide levity. Under U.S. law, at least, corporations are very free to chart their own course. They can speak out or adopt policies on a nearly limitless range of issues that they, as a unit, decide are important to them. It isn't a perfect system but I think it's better than the alternatives.

 

Except you can't do that. Morris is an agent acting on the behalf of Joja. Morris & Employees and by extension Joja is repairing the community of Pelican Town. The delabitated Community Center that was left to rot by the community was turned into a useful warehouse. The competition, Pierre, does not care about the community. He puts business above family, he harasses the town with his advertisements and he makes no effort to repair Pelican Town. He spends festivals trying to make money while Morris does not and nearly all his dialogues with the player involve commerce in someway. Joja has provided jobs, provided groceries 7 days a week (a service that Pierre does not provide at first) and it has (potentially) repaired the community. Joja is a benefit to Pelican Town and thus not "evil", despite displaying the worst attributes of capitalism. Siding against Joja results in violence, unemployment and Pierre spending even less time with his family, a clear sign that Joja is not "evil".

Except this isn't in the game. Joja does not take over any of the businesses in Pelican Town. And providing discounts is not "pure evil". Providing the consumer with a better price is a positive thing for the consumer. The only businesses that are destroyed happen when you side with Pierre. By your own arguments, Pierre would be close to pure evil for "destroying the community" because he deliberately causes the abandonment of the town convenience store. If you side with Joja, no parts of the community become abandoned or go out of business.

 

No, only community members can do that. That you seem to see no difference of note, much less acknowledge any problem with, a warehouse versus a community center is chilling and telling. I think that tells anyone reading your comments everything they would ever need to know about you and your thoughts relative to this topic.

Evil is, quite literally, "live" in reverse; it is in what you consider to be a benefit to the town that Joja benefits itself the most, and is therefore an exploitive parasite that is evil for sustaining life only in order to control and reap disproportionate benefit therefrom unto itself.

Pierre has nothing to do with the question of whether or not Joja is evil, and as for whether or not it's "that evil", I fail to find that a more pressing question than _how_ evil given Joja cannot exist but through its pursuit of success defined as only everything that brings about residents' immiseration. That the player can represent a far better alternative for Pelican Town matters far more than Pierre's part therein, even by your own relativist standards to compare the 2 divergent scenarios of a Joja or non-Joja run.

 

That's not true. None of the townspeople repair the bus, bridges or greenhouse. It's either Joja employees or Junimos. The only exception is Robin building a house for Penny, but she doesn't do this on her own initiative.

The Community Center is a dilapidated building and safety hazard. It is chilling that you do not acknowledge the problems with a building that is dangerous to the community.

And is the farmer exploiting the store for it's farm seeds to benefit them-self and is therefore an exploitative parasite that is evil for sustaining life in order to control and reap disproportionate benefit therefore unto itself? If the farmer is evil for exploiting Pierre and Joja to sustain life and reap benefits then yes, Joja is evil.
However, I don't agree with your assessment. A for profit-business like the farm is not inherently evil. Joja and the Farmer provide mutual benefits to the community.

The word you are looking for is symbiosis, not parasite. Joja provides jobs, goods and services to the town and the town provides patronage to the company. This is how most businesses operate and generally speaking business improve the standard of living, which is a morally good thing.

 

My comment went right over your head: a gleaming, state-of-the-art _warehouse_ does not a community make.

Nice try, but I have nothing to acknowledge in an unused building. That its use matters nothing to you is what's chilling. The fact that it's unused is sad, sure, and the townspeople deserve blame for that, but that has nothing to do with Joja. Joja turning it into a resource for themselves to better exploit the townspeople and their resources is evil.

Again, nice try, there, but the farmer is a _customer_, _buying_, not a vendor selling and profiting. (Selling the farm's produce is not comparable to Joja for obvious reasons.)

In diametrically opposed ways! The comparison to which my comment applied was Zosa's mention of Pierre (not the farmer/player and Joja). My point is that none of what you call benefit is a _net_ benefit _to the community_ of Pelican Town's _residents_ as compared to being without Joja let alone with a farmer not myopically preoccupied with Joja's purported infallibility!

I said exactly what I meant: Joja is a parasite holding resources that otherwise could have been employed directly by the townspeople to _make a living_ rather than _have a job_, and to the degree it holds them, it does so most to its own advantage, to the detriment of the townspeople, and to detriment of those resources' potential benefit to the townspeople if they got their acts together to leverage them; your materialistic view of "community" is its handmaiden to the type of complacent complicity you seem to think justifies Joja's involvement as a flaw in the townspeople's behavior _without_ Joja! Community members remain responsible for their own behavior, but their mistakes reflect nothing better upon Joja.

 

Joja makes those repairs... If... the farmer pays! Joja doesn't do crap out of the goodness of their heart.

 

Is this evil?

 

Yes, because money as the currency of means to do _anything_ accrues most to Joja and not the townspeople, due to profit in conjunction with Joja's existential drive for maximal expression thereof unto itself. This is why the central question IMO ought to be is Joja evil, rather than is Joja "'that' evil": no matter what they do, that they are by nature incapable of failing to bring about evil in their truest expression of purpose and success undermines, not builds or strengthens, community, and does so to the detriment of the opportunities for building community along with its greater benefits than those Joja marginally bring.

Or maybe you meant yourself and/or your question.

 

You're the one giving Joja credit for making the repairs. I'm just pointing up the flaw in you're argument. You can double, or triple, down on it, but still it's a flawed argument. It' is the farmer who fixes things, and if Joja does the repairs they keep the community center for themselves... The Junimos give it back to the town. Evil or not I don't know but Joja does nothing unless there's something in it for Joja.

 

I view providing a service to the community as morally good. The farmer does not have the skills of repair the greenhouse but Joja/Junimos does. The Junimos barters for the repair, Joja charges for the repair. Between the two, they are morally equivalent, but they are both doing something morally good. Turning a dangerously debilitated building into a warehouse is not morally bad.

The Junimos wont lift a finger either unless you provide them items that they demand or provide free housing for them.

That's not an argument. Providing service for a profit is not a crime, nor is it inherently evil. If Joja repairs the bus but Major Lewis ended up with pocketing some of the repair money, that would be criminal on the part of Major Lewis. There's no reason why money going into Joja's repair of the Bus, should end up in anyone else's hands but Joja's.