Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Nintendo Ranks Last In Conflict Minerals Report

Posted by Soulskill on from the no-blood-for-1up-mushrooms dept.

derekmead writes "A new report by the Enough Project, an arm of the Center for American Progress, shows that companies like Intel, Apple and Microsoft have been successfully scaling back their use of conflict minerals in their products. Other companies have been less helpful. Out of the 24 companies surveyed and ranked based on their use of conflict minerals, Nintendo came in dead last, having made no effort to ensure that its products weren't funding guerrilla warfare in Africa. 'Nintendo is, I believe, the only company that has basically refused to acknowledge the issue or demonstrate they are making any sort of effort on it,' said Sasha Lezhnev from the Enough Project. 'And this is despite a good two years of trying to get in contact with them.'"

73 of 134 comments (clear)

  1. Good reason not to care about the report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you formally score someone 0/10 points on measure X just because they don't want to talk to you about X, then your assessment is pretty much worthless.

    1. Re:Good reason not to care about the report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's also a report from an organization trying to push their own "certification" program, which in the corporate world means "pay us and give us significant influence over you or we'll do our best to make everyone hate you". If they actually wanted to help they'd be working on the actual supply chains, not trying to strong-arm big companies.

    2. Re:Good reason not to care about the report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      True. But to be fair, how do you investigate the source of minerals if the company won't tell you? If a company uses a lot of conflict minerals they will act just like Nintendo and keep quiet because people will point out that they simply didn't answer the survey.

    3. Re:Good reason not to care about the report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, it's more like "It's ridiculous that they gave me a zero for a class grade and they're trying to tell everyone in the world, I wasn't even enrolled at the school!"

    4. Re:Good reason not to care about the report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Problem is, they didn't enroll in that class. What would you score someone on the final that didn't enroll in the course?

    5. Re:Good reason not to care about the report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      So, this is a "carbon credits" type scam? Go Nintendo! :)

    6. Re:Good reason not to care about the report by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I particularly like how one of the bullet points explaining why they are lowest-ranked is "Lowest ranked company". It's like recursive bullshit.

      The only reason I could see why most of these companies are rated badly is that they didn't want to spend the time and resources filling out surveys and auditing their supply chain for Greenpeace and their hippy brethren.

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    7. Re:Good reason not to care about the report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      is there any evidence that Nintendo is worse at actually ensuring they are using a minimum of conflict materials?

      This sounds like little more than a reputation-hurting extortion scheme.

    8. Re:Good reason not to care about the report by slashfoxi · · Score: 2

      And good for Nintendo. You can't legitimize every crank who comes calling. Though slashdot seems willing to do so.

    9. Re:Good reason not to care about the report by cyp43r · · Score: 1

      Which is why most universities give separate results for 'did not attend final' and 'got zero marks on final'.

    10. Re:Good reason not to care about the report by Jessified · · Score: 1

      No universities that I know of. Is that an American thing? Either way, you don't get a pass for not attending (I should hope?)

  2. Re:They exploit European characters also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That just means they're open-minded and sensitive to other cultures and are willing to adapt to a global economy. There's no exploitation, quite the opposite, they should be applauded for using characters that go beyond their own borders.

  3. Nintendo doesn't pay them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So they get a 0 on their survey that doesn't get answer. Same thing with the greenpeace thing. Nintendo doesn't pay them, so they come in last.

    1. Re:Nintendo doesn't pay them by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      Same thing with the greenpeace thing. Nintendo doesn't pay them, so they come in last.

      Nintendo uses whale parts in their products?

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  4. Re:Fallacious II by Rotten · · Score: 1

    typo: "Eastern Congo IS NOT the only..."

  5. Re:They exploit European characters also by Cenan · · Score: 1

    I'd mod parent up if i had any points left, simply for pointing out that almost any action can be spun to work for some agenda or other.

    --
    ... whatever ...
  6. Re:They exploit European characters also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "lifted"? They made them up. Are you saying that people should only create characters that come from their own country? That's just stupid and irrelevant.

  7. Fund away by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

    Fund away, as long as I get to play my video games.

  8. Why should business care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So long as it's legal to use these minerals. Why should a business give a damm about anything else?

    Leave the legal/moral/political areas to the goverments/people. If they rule it illegal. Then a business has to comply.

    Or if people care enough the bad PR might hurt a company. But i really don't see that happening anytime soon.
    IE conflict diamonds are forever too.

    1. Re:Why should business care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So long as it's legal to use these minerals. Why should a business give a damm about anything else?

      Leave the legal/moral/political areas to the goverments/people. If they rule it illegal. Then a business has to comply.

      Or if people care enough the bad PR might hurt a company. But i really don't see that happening anytime soon. IE conflict diamonds are forever too.

      Just because something is legal, does not mean it is moral to do. Some people and the companies they run have morals. If more people had morals, then we could have a lot less laws. I know that is a lot to hope for, but people like you who think that if something is legal then they should do it, no matter what it does to man kind, does not help to have a more free society.

  9. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  10. ExxonMobile by PPH · · Score: 1

    Unless oil is exempt from consideration as a conflict mineral.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  11. The US, Japan and South Africa's Apartheid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Let us not forget...during the South African Apartheid days...the US banned some metals being imported from South Africa...so, some Japanese companies turned around...bought the minerals from South Africa...and resold them to American comapanies...at GREAT profits. The only companies hurt by "the ban" were American workers and American companies...so much for "soical policy" :-(

  12. Re:Different continent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Because America is a huge market for that company's products. If people were to boycott them, it could hurt their profits. Of course no one will, and their competition does shit like this too. Another market failure.

  13. Re:oh great more Orwellian speak "conflict mineral by unixisc · · Score: 2

    Precisely! What's to say that Nintendo didn't get it from intermediaries who provided it to them, and didn't bother to check their sources so long as it met their quality standards?

  14. Re:Fallacious II by Nutria · · Score: 2

    Tell that to the "ethicist" who dressed up eugenics in fancy new garb.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  15. American companies respond, but not Japanese? by topham · · Score: 1

    Is it really a surprise that the American companies responded and a Japanese company didn't? You think perhaps there are cultural issues involves in choosing to respond or not?

  16. More importantly... by raehl · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's wasted effort. Minerals are fungible commodities. Choosing not to buy minerals from a particular source doesn't affect anything, as they just end up being sold to someone else for the same price.

    About the only thing efforts like this are good for is PR and raising prices. Programs like this don't have any tangible impact in the conflict areas.

    --
    paintball
    1. Re:More importantly... by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Also, one need to look at what the replacement are. I'd much rather the money went to Africa, than to, say, China.
      Even if it goes to areas of war. This does nothing to address the root causes of the conflicts, and the wars won't become less barbaric if there is no influx of money. People gut each other just as horribly with spears.
      And some of the money will get spent locally, which increases the overall welfare. We need to stop trying to punish the bad guys when it also hurts the little guys.

      The effect of this well-intended ban on central African minerals is that up to 90% of legitimate mines have closed, and people starve as a result, and take to weapons. Well done -- you should feel proud of yourselves.

      See you guys later -- I'm off to the stores to buy a Nintendo.

    2. Re:More importantly... by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      wrong, the money is spent by the evil overlord on italian sports cars, gold-plated weapons, home theater, swimming pools etc. while the general population is still enslaved, malnourished, digging in a hole and crushing their backs by carrying undecent amount of rocks. the overlord's hunchmen and the people who built its lavish villa do profit, though.

    3. Re:More importantly... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Choosing not to buy minerals from a particular source doesn't affect anything, as they just end up being sold to someone else for the same price

      Only if there are other buyers. And, if a large number of buyers are unwilling to do business with some suppliers then the other buyers may be in a position to push the price down.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:More importantly... by arth1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It isn't as if the locals ran their own mines. Most were probably simple farmers, fisherman, etc. Removing this money will take the weapons out of the hands of criminals. No more, no less.

      See Gershwin's law.

      These people worked at the local mines, no matter who owned them, and up to 90% of them were legitimately owned, not controlled by a warlord. Now the workers have had their livelihood yanked from under them, and one of the few remaining options not to starve is to become a fighter.

      And "taking the weapons out of the hands of criminals" does nothing to solve the problem. Getting fewer guns doesn't mean the wars will cease - these guys kill, maim and rape with spears and knives -- it just takes much longer.

      Again, this does absolutely nothing to shorten the wars, just prolonging them. And making some westerners feel good about themselves.

    5. Re:More importantly... by metrometro · · Score: 1

      Citation needed. If markets were efficient or rational all the time, then perhaps market price would always be met, but warzone commerce in central Africa is most assuredly not efficient or rational. Refusing purchase of conflict products has effects. Slavery and child labor still exist, but they are massively less common now that the practice is scandalous.

    6. Re:More importantly... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Even if it goes to areas of war. This does nothing to address the root causes of the conflicts, and the wars won't become less barbaric if there is no influx of money. People gut each other just as horribly with spears.

      Arguably, restricting trade - especially weapons trade - with conflicted areas makes things worse. After all, the attacker knows he's going to attack, so he can stockpile weapons beforehand; the defender doesn't necessarily know he'll be attacked, so he either maintains a huge stockpile all the time at the expense of investing in infrastructure and welfare, or he'll make himself a helpless target since he can't buy weapons once the war starts. The third alternative is get lots of weapons and put them to use by looting your neighbours; in other words, becoming a warlord.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    7. Re:More importantly... by tftp · · Score: 1

      wrong, the money is spent by the evil overlord on italian sports cars, gold-plated weapons, home theater, swimming pools etc.

      Have you ever played Far Cry 2? It depicts really well the mansions and the palaces of those warlords that you speak about. Note: those palaces are dirty, rickety one- or two-story buildings.

      Warlords do have access to some serious cash. But there is no way they can use that money in Africa. What do you do with a sports car on African roads? A jeep or a buggy are far better choices; at least they will last longer. Gold-plated weapons are at least useful when humidity is 100% all year round. Ferraris are not useful for anything until the warlord leaves Africa and buys himself a mansion in Italy.

    8. Re:More importantly... by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

      Are you certain?  Certain enough to talk it down?

      It has made some impact in the blood diamond trade, and while diamonds are not "fungible", as you say, they certainly have no inherent value.  Metals can often be traced back to their source as well.

      When it comes to trying to stop the enslavement of child soldiers in shithole third world countries, a real certification program could definitely make a difference, even if it's not perfect.

      Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

      --
      expandfairuse.org
    9. Re:More importantly... by arose · · Score: 1

      The relative price for attacker and defender is the same, so restricting doesn't make anything worse, it just reduces the total number of weapons in the system. A cheap arms race is still an arms race, so if attacker is buying $X of guns the defender still has to match $X if your argument holds. The attacker will spend $X (because that's what the attack is worth to them) regardless of the precise bang for buck (for realistic values), so how will the defender avoid maintaining an equivalent stockpile?

      There are only two cases in which your line of reasoning predicts a difference in this dynamic. Weapons are just too damn expensive, no one can afford any or weapons are close enough to free to be able to arm all your men to the teeth and have a huge reserve at hand for less than $X. Of course all that the latter acomplish is to have mercenaries hired for $X - cheap_guns. Come to think of it though, I've never heard the "an armed society is a polite society" folks advocating weapons drops to put a rifle in everyone's hands. Maybe they do understand the economics of violance better than they like to admit.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    10. Re:More importantly... by ninetyninebottles · · Score: 1

      Gold-plated weapons are at least useful when humidity is 100% all year round.

      I guess I don't see how gold plating on weapons is "useful" at all, but how does humidity make it more or less so given the very stable nature of gold?

    11. Re:More importantly... by VanGarrett · · Score: 1

      What makes you think that removing the money will stop the weapons and the violence? This isn't organized crime. Money is not the motive. The motive is crazy. Religious crazy, narcissistic crazy, and maybe even some good old fashioned just plain crazy. Without the money, some plans will change but the violence will continue, regardless. A man who commits violent acts once he has a weapon in his hand had violence in his heart, before he had a gun in his hand.

      If you want to promote peace in Africa, then you must first identify what groups of people are the source of it. When you have gathered that information, you may then choose whether to deal with them by diplomacy or force. Anything else is an impotent effort.

      --
      Learning about brewing beer, by brewing beer.
    12. Re:More importantly... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      The relative price for attacker and defender is the same, so restricting doesn't make anything worse, it just reduces the total number of weapons in the system.

      It reduces them on the defenders side. The attacker can obtain weapons before the attack, whereas the defender can't unless they know they're going to be attacked. Since the defender can't get weapons once the attack begins and its ability to fight is thus crippled, the attackers investment is effectively multiplied unless everyone maintains a huge stockpile all of the time. This system encourages warlordism: if you don't maintain a large stockpile of weapons you become an easy target, and if you do maintain one anyone who doesn't becomes an easy target for looting.

      A cheap arms race is still an arms race, so if attacker is buying $X of guns the defender still has to match $X if your argument holds. The attacker will spend $X (because that's what the attack is worth to them) regardless of the precise bang for buck (for realistic values), so how will the defender avoid maintaining an equivalent stockpile?

      You don't need to maintain a large stockpile of weapons if you can buy them quickly once the fighting starts. You only need a large enough stockpile to fight for however long it takes to get the rest. Compare this with how most countries have far larger wartime armies than peacetime active personnel.

      There are only two cases in which your line of reasoning predicts a difference in this dynamic. Weapons are just too damn expensive, no one can afford any or weapons are close enough to free to be able to arm all your men to the teeth and have a huge reserve at hand for less than $X. Of course all that the latter acomplish is to have mercenaries hired for $X - cheap_guns. Come to think of it though, I've never heard the "an armed society is a polite society" folks advocating weapons drops to put a rifle in everyone's hands. Maybe they do understand the economics of violance better than they like to admit.

      I'm not saying that an armed society is a polite society. I'm saying that a society that can't get arms when it needs them has little choice but to keep itself armed to the teeth all the time just in case. Which, of course, leads to the problem with cheap mercenaries you mentioned, and thus warlords and violence.

      Also, you shouldn't confuse society, where the state puts down any outbreak of violence quickly with overwhelming violence, with international society, where forceful suppression of violence only rarely occurs and then after a long debate. They aren't even remotely similar situations. In the latter case, the "economics of violence" boil down to how much loot someone has versus how big a stick they have or can get in a short order. Unless and until we get an international police army that deals with any outbreak of violence quickly and automatically without China, Russia or any other country being able to veto the action, that's the way it's going to stay. Just because the laws of the jungle don't hold in a city doesn't mean that they won't hold in a jungle.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    13. Re:More importantly... by tftp · · Score: 1

      Here. Gold plating prevents rust. In practice, Nickel and Chromium are better plating materials, but gold looks nicer. Life of a weapon in a rainforest is brutal and short.

    14. Re:More importantly... by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Getting fewer guns doesn't mean the wars will cease - these guys kill, maim and rape with spears and knives -- it just takes much longer.

      That seems a bit simplistic. I don't think it's a question of "Will they be armed or not," I think it's a question of "How powerful will their weapons be?" A warlord with an army of guys armed with knives can cause trouble, but not as much trouble as a warlord with anti-aircraft guns. And obviously, the higher powered weapons are more expensive.

      Of course, I don't think minerals are the biggest factor as far as that goes, I think the US government deciding someone is going to be our ally in the war on whoever or whatever we're at war with is the bigger factor there.

    15. Re:More importantly... by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      That's a bullshit argument saying that you should just get on and deal with the worst people. Most would say the extensive sanctions against South Africa helped to end the scheme of apartheid there.

      I refuse to purchase stolen goods, this reduces the market for stolen goods. If the demand for blood metal reduces enough and the pressures are high enough then that market will end too, but if you just accept a bad situation then of course you will change nothing - a self-fulfilling prophecy.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    16. Re:More importantly... by arth1 · · Score: 1

      I refuse to purchase stolen goods, this reduces the market for stolen goods.

      But what you're doing here is not taking into account Gershwin's Law.
      In reality, you refuse to deal in goods because they may be stolen.
      Never mind that 90% of the goods came from legitimate mines, and that through your actions against the 10%, you, yes you harmed the 90% who are now out of jobs, and take to arms because of your refusal to deal with someone else.

    17. Re:More importantly... by mellyra · · Score: 1

      What makes you think that removing the money will stop the weapons and the violence? This isn't organized crime. Money is not the motive. The motive is crazy.

      Then how do you explain that economic studies on developing countries frequently show the following pattern when comparing natural resources and the number of armed conflicts:

      poor: few armed conflicts
      medium: lots of armed conflicts
      very rich: few armed conflicts

      For some discussion on possible causal relations and a literature review see Ross

    18. Re:More importantly... by arose · · Score: 1

      Ah, I misunderstood your argument to be against an economic restriction (attempt to make weapons expensive), it makes sense in terms of a logistical restriction (attempt to remove guns from certain market). I don't necessarily agree, but that's mostly due to not having firm opinion.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    19. Re:More importantly... by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      I would have to disagree that not buying something is causing harm, that's an absurdity.

      That's like saying not giving money to any particular charity causes harm, it doesn't, it is simply an inaction and it is stretching things too far to say it causes harm. Or not buying drugs from drug dealers is robbing them of income!

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    20. Re:More importantly... by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

      If that's true, that's not good.  Just the same:
      Should we not even try?
      Doesn't this inhibit the warlords funds at all?  Surely they need to give a big cut to the Sierra Leone'eans if nothing else.

      --
      expandfairuse.org
    21. Re:More importantly... by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

      So you know this for a fact and therefore advocate doing nothing?

      Seriously man? 

      --
      expandfairuse.org
    22. Re:More importantly... by JimCanuck · · Score: 1


      It's like banning hunting, just because you feel its wrong to kill wildlife, without looking at the fact that the only reason the various Wildlife Departments in Canada and in the States make over 80% of their revenue to fund conservation projects through licensing fees for hunting (and fishing although significantly less percentage wise of income) and that wildlife populations have actually been on a steep rise between that and the pro-hunting conservation groups hunters donate to.

      Doing something, and actually making a difference can be two very different things, sadly people think a feel good method is worth doing. When in the case of blood diamonds all its doing is spreading the corruption across international boarders.

      What we really need is real regulation to prevent this kind of transfer of guilt from one country to the next. But that would require a rather large amount of effort on the part of companies, nations and the UN, so it would never actually happen.

  17. Re:oh great more Orwellian speak "conflict mineral by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 1

    How's about a can of shut the fuck up.

    I'll try some. Is that like conflict mineral water?

    --
    If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
  18. Or maybe they just weren't noticed. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    It is possible they do not believe everything they read or are told by someone else and are making choices based on profits.

    -or-

    Ever buy electronics / just about everything else at walmart? They support China and China has substantial environmental issues due to products sold at walmart.

    Or maybe Nintendo wasn't even aware of this latest politically-correct hype until the hypemeisters called the company's PR number to see how the company was doing on their personal hotbutton issue and got a "Who the heck are you and why should we care?" brushoff.

    I know I never encountered the term "conflict minerals" until reading this thread. To paraphrase Arlo: If they want to change the world and stuff they need to sing at least loud enough to be noticed.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:Or maybe they just weren't noticed. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

      I know I never encountered the term "conflict minerals" until reading this thread. To paraphrase Arlo: If they want to change the world and stuff they need to sing at least loud enough to be noticed.

      It's a simple generalization of "conflict diamonds", which you should be familiar with if you're paying attention to what's going on in your world.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:Or maybe they just weren't noticed. by Kreigaffe · · Score: 1

      Really?

      It's been a "thing" for a least 20 years now

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    3. Re:Or maybe they just weren't noticed. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      It's a simple generalization of "conflict diamonds",

      I've only heard that as "blood diamonds".

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  19. Japanese hubris by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

    It's the same reason why they still kill and consume whales.

    They don't care.

    --
    They're using their grammar skills there.
    1. Re:Japanese hubris by arth1 · · Score: 1

      It's the same reason why they still kill and consume whales.

      I have less problems with killing and consuming whales in a sustainable manner than the major death risks for whales, which are international shipping and by-catches.

      Did you know that several species of marlin are endangered, and yet sports fishers catch them just to pose on a picture or hang the fish on a wall? Then they go back to their Prius and complain about a few whales being killed for food.

  20. Re:Fallacious by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

    If you read the report, Nintendo came in last because they didn't release information on their policies. Pretty silly ranking system.

    Think of it as a lower bound on their actual performance. They can tighten it up if they decide to cooperate.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  21. A old game with a new name by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    So it's a protection racket? Pay up and do what we say or we will tell people you fund gorilla warfare|use conflict diamonds|exploit third world children|eat foie gras. This is what the politically correct future holds, idiots telling other idiots what to do, until we're all tied up in a big ball of nothingness - not allowed to do or say anything at all because of whatever flavor of the day topic. If you put gas in your damned car or turn on hour house lights, you are funding conflict, through fossil fuels. Because the fossil fuel producing nations are well known for sponsoring uprisings all over africa and the middle east. Hell if you are American or buy American, you are funding conflict - after all this country has been involved nay started, a lot of wars in the past few decades... Where does it stop?

    I could post anonymously but, meh

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:A old game with a new name by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You make some interesting points, and it comes back to the inter-connected world economy. Most people remember the "Buy American" mantra in the 70's and 80's... because Detroit was taking it in the shorts from Japanese car companies. That translated into later "Buy American" campaigns where Wal Mart and other retailers were being targeted for using cheap Chinese goods instead of more expensive American goods. Now we have "conflict minerals" and "conflict diamonds" etc.. that no matter what you buy or who you buy from, at some point there is a distinct possibility that those minerals used in the components of your electronics came from war-torn regions.

      The problem exists in that people do a great deal of posturing and hand-wringing (even on /.), but it amounts to a tempest in a teapot. Most people would not give up their iPhone or 3D LCD television if it really came down to it, yet like celebrities trying to guilt people into donating to charity, it seems people have no shortage of puritanical guilt to spread around to "everybody else."

      The key here is not that the minerals are going to fund conflicts in the Congo. The key is what can be done to prevent the conflicts, but more importantly, what can be done to encourage the Congo to end the senseless civil wars. My guess is there isn't any quick-fix and the boycott of "conflict minerals" will not stem the tide of bloodshed.

      Should we encourage companies to avoid using these minerals when they can? Sure. But we should never look down our sanctimonious noses at those who don't "have our moral superiority" and claim how well we're doing to stop using these minerals as we type from our computers that contain mostly "conflict minerals" in some form or another.

      Political correctness, as you correctly mentioned, was just the tip of the iceberg. It's nothing more than a bunch of busybodies that want to inform you and I how to say something, what words to use, and what we can and cannot "morally" use (for food or whatever cause du jour comes up on the news.) I frankly don't give a shit. I boycott hollywood, the RIAA and Microsoft. If someone wants to know why, I tell them. Otherwise I simply do my bit and move on. (Oh and Disney fucking sucks and should be imploded and its grisly parts be shot from a rocket into the sun.)

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
  22. Re:Fallacious by petsounds · · Score: 2

    It's like Mitt Romney and his refusal to release his tax records. He has no legal obligation to, but it sure creates a perception of suspicious behavior when he is so adamant about not releasing them. In the same way, Nintendo looks fairly suspect because they were the only major company who refused to participate.

    To me, there is also an extra psychological multiplier at play because Nintendo is primarily selling products to kids. Products for children whose materials are sourced from "blood minerals" make people extra-uneasy.

  23. The company name sets the tone of discussion by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    If this report were exactly as it is now, excepting that the company in question was Apple or Microsoft - I am pretty certain the prevailing tone of these comments would be quite different.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  24. Re:Fallacious by Fnord666 · · Score: 2

    To me, there is also an extra psychological multiplier at play because Nintendo is primarily selling products to kids. Products for children whose materials are sourced from "blood minerals" make people extra-uneasy.

    "That's a nice reputation ya got there, specially with the kids. It'd be a shame if something happened to it. You wouldn't want anything like that to happen, right?"

    --
    'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
  25. wut by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    Da fuq is a conflict mineral? Are those the gold coins I have to jump over a piranha plant to get?

  26. Don't Be Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    It's the same reason why they still kill and consume whales.

    They don't care.

    No they still kill and eat whales because they think that whales are delicious. And since, in all likelihood, you've never tasted whale you're not really in a a position to argue against that particular point.

    1. Re:Don't Be Ridiculous by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

      Well, my dad tasted whale. He said it wasn't good. I trust his taste.

      When he lived in Alaska, they had a native food festival. Also bear is gross.

      --
      They're using their grammar skills there.
  27. Re:Fallacious by NemoinSpace · · Score: 1

    Moreso, the adoption of facist tactics by the current liberal party makes it impossible for one to enjoy an occasional flight of fancy to a clearly well meaning agenda because it is constantly obscured by a facist wing we mistakenly thought was eradicated 70 years ago. We all are truly too soon old, and too late smart.

  28. Re:oh great more Orwellian speak "conflict mineral by zoloto · · Score: 1

    Who cares where this shit comes from?
    No one's doing the same to block the US war machine are they? Then the rest of the world is culpable as well.
    Oh that's right, they're darker skinned and in Africa so we have a moral duty to repress *cough* I mean help them out.
    this shit makes me sick

  29. Re:Old business interests at the big N by Nutria · · Score: 1

    Whoever moderated this Offtopic completely missed ihatewinXP's point (which, if true, should be marked Informative).

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  30. Re:Fallacious by PhrstBrn · · Score: 1

    To be fair, Romney has also openly criticized and attacked his opponents in the past for not disclosing their tax records during their campaign. The issue with Romney is more of the hypocrisy surrounding it all. Nintendo isn't going around to other companies and demanding they show they're not buying conflict minerals, they're just keeping their mouth shut. If it were Romney, he would attack Sony, Apple, Samsung, etc and demand they release documents saying where they get their minerals from, and when the companies turn around and ask him, he would clam up and say he doesn't need to show you anything.

  31. Who are "Center for American Progress" ?? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

    I hope that this world wakes up to the fact that many of those so-called "progressive movement" organizations,- such as the "Center for American Progress", - are but con-artists with nice sounding name

    Who are "Center for American Progress" anyway?

    Who gives them the right to tell the world which company is "good", which is "bad"?

    Who gives them the right to define who are the "terrorists"?

    Who gives them the right to harass private business entities with their silly demands?

    Essentially, they do two things -

    1. Put up a grand sounding name, like "Center for American Progress" (by the way, what the hell does "American Progress" really mean?)

    2. Blackmail everyone with deep pockets

    The business that I run have had contacts from similar scumbags before, and all we did was shut our door on their face

    We have a business to run

    The world business competition is fast and furious

    We need to make a profit so our employee get to take home their paycheck every single month

    We do not have time, nor we care, to satisfy their silly criteria (and by the way, who get to define who are the " terrorist ??)

    We do not care what they think

    If they _dare_ to publish our company name in their so-called "social responsibility" ranking, they will hear from our solicitors

    They do not have the right to link our name in their list for we never agree to participate in their silly scheme in the first place
     

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Who are "Center for American Progress" ?? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

      They can say almost everything they want to say, but if what they say is false, and has caused damages to the target of what they say, then they must be responsible, and must be made liable for defamation suits that might follow

      If it's a something that my business has agreed to participate, and we did poorly, we accept the consequence - that the name of our business appear in the bottom ranking

      But if the compilation of "social responsibility" or "american progress" list has the name of our company in it, without our permission to do so, - especially when we do not want to participate in their scheme, we do have the right to sue them back to kingdom come

      Freedom of Speech carries with it the responsibility of the speech itself

      One just can't go around defame others for the sake of the "Freedom" - and if one goes around defame others just for the fun of it, that one must be prepared to face all the consequences

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  32. Link to the Actual List by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

    Buried past 4 clicks, a pop-up page and some crappy flash, a quite informative break-down.

    The actual list

    Spoiler, Intel is top (least bad), not surprising that they can afford clean materials.

    --
    Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.