But pets are still absolutely subjugated. They are literally owned by humans, are not free and have no agency over their own lives.

The point is that everyone here going "huh this is just what they said about slaves" are completely ignoring that we have pets, which we love a lot (at least i know i love my dog very much) but they are nevertheless subjugated and treated as lesser. Our dog is not allowed on the couch. Sure, I don't make my dog fight other dogs, but I am still denying her her freedom and she is my legal property. She would not survive in the wild and she loves me a lot as well, but is that not what they said about slaves? Either way, she is not given the choice. What are the ethics of this relationship?

Pokemon is a nonsensical setting that can't decide whether its creatures are more like animals or whether they are sapient, but I think comparing Pokemon to pets is much more appropriate than comparing them to human servants like the house elves from Harry Potter.

Either way, you do not have to hand it to Palworld, it's obnoxious, Happy Tree Friends-esque edgelord shit.

Edit: To clarify: I'm not saying "Keeping pets is ethically good and therefore Pokemon is ethically good". I think you could argue both, the point is that we shouldn't pretend like we treat all living things as equal and that, if you assume subjugation to be mistreatment, it is still very evidently possible to sincerely love something you're subjugating and treating as lesser. Morality and emotions are complicated and don't make sense a lot of the time.