Options

[PA Comic] Friday, December 5, 2014 - Tradition

DogDog Registered User, Administrator, Vanilla Staff admin
edited December 2014 in The Penny Arcade Hub
Unknown User on
«13456715

Posts

  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    I mean, Mark ain't wrong here.

  • Options
    Rhesus PositiveRhesus Positive GNU Terry Pratchett Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    I mean, Mark ain't wrong here.

    Hitler's government banned hunting with dogs, for example.

    [Muffled sounds of gorilla violence]
  • Options
    Dark Raven XDark Raven X Laugh hard, run fast, be kindRegistered User regular
    Excellent uniforms too. I mean, it wasn't hard to vilify the guys with goddamned skulls on the uniform.

    Oh brilliant
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited December 2014
    Quid on
  • Options
    SwashbucklerXXSwashbucklerXX Swashbucklin' Canuck Registered User regular
    Oh, it's Australia. They're just crazy about banning games down undah.

    Want to find me on a gaming service? I'm SwashbucklerXX everywhere.
  • Options
    AbsalonAbsalon Lands of Always WinterRegistered User regular
    "Pandering" to the anti-SJW techbros who couldn't understand terms like "censorship", "pandering" or "agenda" if they were put in actual reeducation camps, I see.

  • Options
    Soul SanctumSoul Sanctum Registered User regular
    Absalon wrote: »
    "Pandering" to the anti-SJW techbros who couldn't understand terms like "censorship", "pandering" or "agenda" if they were put in actual reeducation camps, I see.

    It's good to see an unbiased objective evaluation of this comic.

  • Options
    Rhesus PositiveRhesus Positive GNU Terry Pratchett Registered User regular
    Absalon wrote: »
    "Pandering" to the anti-SJW techbros who couldn't understand terms like "censorship", "pandering" or "agenda" if they were put in actual reeducation camps, I see.

    Lucky they didn't use any of those terms in the comic, then.

    [Muffled sounds of gorilla violence]
  • Options
    AbsalonAbsalon Lands of Always WinterRegistered User regular
    edited December 2014
    Last time I checked, the nazis, who ARE mentioned, used state censorship and enforced bans with systematic social and civic violence.

    Which is not analogous to a private retailer doing what it wants voluntarily.

    A nazi comparison encompasses and implies a whole load of terms, Mr. Lawyer.

    Absalon on
  • Options
    DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    Absalon wrote: »
    "Pandering" to the anti-SJW techbros who couldn't understand terms like "censorship", "pandering" or "agenda" if they were put in actual reeducation camps, I see.

    That's "certainly" an "opinion".

  • Options
    Soul SanctumSoul Sanctum Registered User regular
    Absalon wrote: »
    Last time I checked, the nazis, who ARE mentioned, used state censorship and enforced bans with systematic social and civic violence.

    Which is not analogous to a private retailer doing what it wants voluntarily.

    A nazi comparison encompasses and implies a whole load of terms, Mr. Lawyer.

    So this was a spontaneous decision on the behalf of Target, not prompted by anything?

    Especially not a petition made by people who wish to dictate what media others can consume?

  • Options
    NamrokNamrok Registered User regular
    Absalon wrote: »
    Last time I checked, the nazis, who ARE mentioned, used state censorship and enforced bans with systematic social and civic violence.

    Which is not analogous to a private retailer doing what it wants voluntarily.

    A nazi comparison encompasses and implies a whole load of terms, Mr. Lawyer.

    The line between government and corporations perpetrating something immoral is such a nonsense arguments. I don't buy this whole "It's only censorship if the government does it" argument. What other immoral acts are only immoral when the government does them? Is there a single other act we allow that to be an excuse for?

    Also, since Nazi's are in the conversation, Hitler had the willing help of most captains of industry in Germany.

  • Options
    th3prophetth3prophet Registered User new member
    Oh, it's Australia. They're just crazy about banning games down undah.

    It's also worth pointing out the Target Australia is a wholly different company from Target Corporation in US/Canada. The decisions of one have nothing to do with the other.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Target_Australia

  • Options
    DjiemDjiem Registered User regular
    The comic isn't wrong. GTA V is art, and somebody decided it was evil. Nobody mentionned banning or censorship.

  • Options
    Rhesus PositiveRhesus Positive GNU Terry Pratchett Registered User regular
    Absalon wrote: »
    Last time I checked, the nazis, who ARE mentioned, used state censorship and enforced bans with systematic social and civic violence.

    Which is not analogous to a private retailer doing what it wants voluntarily.

    A nazi comparison encompasses and implies a whole load of terms, Mr. Lawyer.

    They also burnt books.

    Which is what this Ben chap is talking about. It is a Nazi thing to do, optics-wise, not, "We are now Nazis and all that entails."

    [Muffled sounds of gorilla violence]
  • Options
    DjiemDjiem Registered User regular
    Furthermore, book burning isn't only a Nazi thing. There are groups in America who have called for the burning of books and shirts and music in the past. These groups weren't on the scale of the Nazis, obviously, but "burning art someone thinks is evil" isn't new or Nazi-exclusive.

    This isn't a statement by Mike and Jerry re: the decision of Target Australia. It's a comic that starts with a news article basically, and spirals in a silly conversation between two people. They do that often.

  • Options
    Soul SanctumSoul Sanctum Registered User regular
    edited December 2014
    Namrok wrote: »
    The line between government and corporations perpetrating something immoral is such a nonsense arguments. I don't buy this whole "It's only censorship if the government does it" argument. What other immoral acts are only immoral when the government does them? Is there a single other act we allow that to be an excuse for?

    Prohibition maybe?
    When the government does it, it's "evil" but when my friends do it, it's called an "intervention" or "being responsible".

    I'll say when I have enough dammit! Don't you prohibit me, Larry!!

    Soul Sanctum on
  • Options
    DjiemDjiem Registered User regular
    Here's one it's an excuse for.
    Taxes.

    When the government does it, it is to repair roads and pay for utilities and services, but when kids in school do it, it's bullying.
    (to be fair, the bully wasn't going to use the money to better your life, like the government is supposed to)

  • Options
    LinktmLinktm Registered User regular
    Lot of heated opinions about this comic. Yikes.

  • Options
    WhelmedWhelmed Registered User regular
    Where is the group for people who think that someone complaining about being oppressed because a store doesn't carry something they demand is an idiot but that someone saying that because they don't like the contents of a container that no one else should be allowed to look inside of it is also an idiot? Because that's my group; I'm sure they exist, but I can't find them anywhere!

  • Options
    prime_pmprime_pm Registered User regular
    The Nazis also ran anti-smoking campaigns and discovered the effects of secondhand smoke, or "passive smoking" as they called it. Just saying.

  • Options
    NamrokNamrok Registered User regular
    You guys are distinguishing between governments and individuals, not governments and corporation. Just saying. I remain unconvinced. You are also doing it in the wrong direction. We entrust the government to levy taxes, we don't trust corporations. So we entrust corporations with censorship and not governments?

    And FYI, I'm not sure if you've been reading beyond the headlines, but Target's move in AU has prompted numerous other retailers to follow suit.

    Does it count as censorship when most retailers censor themselves? Is it censorship yet when all retailers in a country just decide not to carry something that there is still massive demand for?

    Would you be equally as blase about this if it were your country or a game you wanted?

  • Options
    DjiemDjiem Registered User regular
    edited December 2014
    I think most of us doing the silly analogies right now are just joking around.

    On a more serious note, I don't know that I can call it censorship, as this word has a specific meaning, and this isn't state-enforced or a law, but I do agree with you that corporations have some sort of "censoring" power by making a product unavailable for people to consume. If Target's move prompts other large retailers to also pull the game off the shelves, this means they do have a power in controlling what media people can and can't consume.

    To a certain degree only. Australians could still find stores that do carry GTA V, or order it online. It's not been BANNED, it's not illegal to have the game. Only certain retailers don't carry it now.
    This is why it's not actually censorship, but it is still problematic that large corporation who bend to the will of moral panic groups have such a power over the availability of media that people consume.

    Djiem on
  • Options
    MichaelLCMichaelLC In what furnace was thy brain? ChicagoRegistered User regular
    Linktm wrote: »
    Lot of heated opinions about this comic. Yikes.

    A lot of gamers here. All violent with their violent video games.

  • Options
    Rhesus PositiveRhesus Positive GNU Terry Pratchett Registered User regular
    Djiem wrote: »
    I think most of us doing the silly analogies right now are just joking around.

    You know who else just "joked around"?
    MTE4MDAzNDEwNTU5NzMxMjE0.jpg
    Yeah. You think about that.

    [Muffled sounds of gorilla violence]
  • Options
    donavannjdonavannj Registered User regular
    edited December 2014
    th3prophet wrote: »
    Oh, it's Australia. They're just crazy about banning games down undah.

    It's also worth pointing out the Target Australia is a wholly different company from Target Corporation in US/Canada. The decisions of one have nothing to do with the other.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Target_Australia

    Besides, if Target Corporation owned Target Australia, they'd probably still be selling the game. Target Corp in the USA only pulls things from shelves if they're not selling as fast as they'd like, and maybe sometimes if the product is a colossal controversy, which, to them, GTA is not that at this point.

    And it's also worth noting that the Australian Kmart probably has nothing to do with the North American Sears Holdings, which owns Kmart in the USA, and it appears they've also pulled it from their shelves.
    Namrok wrote: »
    And FYI, I'm not sure if you've been reading beyond the headlines, but Target's move in AU has prompted numerous other retailers to follow suit.

    It's just Kmart Australia that I've read so far, which has the same parent company in Australia as Target Australia (Coles Group). I'd expect other brands in their company to follow suit. Now, is there anyone else outside the Coles Group brands that's pulling the game from shelves in Australia?

    donavannj on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    mRahmanimRahmani DetroitRegistered User regular
    Whelmed wrote: »
    Where is the group for people who think that someone complaining about being oppressed because a store doesn't carry something they demand is an idiot but that someone saying that because they don't like the contents of a container that no one else should be allowed to look inside of it is also an idiot? Because that's my group; I'm sure they exist, but I can't find them anywhere!

    hello i would like to subscribe to your newsletter

  • Options
    fightinfilipinofightinfilipino Angry as Hell #BLMRegistered User regular
    bluntly, this is the free market at work. consumers are telling retailers that they don't like a product. retailers are responding by removing said product.

    freedom of speech has never meant "unrestricted right to sell my product at stores". Rockstar continues to be free to create their prostitute murder simulators. consumers remain free to tell retailers they don't like such products.

    ffNewSig.png
    steam | Dokkan: 868846562
  • Options
    WhelmedWhelmed Registered User regular
    edited December 2014
    Namrok wrote: »
    Is it censorship yet when all retailers in a country just decide not to carry something that there is still massive demand for?

    I can't speak for other countries, but in America this would never happen in a billion years because companies like to make money, and in a relatively free market they will sell whatever makes money, so this is a pretty academic (and not very relevant) question. Only if there were extremely limited demand would all retailers pull something based on societal pressure, and if the demand were extremely limited then the product wouldn't have been successful outside of niche market / independent delivery in the first place. This is why, from an American perspective, government censorship is the type that raises concerns. Like others said, there's a huge difference between something being hard to come by or having limited availability and something being illegal.

    Whelmed on
  • Options
    Talyn RahlTalyn Rahl Registered User regular
    LoL love the "WTF" look on righties face in that last panel. Cracks me up.

  • Options
    ZangalZangal Registered User new member
    Petition against the bible for same reasons as GTAV
    http://cheezburger.com/8393884160

  • Options
    TubeTube Registered User admin
    People sure are going out of their way to read things in the comic that aren't there.

  • Options
    TychoCelchuuuTychoCelchuuu PIGEON Registered User regular
    Tube wrote: »
    People sure are going out of their way to read things in the comic that aren't there.
    I know, right, all it did was say that Target was like the Nazis. It's not like it's being extreme or anything. Just a little Nazi namedropping.

  • Options
    Rhesus PositiveRhesus Positive GNU Terry Pratchett Registered User regular
    Tube wrote: »
    People sure are going out of their way to read things in the comic that aren't there.

    Some of us are sensitive about the Northern Crusades, OK - the Livonian Brothers of the Sword were bastards

    [Muffled sounds of gorilla violence]
  • Options
    TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    edited December 2014
    So, what's the difference between the actions of Target Australia and, let's say, the Comics Code? It looks the same to me. And it is censorship.

    TryCatcher on
  • Options
    TubeTube Registered User admin
    Tube wrote: »
    People sure are going out of their way to read things in the comic that aren't there.
    I know, right, all it did was say that Target was like the Nazis. It's not like it's being extreme or anything. Just a little Nazi namedropping.

    It says one thing therefore let's pretend it says a bunch of other things too.

  • Options
    kuhlmeyekuhlmeye Registered User regular
    Tube wrote: »
    People sure are going out of their way to read things in the comic that aren't there.
    I know, right, all it did was say that Target was like the Nazis. It's not like it's being extreme or anything. Just a little Nazi namedropping.

    If that's the whole point of the comic, I must be reading it wrong.

    PSN: the-K-flash
  • Options
    OddfishOddfish On opposite weeks In odd numbered monthsRegistered User regular
    This comic has nothing to do with censorship. It has to do with knee-jerk reactions made by businesses that should be viewed as extreme. Do we really need to flip out and enact a huge campaign to remove a video game from every store in the country? Or are we overreacting because of some alarmists who are likely ignorant of the material over which they're getting so outraged? When does it become the the individual's responsibility to look away and not the responsibility of others to throw a sheet over the offending thing and say "Oh! Sorry! Wow! You're right! No one should look at that. Heh. WHOOPS!"

    Personal. Responsibility.

    If the book offends you, don't read it. If the game upsets you, don't play it. If the artist's works goagainst your beliefs, don't go to the exhibit. Simple as that.

  • Options
    UltimanecatUltimanecat Registered User regular
    edited December 2014
    Oddfish wrote: »
    This comic has nothing to do with censorship. It has to do with knee-jerk reactions made by businesses that should be viewed as extreme. Do we really need to flip out and enact a huge campaign to remove a video game from every store in the country? Or are we overreacting because of some alarmists who are likely ignorant of the material over which they're getting so outraged? When does it become the the individual's responsibility to look away and not the responsibility of others to throw a sheet over the offending thing and say "Oh! Sorry! Wow! You're right! No one should look at that. Heh. WHOOPS!"

    Personal. Responsibility.

    If the book offends you, don't read it. If the game upsets you, don't play it. If the artist's works goagainst your beliefs, don't go to the exhibit. Simple as that.

    The personal responsibility argument ain't gonna cut it anymore. I mean, it could, if that's what you're into, but Target AU delisted GTAV because a group said it is "harmful". There is an entire intellectual apparatus that has been built up as of late so that people can straightfacedly call media harmful in one breath while pretending that our natural inclination toward harmful things isn't to destroy, alter, or remove the fuck out of them. It's a remarkably successful one too.

    But you are ultimately right. It's not censorship as long as it's just Target, and it's not censorship so long as we're only prodding the ponderous beast that is the modern consumer-focused corporation with the branding iron of moral outrage one at a time. It's not Target's fault that it's ambling away, because sticking its ass deeper into it doesn't make sense in any time frame it can understand.

    Remember, one dumb cow moving on from pain is nothing special. It's only when we're moving them all at once that the driver has something special in mind.

    Ultimanecat on
    SteamID : same as my PA forum name
  • Options
    fightinfilipinofightinfilipino Angry as Hell #BLMRegistered User regular
    Oddfish wrote: »
    This comic has nothing to do with censorship. It has to do with knee-jerk reactions made by businesses that should be viewed as extreme. Do we really need to flip out and enact a huge campaign to remove a video game from every store in the country? Or are we overreacting because of some alarmists who are likely ignorant of the material over which they're getting so outraged? When does it become the the individual's responsibility to look away and not the responsibility of others to throw a sheet over the offending thing and say "Oh! Sorry! Wow! You're right! No one should look at that. Heh. WHOOPS!"

    Personal. Responsibility.

    If the book offends you, don't read it. If the game upsets you, don't play it. If the artist's works goagainst your beliefs, don't go to the exhibit. Simple as that.

    not as simple. art affects culture and how society views people. for example, books, television, music, and film all have a powerful effect on the way we discuss and view gender. a simple example would be the Barbie doll and the numerous commercials young girls are bombarded with each day. in those commercials, there are messages of "if i want to be a cool girl, i will look like or do this thing."

    the Bible thing is actually ironically hilarious, because it proves the point: the Bible is probably one of the most influential texts in the entirety of human history. humans have based entire civilizations on that book. many people base their entire moral code and how they behave on the Bible's text. if anything, the Bible is the ultimate example of art affecting human behavior.

    personal responsibility is a two way street. individuals have responsibility on how they should conduct themselves, but those creating culture also have a responsibility on how their works affect people.

    i'm in no way advocating for Jack Thompson-style censorship. what society considers valuable and not-valuable speech should always be left up to society and to people to choose and debate. and that is what this is.

    again, Rockstar is entirely free to develop, publish, and sell GTA. Rockstar is not entitled to a specific platform to sell their work. that's the free market for you.

    ffNewSig.png
    steam | Dokkan: 868846562
Sign In or Register to comment.