As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

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

1910111315

Posts

  • Spiced HamSpiced Ham Registered User regular
    You've got the wrong name in that top quote there.

  • xanthianxanthian Registered User regular
    Apologies, amended.

  • AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    edited December 2014
    For a guy who's not supporting the petitioners because he's *against* curtailing the freedoms of others:

    Curious argument, are you saying that retailers don't have the right and freedom to decide what they do and don't sell? Nobody forced target to agree by law whatsoever, they made the decision and thus your response can be to equally say "Sorry target, I disagree with that and I am not shopping there". Or are you censoring Targets freedom to sell what they want because they are censoring someone's "supposed" right to sell their product in their store?

    This censorship argument sure gets stupid quick!

    It doesn't actually seem to occur to any of you arguing this is censorship that there may actually be more than a hint of truth to the problems with the way the game depicts women. Especially the way it portrays sex workers, such as the mini game in sex clubs to "touch up" strippers without their consent without getting thrown out by the bouncers.

    This of course isn't enough for me to think it shouldn't be sold and frankly, isn't making everything is totally objectionable/misogynistic (a lot of what I do in open world games like this is troll military, police and engage in car chases - outside of things like the undersea exploration it offers among other certainly non-offensive in any way mini games), but it is easy to see how someone can find it a problem. I personally dislike Targets decision and think they have done it as a meaningless pr gesture where it has made no difference or sent any meaningful statement at all.

    Hence why I won't buy games from them.

    Or again, is my decision and criticism of their decision censoring target?

    Aegeri on
    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
    Death of RatsCentipede DamascusCambiatapslong9
  • Spiced HamSpiced Ham Registered User regular
    xanthian wrote: »
    Apologies, amended.

    Cheers.

  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    edited December 2014
    s
    xanthian wrote: »
    You spend an awful lot of time defending it as though it's achieving something you agree with.
    The problem is another piece of media reinforcing those attitudes as being sociably acceptable. And once again, I'd you don't believe media can have that type of effect of normalizing stereotypes or behaviors, just take a look at any piece of political propaganda produced in the last oh.... Since the dawn of man.
    This is a complete misinterpretation of his statement. He is simply stating that the situations presented in Grand Theft Auto V are part of the larger cultural whole of normalizing behaviors and stereotypes already present in Western culture. Casually dropping n-bombs, having no strong female role models in the game (existing as either sex objects or shrieking harpies), and other things of that nature are in the game and they tell the players of the game "Hey, this is how 'real life' is like", reinforcing those behaviors, either on a conscious or unconscious level. This is not placing any judgment on the moralizing of those stereotypes or behaviors, but simply a statement that it's part of a whole, not an isolated outlier case.

    To give one example of the normalization of cultural behaviors and stereotypes, you can look into the past few decades about the topic of domestic violence. It used to be comedic or funny to slap around a wife or a mistress in popular media. The Honeymooner's "Pow! To the moon, Alice!" or common depictions of spanking a female partner or in movies where the male protagonist would slap the female lead and this was considered acceptable. Now, if you see it in media at all, it's done to demonize the person perpetrating the domestic violence (How many TV shows or movies have you seen where a bad guy beats a wife or lover?). We have normalized (or at least are normalizing) a different lesson compared to the stereotypes of the 50s.*

    This isn't a defense of the GOALS of the petition. He's not defending the end-goal "banning" of GTA V.

    * This can also be problematic, too, if the female actor is only ever portrayed as a victim of abuse, but baby steps? I guess?

    Hahnsoo1 on
    8i1dt37buh2m.png
    Death of RatsCentipede DamascusAegeriCambiataQuid
  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    edited December 2014
    xanthian wrote: »
    For a guy who's not supporting the petitioners because he's *against* curtailing the freedoms of others:
    I am OK with movements using their voice to influence corporations with the goal of trampleing on people's rights. I am not OK with the GOAL of trampling on people's rights. I would fight any such movement, not demonize their methods of enacting their goal.

    I don't care about legitimate methods, I care about the goals.
    Another misinterpretation. It is more like the Evelyn Beatrice Hall quote: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Sure, the group has the end goal of trampling people's rights. He is not okay with that goal, as he stated. But they are simply exercising their right to free speech.

    To think that your opinion is the only one worthy enough of free speech is arrogance and defeats the whole purpose of free speech.

    Hahnsoo1 on
    8i1dt37buh2m.png
    Death of Rats
  • Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    xanthian wrote: »
    *shrugs* who has a bad grasp on and dealing with reality, the guy getting outraged over a game no longer being sold at two retailers while still being widely available,

    https://www.change.org/p/target-withdraw-grand-theft-auto-5-this-sickening-game-encourages-players-to-commit-sexual-violence-and-kill-women/u/8923586

    The petitioners are widening their net. What's the magic number? 3? 4?? 5???

    Engaging them by acknowledging the petition was a mistake.

    0. That's the magic number. If no one is ALLOWED to sell GTA V we have a problem. But I'm fine with retailers dropping the game left and right as long as no one is forcing them to.

    Market pressure isn't forcing anyone. It's pressure. It's people making choices. If you faced that head on, letting a company like Target know there's a louder voice who wants to buy the game, and wants to buy it from them they'd listen.

    Demonizing your opposition doesn't get you anywhere. When they're going after a third party and you only resort to demonizing them and the third party, why should anyone listen to you? Were the petitioners negative about Target, or negative about GTA?
    xanthian wrote: »
    or the guy who's not supporting the petitioners but trying to patiently explain their position to the former while constantly having insults thrown at him?

    What insult?

    For a guy who's not supporting the petitioners because he's *against* curtailing the freedoms of others:
    I am OK with movements using their voice to influence corporations with the goal of trampleing on people's rights. I am not OK with the GOAL of trampling on people's rights. I would fight any such movement, not demonize their methods of enacting their goal.

    I don't care about legitimate methods, I care about the goals.

    You spend an awful lot of time defending it as though it's achieving something you agree with.
    The problem is another piece of media reinforcing those attitudes as being sociably acceptable. And once again, I'd you don't believe media can have that type of effect of normalizing stereotypes or behaviors, just take a look at any piece of political propaganda produced in the last oh.... Since the dawn of man.

    I don't think it's achieving anything. While I agree with the basic premise that GTA is misogynistic and reinforces some pretty sexist views, I don't want it pulled from store shelves. I think that's pointless and actually strengthening the defensiveness of gamers as a whole. It's going to make it harder for people who legitimately criticize the medium in regards to sexism to actually get through to those who really need to hear it.

    I mean, if the goals are to lessen sexism in the game industry, these people are going about it the wrong way. People like Anita Sarkeesian have the right idea. Educate and illustrate what the problem is. Talk to developers. Put the idea out there and make it ok to talk about within the gaming community. And that's done a lot of good over the past few years. It's a big problem that doesn't have a quick solution, especially one that ends up taking away the ability for developers to make the games they want to make.

    Because that's my goal for games. It isn't to make it so developers can't make misogynistic games, it's for them to no longer want to make those games. Not even out of fear of backlash, but because they recognize that they're not only alienating a portion of their player base, but because it helps the medium as a whole grow past stupid bullshit like this.

    I am flat out against limiting the rights of others. So please stop misunderstanding my posts.

    No I don't.
  • xanthianxanthian Registered User regular
    edited December 2014
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    This is a complete misinterpretation of his statement. He is simply stating that the situations presented in Grand Theft Auto V are part of the larger cultural whole of normalizing behaviors and stereotypes already present in Western culture. Casually dropping n-bombs, having no strong female role models in the game (existing as either sex objects or shrieking harpies), and other things of that nature are in the game and they tell the players of the game "Hey, this is how 'real life' is like", reinforcing those behaviors, either on a conscious or unconscious level. This is not placing any judgment on the moralizing of those stereotypes or behaviors, but simply a statement that it's part of a whole, not an isolated outlier case.

    No, I got it. Satire/realism/amplification to absurdity/howeveryouwanttoframeit isn't allowed to reflect the problematic parts of society. Exploring them *whatsoever* is grounds enough to call for a ban. Because the heroes of this piece are such well-adjusted heroes that people aspire to *be* them(???). And because the women are as horribly portrayed stereotypes as the men, we should only respond to the criticism of the women(???).

    If he argues that Grand Theft Auto does these bad things to society by normalising them, and doesn't just shine a light on things that already exist, how does he not agree that society should be protected from the bad things since people can't be exposed without being subverted?

    Or is the argument now that Target fixes every piece of influence the game has, even to people who bought it from somewhere else, just because they were vocal about pulling it from *their* shelves? It's hard keeping track of what the underlying fart I'm supposed to be swordfighting here is.
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    Another misinterpretation. It is more like the Evelyn Beatrice Hall quote: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Sure, the group has the end goal of trampling people's rights. He is not okay with that goal, as he stated. But they are simply exercising their right to free speech.

    To think that your opinion is the only one worthy enough of free speech is arrogance and defeats the whole purpose of free speech.

    a) Please point out where people have cited that the petition itself should be disallowed/silenced/whatever?
    My own reading:

    - Nobody is fighting the freedom of these people to say or do dumb shit.
    - We're criticising Target for listening to them.
    - We're being asked to stop further exercises in free speech directed at Target, I'm sure you've seen them 50 times in this thread alone:
    - https://www.change.org/p/kmart-continue-to-sell-grand-theft-auto-5-in-australia
    - https://www.change.org/p/target-withdraw-the-holy-bible-this-sickening-book-encourages-readers-to-commit-sexual-violence-and-kill-women
    - What is the appropriate avenue for protest? Do we start up more petitions with lies and cherrypicked screenshots and get the same people to sign them?
    How about Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood? (http://images.bwbx.io/cms/2014-11-25/feat_sarkeesian49__03__970.jpg) The irony will be lost on the petitioners and on Target, I guarantee you.
    b) Please, illuminate me -- what is the end goal of this movement if *not* to remove the game from sale from all retailers?

    If that is their end goal, why do we say that they can have their precedent, even though we disagree with it, and pretend like they aren't going to keep pushing towards that end goal? Why is it wrong to fight the goal that you disagree with by using exactly the same means?

    c) There actually is no constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression or speech in Australia. We can argue against defamation with a combination of truth and a public interest test as a defence, and the high court has ruled that it's an unwritten part of our constitution, but it isn't actually there.

    http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/4529/do-we-have-the-right-to-freedom-of-speech-in-austr.aspx (You might find this an interesting read.)

    Evelyn Hall's argument also falls apart when the very thing you're protesting is the freedom to have a freedom of speech. It's like someone using a country's freedom of speech to preach Sharia Law. If Sharia Law ever gains a foothold, that's pretty much an end to freedom of speech.

    And then you see shit like this:
    Representative democracies just don't have protections in place to stop mass stupidity.

    This rabbit hole goes further, actually. We also have legislation in Australia that is roughly analagous to hate crime legislation in the US. Except it's a whole lot broader. Just having someone of a different gender, ethnicity or ableism promoted ahead of you at work, or insulting you with a slur, is enough grounds to call in the tribunal.

    https://www.humanrights.gov.au/guide-australias-anti-discrimination-laws

    And yes, it considers indirect discrimination to be valid.

    xanthian on
  • Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    Basically I share a similar viewpoint to the petitioners, but I dislike their goal. I think the methods their using to achieve that goal are fair, but if they go after an actual ban and not a voluntary one I'd be fighting them. Well, if it was happening in the us where I can actually have a say in politics.

    No I don't.
    Quid
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    xanthian wrote: »
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    This is a complete misinterpretation of his statement. He is simply stating that the situations presented in Grand Theft Auto V are part of the larger cultural whole of normalizing behaviors and stereotypes already present in Western culture. Casually dropping n-bombs, having no strong female role models in the game (existing as either sex objects or shrieking harpies), and other things of that nature are in the game and they tell the players of the game "Hey, this is how 'real life' is like", reinforcing those behaviors, either on a conscious or unconscious level. This is not placing any judgment on the moralizing of those stereotypes or behaviors, but simply a statement that it's part of a whole, not an isolated outlier case.

    No, I got it. Satire/realism/amplification to absurdity/howeveryouwanttoframeit isn't allowed to reflect the problematic parts of society. Exploring them *whatsoever* is grounds enough to call for a ban. Because the heroes of this piece are such well-adjusted heroes that people aspire to *be* them(???). And because the women are as horribly portrayed stereotypes as the men, we should only respond to the criticism of the women(???).

    If he argues that Grand Theft Auto does these bad things to society by normalising them, and doesn't just shine a light on things that already exist, how does he not agree that society should be protected from the bad things since people can't be exposed without being subverted?

    Or is the argument now that Target fixes every piece of influence the game has, even to people who bought it from somewhere else, just because they were vocal about pulling it from *their* shelves? It's hard keeping track of what the underlying fart I'm supposed to be swordfighting here is.
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    Another misinterpretation. It is more like the Evelyn Beatrice Hall quote: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Sure, the group has the end goal of trampling people's rights. He is not okay with that goal, as he stated. But they are simply exercising their right to free speech.

    To think that your opinion is the only one worthy enough of free speech is arrogance and defeats the whole purpose of free speech.

    a) Please point out where people have cited that the petition itself should be disallowed/silenced/whatever?
    My own reading:

    - Nobody is fighting the freedom of these people to say or do dumb shit.
    - We're criticising Target for listening to them.
    - We're being asked to stop further exercises in free speech directed at Target, I'm sure you've seen them 50 times in this thread alone:
    - https://www.change.org/p/kmart-continue-to-sell-grand-theft-auto-5-in-australia
    - https://www.change.org/p/target-withdraw-the-holy-bible-this-sickening-book-encourages-readers-to-commit-sexual-violence-and-kill-women
    - What is the appropriate avenue for protest? Do we start up more petitions with lies and cherrypicked screenshots and get the same people to sign them?
    How about Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood? (http://images.bwbx.io/cms/2014-11-25/feat_sarkeesian49__03__970.jpg) The irony will be lost on the petitioners and on Target, I guarantee you.
    b) Please, illuminate me -- what is the end goal of this movement if *not* to remove the game from sale from all retailers?

    If that is their end goal, why do we say that they can have their precedent, even though we disagree with it, and pretend like they aren't going to keep pushing towards that end goal? Why is it wrong to fight the goal that you disagree with by using exactly the same means?

    c) There actually is no constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression or speech in Australia. We can argue against defamation with a combination of truth and a public interest test as a defence, and the high court has ruled that it's an unwritten part of our constitution, but it isn't actually there.

    http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/4529/do-we-have-the-right-to-freedom-of-speech-in-austr.aspx (You might find this an interesting read.)

    Evelyn Hall's argument also falls apart when the very thing you're protesting is the freedom to have a freedom of speech. It's like someone using a country's freedom of speech to preach Sharia Law. If Sharia Law ever gains a foothold, that's pretty much an end to freedom of speech.

    And then you see shit like this:
    Representative democracies just don't have protections in place to stop mass stupidity.

    This rabbit hole goes further, actually. We also have legislation in Australia that is roughly analagous to hate crime legislation in the US. Except it's a whole lot broader. Just having someone of a different gender, ethnicity or ableism promoted ahead of you at work, or insulting you with a slur, is enough grounds to call in the tribunal.

    https://www.humanrights.gov.au/guide-australias-anti-discrimination-laws

    And yes, it considers indirect discrimination to be valid.

    No one has said you can't fight them. What people have said are that your claims of it being censorship are false.

    Cambiata
  • ShambalaShambala Registered User regular
    Representative democracies just don't have protections in place to stop mass stupidity.

    Absolutely true. So what's your solution? Return to monarchy? You can't take away the basic freedoms of other people, such as choosing to what to sell in their stores and choosing to express themselves collectively via petitioning, without getting rid of representative government. People have always done stupid things with their freedoms and they always will. Isn't one of the standard motivations of your average video game conqueror "The people are too stupid to govern themselves, therefore I must do it for them"?

    There's a big difference between someone saying "Man those people are being stupid!" -- a valid statement you are free to make -- and "That's censorship!" which is factually incorrect.

    The answer to speech you disagree with is more speech. The problem that GTAV fans run into here is that it's a hard game about which to argue "Look, it's just harmless fun!" I do believe it's just harmless fun; I tutor math and I have students who love the series (13 and 14 year olds) and they're great kids, definitely not serial killers in the making. But there's a lot of stuff in that game that looks pretty bad when pulled from context and you can't deny that.

    The real answer here -- which you're going to hate -- is to be patient and let the natural process of games becoming more mainstream continue the way it has been going. As Jim Sterling quite correctly pointed out, this isn't a return to censorship, this is just a reactionary after-fart, if you will. The only thing gamers do by screaming and whining and making false claims about censorship is make the gaming community look bad -- as in, stupid and juvenile, which we really really REALLY don't need right now! Face it -- if you take out GTAV and show it to your average non-gamer and start talking about how this is priceless art and Target shouldn't be suppressing it, they are going to either walk away quickly without making eye contact or laugh in your face. It's a bad hill to die on.

    AegeriHahnsoo1
  • xanthianxanthian Registered User regular
    edited December 2014
    Basically I share a similar viewpoint to the petitioners, but I dislike their goal. I think the methods their using to achieve that goal are fair, but if they go after an actual ban and not a voluntary one I'd be fighting them. Well, if it was happening in the us where I can actually have a say in politics.

    Care to elaborate how, exactly, you can hold a viewpoint such that content can be *inherently* bad or wrong, and not to be consumed by adults because it's *inherently* damaging, and yet *not* against preventing adults from being exposed to it?

    I've never (and I mean *never*) seen a feminist argue that something is hurtful to their cause and therefore it should exist in peace, so I'm genuinely interested as to how you resolve your conundrum.
    Quid wrote: »
    No one has said you can't fight them. What people have said are that your claims of it being censorship are false.
    Shambala wrote: »
    The answer to speech you disagree with is more speech.

    http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2014/12/opinion-stop-trying-to-get-things-at-target-banned-you-look-like-idiots/

    Oh look at that. A videogame magazine telling people to stop exercising their free speech.

    The reasoning used within is just absolute gold, btw.

    > That’s almost 50,000 gamers “protesting” using a satirical sit-in over Target’s pulling of a game. In my mind, it’s a “protest” that risks making light of really serious issues, and has the potential to diminish the suffering of the original victims who made the plea for the game to be pulled in the first place.

    So satire isn't allowed to call people stupid if it's directed at "victims" acting stupid.
    Shambala wrote: »
    if you take out GTAV and show it to your average non-gamer and start talking about how this is priceless art and Target shouldn't be suppressing it, they are going to either walk away quickly without making eye contact or laugh in your face. It's a bad hill to die on.

    Nobody's calling it priceless. But if drawings are art and theatre is art and writing is art, why is it not art if you combine those 3 things into a videogame and add some technical achievement?

    Edit: I also consider it rather dangerous to promote any art as priceless.

    xanthian on
  • ShambalaShambala Registered User regular
    edited December 2014
    xanthian wrote: »
    So satire isn't allowed to call people stupid if it's directed at "victims" acting stupid.

    Sorry, I can't figure out what you're trying to say here. Can you rephrase? If you're saying that you're required to use some sensitivity when interacting with people who have had bad experiences that you haven't shared, yes, that's true. That's called being a decent person. Or were you trying to say something else?
    Shambala wrote: »
    if you take out GTAV and show it to your average non-gamer and start talking about how this is priceless art and Target shouldn't be suppressing it, they are going to either walk away quickly without making eye contact or laugh in your face. It's a bad hill to die on.
    Nobody's calling it priceless. But if drawings are art and theatre is art and writing is art, why is it not art if you combine those 3 things into a videogame and add some technical achievement?

    Edit: I also consider it rather dangerous to promote any art as priceless.

    Huh? I said GTAV wasn't priceless art. I didn't say it wasn't art at all. It's definitely art.... you need to read more carefully here.

    And regarding art as priceless, inviolate, to be defended at all costs is exactly the issue here -- there are folks on this very board suggesting that Target-AU should be forced to sell this game "because it's art", that the petitioners should be made to shut up because "they're censoring!" and other garbage. Defense of art is important but it's not nearly as important as defending the right of stores to sell or not sell whatever product they choose (in line with the law, of course) or of people to express their opinions to those stores via petitions.

    Again, call it stupid and poorly-reasoned and whatever, but STOP calling it censorship. That's factually incorrect.

    Shambala on
  • Senna1Senna1 Registered User regular
    so the idea that people are smart enough to distinguish between what a game is telling them and what is actually true is true on the surface but kind of misses the point
    The problem is another piece of media reinforcing those attitudes as being sociably acceptable. And once again, I'd you don't believe media can have that type of effect of normalizing stereotypes or behaviors, just take a look at any piece of political propaganda produced in the last oh.... Since the dawn of man.
    Seriously??? There is almost nothing that you accomplish or do in the GTA games that is "socially acceptable". It is literally a game in which virtually every mission involves committing crimes, most of them heinous and violent. And that's before we even get to the point of talking about its treatment of women at all.

    If "real-world socially acceptable" in-game behavior was a relevant standard for videogames, GTA wouldn't even exist (along with 90%+ of the rest of games out there). An awful lot of people seem to be overlooking the fact that this is fantasy. Fantasy that exaggerates and mocks our current society, yes, but fantasy nonetheless. This is a game that allows you to walk out of bank robbery and murder dozens of cops with a minigun, and celebrates how cool and awesome that is; but oh no! it reinforces traditional gender stereotypes and lacks strong female characters - and THAT'S what's unacceptable!.

    Give me a break.

  • pslong9pslong9 Registered User regular
    edited December 2014
    pslong9 wrote: »
    This whole target thing rubs me the wrong way. There's enough room in this world for us to see the things we want to see and avoid the things we dislike. While people have the right to voice their opinion, I will never support or stand for people attempting to control the artistic works of others based on their own morality.

    This is the same argument it has always been, all the way back to the Catholic disfigurement of nude statues and purging of "lewd" art. It's just fancied up for modern outrage and sensibilities. Another silly expedition into foisting ones personal morals into the world of art.

    I don't know why I bother, since no one ever seems to counter my examples, but... let's say I create an artistic work that offends 99% of the population. If I cannot find a retailer to sell it, has my artistic work been "controlled" by others? Or have I just not been able to sell it through a third-party retailer? If I do find a retailer who will sell it, but they pull it after realizing how offensive it is, has my artistic work been "controlled" by others? If I find a retailer who will sell it, but the customer reaction is to boycott the store and the retailer goes out of business, has my artistic work been "controlled"? Or am I just being told that no one wants my work?

    I'm free to create whatever artistic work I want, but I don't have an inherent right to have it available in stores. And everyone else is free to express their opinion by refusing to shop at places that carry works that they find to be offensive. If my work is offensive to people and I need to make money, then I need to start making work that won't offend people. But if I don't need money? I can make whatever offensive work I want (some restrictions apply, obviously).

    As I've asked before to others (and again, anyone who I've asked this to has failed to respond) - do you think that consumers should never express their displeasure over the sale of offensive items? Is there no point where you would say "yeah, customers have a right to complain about that"?

    Brief iPhone response: I don't think art demands a platform, but I am also against the removal of platforms for non-artistic reasons. That Serbian film (thanks Pony, good example) doesn't demand a large platform because it's a fairly intense snuff porn film and doesn't command a significant audience. However those who enjoy it should have it, and not have their established access denied because of people who don't want to watch it. Does that help clarify?
    Pony wrote: »
    "denial of established access" is pretty nebulous, bro

    like when The War Z Infestation: Survivor Stories got kicked off Steam because of consumer outrage, was that "denial of established access"?

    Was it "denial of established access" when Paranautical Activity was taken off Steam because one of the devs threatened to kill Gabe Newell over Twitter?

    In both cases, Steam was a huge part of their distribution and being taken off was punitive. But they did have other, diminished avenues to publish their game. In neither case was it because of "artistic reasons".

    Was that "denial of established access" for the adult consumers, or censorship of the developers, or both?
    However, I see this as markedly different from a certain subset of people decrying the painting as lewd and attempting to have it removed despite its popularity. I understand that people will do this, but I have a healthy degree of disdain for the idea that because a person finds a work of art to be immoral, this means it is within their (moral) rights to prevent those who do not share this view from seeing it. Things that are not liked and not sufficiently viewed will sink on their own, and occasionally find ground in some other venue as a niche attraction. Attempting to forcibly move it off the mainstream because it is lewd/violent/immoral/etc/etc/etc is not something i can stomach.
    So, first of all, thanks for actually replying. I appreciate it.

    Second, again, I would argue that these petitions aren't preventing your ability to see it, though they are making it harder to do so. It's a minor difference, but ultimately a key one.

    I do think it is important for people to say whether or not something offends them and take action against it. It's one of the few powers that people have (especially today). Likewise, I think it's important for those who support it to speak up and defend it. These conversations are vital - they talk about who we are as a society, how we view ourselves, how we view others, how we view creative works (especially if they're commercial or non-commercial or somewhere in-between... which also gets us down a huge rabbit hole) - there are a lot of important ideas here. The opening round of conversation has been "We don't like how sex workers are portrayed and how easy it is to commit violence against them in this game. We've been there and it's horrific, and this game makes light of it. We also don't like how it's advertised as a Christmas stocking stuffer and next to kid's toys". Even if parts of it are inaccurate, it's fairly well-written and respectful. The most straightforwardly disrespectful part of the petition is the out-and-out accusation that this is grooming tolerance for violence against women, and even that is something that most rational people will look at and say, "yeah, that could be a problem". The response has largely been... "DON'T TAKE AWAY OUR GAMES YOU SHITCOCK FEMINISTS". Which, again, is a vital conversation that tells us a lot, though I don't think it's the response that really defends GTA V as an artistic work. To tell you the truth, if there's an unruly mob here, it's not the group that's trying to restrict access.

    Which brings me to xanathan's posts:
    xanthian wrote: »
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    This is a complete misinterpretation of his statement. He is simply stating that the situations presented in Grand Theft Auto V are part of the larger cultural whole of normalizing behaviors and stereotypes already present in Western culture. Casually dropping n-bombs, having no strong female role models in the game (existing as either sex objects or shrieking harpies), and other things of that nature are in the game and they tell the players of the game "Hey, this is how 'real life' is like", reinforcing those behaviors, either on a conscious or unconscious level. This is not placing any judgment on the moralizing of those stereotypes or behaviors, but simply a statement that it's part of a whole, not an isolated outlier case.

    No, I got it. Satire/realism/amplification to absurdity/howeveryouwanttoframeit isn't allowed to reflect the problematic parts of society. Exploring them *whatsoever* is grounds enough to call for a ban. Because the heroes of this piece are such well-adjusted heroes that people aspire to *be* them(???). And because the women are as horribly portrayed stereotypes as the men, we should only respond to the criticism of the women(???).

    I wouldn't say that they aren't allowed to reflect the problematic parts of society, but usually, if works tackle or reflect problematic parts of society, they show them as problematic. They explore them as a theme. They're part of the overall picture. GTA V doesn't really do that. Part of that is a flaw of open-world games - it's really hard to have everything mean something. But GTA V has specifically included prostitutes, and they are only there to help the player. They don't reflect the problematic parts of that aspect of society AT ALL. They glorify them. And based on what I've read of the game, the women are, as a whole, shown negatively throughout the entire game. The men? Not so much. Again, I'm going off of other people's opinions here, but it seems like there is a lot of content about gender in the game that is supposed to satire or parody, it really misses its mark. Satire / parody usually has an underlying point. A lot of what I've read suggests that a lot of the offensive content really doesn't have a point except to make fun of others.

    xanthian wrote: »

    http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2014/12/opinion-stop-trying-to-get-things-at-target-banned-you-look-like-idiots/

    Oh look at that. A videogame magazine telling people to stop exercising their free speech.

    The reasoning used within is just absolute gold, btw.

    > That’s almost 50,000 gamers “protesting” using a satirical sit-in over Target’s pulling of a game. In my mind, it’s a “protest” that risks making light of really serious issues, and has the potential to diminish the suffering of the original victims who made the plea for the game to be pulled in the first place.

    So satire isn't allowed to call people stupid if it's directed at "victims" acting stupid.

    You're saying "victims", implying that they really aren't, to women who have actually suffered from abuse as sex workers. Wow. You're certainly confirming the latter part of the quote you selected.

    Satire really only works if it's on point. The "Withdraw the Holy Bible" petition - sure, it might be satire, I guess, but it's really bad satire. You can't get past the first sentence without realizing that it's going to be really, really poorly written. Most people will read that and roll their eyes, and yes, it's making light of serious issues and mocking the original victims (and again - yes, they are victims). And the K-Mart one? It's not satire and is a little bit better about defending the game, but it still starts off by belittling the original petitioners. Which makes it look really, really bad. Do you want to defend this work? Go ahead. Defend the work. Point out the flaws in the original petition. Stop attacking the people who are attacking the work. Don't make satire that calls them stupid. And at the very least, be respectful of what they went through.

    pslong9 on
    steam_sig.png

    3DS FC: 0817-3759-2788
  • Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    xanthian wrote: »
    Basically I share a similar viewpoint to the petitioners, but I dislike their goal. I think the methods their using to achieve that goal are fair, but if they go after an actual ban and not a voluntary one I'd be fighting them. Well, if it was happening in the us where I can actually have a say in politics.

    Care to elaborate how, exactly, you can hold a viewpoint such that content can be *inherently* bad or wrong, and not to be consumed by adults because it's *inherently* damaging, and yet *not* against preventing adults from being exposed to it?

    I've never (and I mean *never*) seen a feminist argue that something is hurtful to their cause and therefore it should exist in peace, so I'm genuinely interested as to how you resolve your conundrum.
    Quid wrote: »
    No one has said you can't fight them. What people have said are that your claims of it being censorship are false.
    Shambala wrote: »
    The answer to speech you disagree with is more speech.

    http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2014/12/opinion-stop-trying-to-get-things-at-target-banned-you-look-like-idiots/

    Oh look at that. A videogame magazine telling people to stop exercising their free speech.

    The reasoning used within is just absolute gold, btw.

    > That’s almost 50,000 gamers “protesting” using a satirical sit-in over Target’s pulling of a game. In my mind, it’s a “protest” that risks making light of really serious issues, and has the potential to diminish the suffering of the original victims who made the plea for the game to be pulled in the first place.

    So satire isn't allowed to call people stupid if it's directed at "victims" acting stupid.
    Shambala wrote: »
    if you take out GTAV and show it to your average non-gamer and start talking about how this is priceless art and Target shouldn't be suppressing it, they are going to either walk away quickly without making eye contact or laugh in your face. It's a bad hill to die on.

    Nobody's calling it priceless. But if drawings are art and theatre is art and writing is art, why is it not art if you combine those 3 things into a videogame and add some technical achievement?

    Edit: I also consider it rather dangerous to promote any art as priceless.

    You must not talk to many feminists or have watched Anita's videos. Also, reread my post again. It has all explanation in it.

    No I don't.
    Geth
  • fightinfilipinofightinfilipino Angry as Hell #BLMRegistered User regular
    Senna1 wrote: »
    so the idea that people are smart enough to distinguish between what a game is telling them and what is actually true is true on the surface but kind of misses the point
    The problem is another piece of media reinforcing those attitudes as being sociably acceptable. And once again, I'd you don't believe media can have that type of effect of normalizing stereotypes or behaviors, just take a look at any piece of political propaganda produced in the last oh.... Since the dawn of man.
    Seriously??? There is almost nothing that you accomplish or do in the GTA games that is "socially acceptable". It is literally a game in which virtually every mission involves committing crimes, most of them heinous and violent. And that's before we even get to the point of talking about its treatment of women at all.

    If "real-world socially acceptable" in-game behavior was a relevant standard for videogames, GTA wouldn't even exist (along with 90%+ of the rest of games out there). An awful lot of people seem to be overlooking the fact that this is fantasy. Fantasy that exaggerates and mocks our current society, yes, but fantasy nonetheless. This is a game that allows you to walk out of bank robbery and murder dozens of cops with a minigun, and celebrates how cool and awesome that is; but oh no! it reinforces traditional gender stereotypes and lacks strong female characters - and THAT'S what's unacceptable!.

    Give me a break.

    it is entirely possible to have fantasy scenarios and gameplay that is enjoyable and also does not shit upon specific groups of people.

    it is also entirely possible to demand better quality writing from our entertainment rather than settling for lazy, low-quality work that, again, shit on specific groups of people.

    as time goes one we should expect better from the games we play. we shouldn't be reverting to Custer's Revenge here.

    ffNewSig.png
    steam | Dokkan: 868846562
  • xanthianxanthian Registered User regular
    it is entirely possible to have fantasy scenarios and gameplay that is enjoyable and also does not shit upon specific groups of people.

    it is also entirely possible to demand better quality writing from our entertainment rather than settling for lazy, low-quality work that, again, shit on specific groups of people.

    as time goes one we should expect better from the games we play. we shouldn't be reverting to Custer's Revenge here.

    It's also entirely possible to shit on people. As long as those people are cishetero males.

    You can't have it both ways. A game that reflects the underbelly of society can't also hide the things that people claim exists in the underbelly of society.

    And honestly, the "problem" I'm seeing a lot of people talk about here is that women trade sex for money in GTA 5. Which isn't actually the problem that the petition talks about. And isn't actually a problem unless you bring further gender binary morality to the table. Those feminist wars happened back in the 70s ffs.

  • streeverstreever Registered User regular
    edited December 2014
    xanthian wrote: »
    it is entirely possible to have fantasy scenarios and gameplay that is enjoyable and also does not shit upon specific groups of people.

    it is also entirely possible to demand better quality writing from our entertainment rather than settling for lazy, low-quality work that, again, shit on specific groups of people.

    as time goes one we should expect better from the games we play. we shouldn't be reverting to Custer's Revenge here.

    It's also entirely possible to shit on people. As long as those people are cishetero males.

    You can't have it both ways. A game that reflects the underbelly of society can't also hide the things that people claim exists in the underbelly of society.

    And honestly, the "problem" I'm seeing a lot of people talk about here is that women trade sex for money in GTA 5. Which isn't actually the problem that the petition talks about. And isn't actually a problem unless you bring further gender binary morality to the table. Those feminist wars happened back in the 70s ffs.

    A: People aren't actually criticizing that prostitution exists in GTA V, at least in this thread; you've misunderstood that. They are criticizing that the protagonist has a mission in which he is supposed to sexually abuse the sex workers (touching them when it's banned in a club is sexual abuse; the women are working to entice/seduce/attract you, but the line has been clearly drawn that you can't touch them)

    B: It isn't actually ok to merely shit on people. It IS ok to criticize, question, attack, and denounce cis-hetero-white-men denying that their privilege even exists, when it clearly exists and is in fact so widespread and pervasive that people with privilege don't realize they have it. People saying how shitty it is that a game sets a mission goal of sexually abusing sex workers is not actually 'shitting' on cishet men.

    No one is having it 'both ways', and a game can actually reflect the underbelly of society from a viewpoint that isn't cis-hetero-male. People who aren't cis hetero men have their OWN experience of the underbelly of society, and it looks nothing at all like GTA V, so it's a valid criticism to make that the game only has a specific (fantastical) perspective on that underbelly. GTA V is so far from realistic, in so many ways, that it's absolutely ludicrous to defend the missions focused on abusing sex workers as 'realistic'.

    (I am not being facetious, I'm actually curious who you are referring to when you say 'both ways'. Nearly all of the people in this conversation identify as men, so I'm not sure where you got the impression they were getting it 'both ways' in being able to shit on men with impunity while simultaneously not being criticized ever for anything.)

    streever on
  • Albino BunnyAlbino Bunny Jackie Registered User regular
    So uh... I think Critical Miss based it's latest comic off of this thread (and many, many others like it on the internet):

    859634.png

    streeverDeath of RatsTychoCelchuuupslong9fightinfilipinoQuidCambiataAegeriAnzekayJusticeforPlutoMild Confusion
  • fightinfilipinofightinfilipino Angry as Hell #BLMRegistered User regular
    xanthian wrote: »
    it is entirely possible to have fantasy scenarios and gameplay that is enjoyable and also does not shit upon specific groups of people.

    it is also entirely possible to demand better quality writing from our entertainment rather than settling for lazy, low-quality work that, again, shit on specific groups of people.

    as time goes one we should expect better from the games we play. we shouldn't be reverting to Custer's Revenge here.

    It's also entirely possible to shit on people. As long as those people are cishetero males.

    You can't have it both ways. A game that reflects the underbelly of society can't also hide the things that people claim exists in the underbelly of society.

    And honestly, the "problem" I'm seeing a lot of people talk about here is that women trade sex for money in GTA 5. Which isn't actually the problem that the petition talks about. And isn't actually a problem unless you bring further gender binary morality to the table. Those feminist wars happened back in the 70s ffs.

    let me repeat: it is entirely possible to portray a fantasy or gameplay setting while still having writing that does not shit on people.

    a good example is what is occurring between the A Song of Ice and Fire books and the Game of Thrones television show. G.R.R. Martin does a fantastic job reflecting the humanity of the characters he writes, even when horrible shit happens to them or when those characters are part of the "seedy underbelly". the HBO series has taken some of those elements and reduced them in quality, including reducing the agency and independence of characters like Cersei and taking away their power.

    what you have going on in the GTA series is the second example. rather than depicting people in the sex trade like they're people, the game depicts women specifically as disposable things. THAT is the difference. i would say that you might not see it due to subtlety of difference, but it's honestly not that subtle. it's the result of lazy, bad writing from Rockstar.

    i'm unsure what you're even referring to with regards to "cishetero males". a huge majority of games currently released now cater to the straight male fantasy. if you're a straight dude, congratulations i guess.

    as for the "feminist wars" comment, that is a strawman if i ever saw one. the gender wage gap continues to be an issue. forcing women to perform sexual acts against their will continues to be a problem. and video games, while having many positives and being a hobby that i would argue almost all of the folks on these boards enjoy, still have very troubling aspects we should be confronting. like games' ability to influence men enough to treat women like objects, not fellow human beings.

    like Q said in the last ep. of TNG, "the trial never ends".

    ffNewSig.png
    steam | Dokkan: 868846562
    CambiataAegeristreever
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    xanthian wrote: »
    Basically I share a similar viewpoint to the petitioners, but I dislike their goal. I think the methods their using to achieve that goal are fair, but if they go after an actual ban and not a voluntary one I'd be fighting them. Well, if it was happening in the us where I can actually have a say in politics.

    Care to elaborate how, exactly, you can hold a viewpoint such that content can be *inherently* bad or wrong, and not to be consumed by adults because it's *inherently* damaging, and yet *not* against preventing adults from being exposed to it?

    I've never (and I mean *never*) seen a feminist argue that something is hurtful to their cause and therefore it should exist in peace, so I'm genuinely interested as to how you resolve your conundrum.
    Quid wrote: »
    No one has said you can't fight them. What people have said are that your claims of it being censorship are false.
    Shambala wrote: »
    The answer to speech you disagree with is more speech.

    http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2014/12/opinion-stop-trying-to-get-things-at-target-banned-you-look-like-idiots/

    Oh look at that. A videogame magazine telling people to stop exercising their free speech.

    Don't do this. It's dishonest. You specifically asked people in this thread why you shouldn't be able to fight the petitioners. And I pointed out that nobody in this thread said you couldn't. That someone, somewhere, said otherwise is irrelevant to the discussion. You're free to fight back and it still isn't censorship. Stop changing the subject.

    streever
  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    xanthian wrote: »
    it is entirely possible to have fantasy scenarios and gameplay that is enjoyable and also does not shit upon specific groups of people.

    it is also entirely possible to demand better quality writing from our entertainment rather than settling for lazy, low-quality work that, again, shit on specific groups of people.

    as time goes one we should expect better from the games we play. we shouldn't be reverting to Custer's Revenge here.

    It's also entirely possible to shit on people. As long as those people are cishetero males.
    Oh, we get it. You feel like a victim because one video game got pulled from the shelves of a couple of stores in one country. The world is completely shitting on you, and the deck is stacked against you. *sigh* That was sarcasm.

    The only people shitting on you are the folks in this thread who are telling you correctly that you are a silly goose. It has nothing to do with your gender, sexual orientation, or race. It is because you make bad arguments while conflating your own agenda into the topic, without even bothering to read or consider the evidence presented before you.
    And honestly, the "problem" I'm seeing a lot of people talk about here is that women trade sex for money in GTA 5. Which isn't actually the problem that the petition talks about. And isn't actually a problem unless you bring further gender binary morality to the table. Those feminist wars happened back in the 70s ffs.
    That isn't the problem, and you are projecting. The problem is that you keep coming here trying to tell people that the problem is something that it isn't. You are mixing up your perceived "persecution" with an action by a consumer group to a corporation selling a product which is still widely available in the country.

    That women trade sex for money (prostitution) is something that is part of GTA V, and you won't see me condemning it. If I don't like it, then I have the choice to not buy the game, or better yet, buy the game and not participate in it. I won't be using that gameplay feature as a dumb shield, though, to claim that this action is systematic and thorough censorship and that because of the moral outrage, no one can purchase this game in Australia. Because that's not actually happening.

    You're allowed to be angry. But when you lash out at other people (here or anywhere else) and start labeling everyone as the enemy, you are just being a silly goose.

    8i1dt37buh2m.png
    Quidstreever
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    xanthian wrote: »
    I've never (and I mean *never*) seen a feminist argue that something is hurtful to their cause and therefore it should exist in peace, so I'm genuinely interested as to how you resolve your conundrum.

    Also, dudebro, you've been talking to several feminists in this very thread who have specifically said GTA V should be allowed to exist.

    CambiataAlbino BunnyAegeristreever
  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    xanthian wrote: »
    I've never (and I mean *never*) seen a feminist argue that something is hurtful to their cause and therefore it should exist in peace, so I'm genuinely interested as to how you resolve your conundrum.

    Also, dudebro, you've been talking to several feminists in this very thread who have specifically said GTA V should be allowed to exist.
    Well, we're the exception that PROVES the rule. Also, you're not ALLOWED to be a feminist if you aren't female and go around burning bras and banning video games. :D

    8i1dt37buh2m.png
  • Squidget0Squidget0 Registered User regular
    The common argument in this thread seems to go like this:

    "What this advocacy group did was not censorship. Censorship is defined as government suppression of speech, and the government was not involved in this case. Therefore, this cannot be an example of censorship."

    I can't argue with this. I mean, literally, I can't argue with it. If you want to say that censorship is defined as a species of flightless waterfowl native to the Falkland islands, all I can so is point to the definition of censorship (which doesn't specifically limit the term to government action) and common usage (which doesn't generally limit the word to government action), and disagree with you based on those things.

    I suspect that a lot of people may actually be thinking of the first amendment, which is one example of a law which (among other things) provides some protection against censorship cases in the United States. I think it's unlikely that this would be in violation if the first amendment, both because the first amendment is generally used as a defense against government suppression, and because US law does not apply in Australia where the case occurred. How the first amendment actually applies to non-government action is a complex issue, but it isn't particularly relevant to a discussion of this case.

    If the terminology is troubling (and it seems to be), then I would suggest just doing away with it and talking about ideas instead. The fundamental question here seems to be whether you support advocacy groups suppressing art that they believe to be immoral. If the labels are interfering with that conversation, do away with them and talk about the idea instead.

    FrankiedarlingTryCatcherKenninatorNamrokMrMiscreantJulius
  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    edited December 2014
    Actually it's about ethics in... erm, wait a minute.

    No, this still isn't suppression or censorship. This is a couple of vendors that stopped a product (art or otherwise... it could be bananas, for all I care) from being distributed from their own private shops due to a customer petition.

    This is akin to CVS removing cigarettes from their pharmacy stores. There are many other pharmacies that still sell cigarettes, and even if they were banned from pharmacies, you can buy cigarettes pretty much anywhere.

    No one is taking your video games away. You can still buy them.
    Squidget0 wrote: »
    The fundamental question here seems to be whether you support advocacy groups suppressing art that they believe to be immoral.
    I don't believe that is the case. The fundamental question is whether or not a private corporation that sells a product is allowed to pull a product from their shelves. To get into more brass tacks, you can also ask whether corporations should bow to consumer pressure when it affects their bottom line.

    Hahnsoo1 on
    8i1dt37buh2m.png
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Everyone agrees that the suppression of art is immoral.

    What's being failed to be demonstrated here is anyone's art being suppressed.

    Death of RatsHahnsoo1TychoCelchuuuAegeri
  • Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    edited December 2014
    Squidget0 wrote: »
    If the terminology is troubling (and it seems to be), then I would suggest just doing away with it and talking about ideas instead. The fundamental question here seems to be whether you support advocacy groups suppressing art that they believe to be immoral. If the labels are interfering with that conversation, do away with them and talk about the idea instead.

    In the hypothetical situation where that actually happens I'd be against it. Right now no art has been suppressed. Even if this petition reaches the goal of every retailer willingly pulling the game, as long as RockStar can still self distribute the game, their art still hasn't been suppressed.

    Actually, even if they can't financially afford to self publish, their art still hasn't been suppressed.

    Even if they can't financially afford to develop the game, their art still hasn't been suppressed.

    Only if they're not allowed to sell the game has their art been suppressed. Everything else is just how easy is it to bring their art to the public. And I can't imagine any scenario that guarantees them that without actually suppressing the freedom of other entities to decide what they will and will not sell.

    No one is guaranteed an audience. No one is guaranteed a platform.

    But either way, this is a rather out there hypothetical unless a government agency steps in to stop Rockstar from being able to self publish and distribute GTA V.

    And if you disagree with this, then I suggest you give me all of your money so I can produce and publish my games.

    After all, you wouldn't want to be complicit in suppressing my art, now would you?

    Death of Rats on
    No I don't.
    TychoCelchuuuQuidCambiataAegeri
  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    I still have a post to respond to above, but at this point I'm not sure where to go. Like Squidget, I'm really unsure what definitions are in play here. I seem to have a very low bar set for suppression of art, and the standard everyone else is holding to is.... jackbooted thugs, I guess?

    To me this is very clear cut. People disliked a piece of art, and a group of them gathered together in an attempt to remove that piece of art from its platform for moral reasons. This to me is clear-cut suppression, dictionary definition. If this does not cut it for people, what does? I'm not talking about effectiveness of the suppression, but the definition in action. If an attempt to remove art from public consumption is not suppression of art, than what the hell do you count as artistic suppression?

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    My definition would be that someone would have to be actually prevented from creating and selling their art. Which hasn't happened. Creating a piece of art does not entitle anyone to have it sold by any and all distributors they want.

    Cambiata
  • Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    I still have a post to respond to above, but at this point I'm not sure where to go. Like Squidget, I'm really unsure what definitions are in play here. I seem to have a very low bar set for suppression of art, and the standard everyone else is holding to is.... jackbooted thugs, I guess?

    To me this is very clear cut. People disliked a piece of art, and a group of them gathered together in an attempt to remove that piece of art from its platform for moral reasons. This to me is clear-cut suppression, dictionary definition. If this does not cut it for people, what does? I'm not talking about effectiveness of the suppression, but the definition in action. If an attempt to remove art from public consumption is not suppression of art, than what the hell do you count as artistic suppression?

    The bolded has not happened.

    In order for the bolded to happen they'd have to be attempting to make it so GTA V could not be sold/distributed/published by anyone, including Rockstar. This could only be accomplished by the government. Are they petitioning the AU government?

    No I don't.
  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    I still have a post to respond to above, but at this point I'm not sure where to go. Like Squidget, I'm really unsure what definitions are in play here. I seem to have a very low bar set for suppression of art, and the standard everyone else is holding to is.... jackbooted thugs, I guess?

    To me this is very clear cut. People disliked a piece of art, and a group of them gathered together in an attempt to remove that piece of art from its platform for moral reasons. This to me is clear-cut suppression, dictionary definition. If this does not cut it for people, what does? I'm not talking about effectiveness of the suppression, but the definition in action. If an attempt to remove art from public consumption is not suppression of art, than what the hell do you count as artistic suppression?

    The bolded has not happened.

    In order for the bolded to happen they'd have to be attempting to make it so GTA V could not be sold/distributed/published by anyone, including Rockstar. This could only be accomplished by the government. Are they petitioning the AU government?
    My definition would be that someone would have to be actually prevented from creating and selling their art. Which hasn't happened. Creating a piece of art does not entitle anyone to have it sold by any and all distributors they want.

    I'd argue that suppressing art isn't binary, you are not 100% suppressed or 100% free. Someone can be suppressing art without a 100% or even large degree of effectiveness. Is our major difference here merely that you see suppression as an end result, as opposed to an individual action or process?

    Using this type of definition seems to be (again) pushing it all back towards the government. The logic that I'm reading in your posts seems to say that it's not totally effective, and would need the government to be totally effective, and therefore it is not suppression. I don't agree.

    Julius
  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    And when they actually succeed, we will call it suppression, sure. Right now, you are conflating a slight consumer inconvenience with suppression of a specific installation of consumer-quality entertainment art.

    It is annoying, but not a fundamental attack on your rights. When a bicyclist is legally driving on the road, causing me to move slower, it annoys me, but it does not stop my ability to drive nor move one lane over so I can go faster. Go car analogy!

    8i1dt37buh2m.png
  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    And when they actually succeed, we will call it suppression, sure. Right now, you are conflating a slight consumer inconvenience with suppression of a specific installation of consumer-quality entertainment art.

    It is annoying, but not a fundamental attack on your rights. When a bicyclist is legally driving on the road, causing me to move slower, it annoys me, but it does not stop my ability to drive nor move one lane over so I can go faster. Go car analogy!

    Am I correct, than, in assuming that you do view suppression as a binary issue? You either are or are not?

    If this is the mindset here, it's good for me to know. It will save a lot of posts when we're defining the term in completely different ways.

  • Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    I still have a post to respond to above, but at this point I'm not sure where to go. Like Squidget, I'm really unsure what definitions are in play here. I seem to have a very low bar set for suppression of art, and the standard everyone else is holding to is.... jackbooted thugs, I guess?

    To me this is very clear cut. People disliked a piece of art, and a group of them gathered together in an attempt to remove that piece of art from its platform for moral reasons. This to me is clear-cut suppression, dictionary definition. If this does not cut it for people, what does? I'm not talking about effectiveness of the suppression, but the definition in action. If an attempt to remove art from public consumption is not suppression of art, than what the hell do you count as artistic suppression?

    The bolded has not happened.

    In order for the bolded to happen they'd have to be attempting to make it so GTA V could not be sold/distributed/published by anyone, including Rockstar. This could only be accomplished by the government. Are they petitioning the AU government?
    My definition would be that someone would have to be actually prevented from creating and selling their art. Which hasn't happened. Creating a piece of art does not entitle anyone to have it sold by any and all distributors they want.

    I'd argue that suppressing art isn't binary, you are not 100% suppressed or 100% free. Someone can be suppressing art without a 100% or even large degree of effectiveness. Is our major difference here merely that you see suppression as an end result, as opposed to an individual action or process?

    Using this type of definition seems to be (again) pushing it all back towards the government. The logic that I'm reading in your posts seems to say that it's not totally effective, and would need the government to be totally effective, and therefore it is not suppression. I don't agree.

    The we fall back on a semantic argument that will go nowhere.

    Because unless artists get a free wad of cash, mandatory consumption, and distribution from every retailer they're under some form of suppression with your views.

    Basically unless we trample freedom of choice by every entity besides the artist art is suppressed. And I don't think that an effective use of the term or a useful metric.

    We can't have freedom of expression without having freedom of conflict. We can't guarantee a system for profit off of expression.

    No I don't.
  • ShambalaShambala Registered User regular
    edited December 2014
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    This is akin to CVS removing cigarettes from their pharmacy stores. There are many other pharmacies that still sell cigarettes, and even if they were banned from pharmacies, you can buy cigarettes pretty much anywhere.

    That's a very good example of a company exercising choice. Another would be most stores refusing to sell nudie magazines. I could (and would!) argue that there's a ton of artistry in nudie magazines. But some stores won't sell them. Are they censoring nudie magazines? Nope. Just not selling them here. Go elsewhere if you want one and buy one.
    "What this advocacy group did was not censorship. Censorship is defined as government suppression of speech, and the government was not involved in this case. Therefore, this cannot be an example of censorship."

    It's not the "government" part that's important to the definition. It's the OFFICIAL part. As in, censorship done by people with power to punish you if you break their censorship rules. Your Mom can censor you while you live in her house. Your boss can censor you, and most do -- if you think you can say/write/draw anything you want and not be punished by losing your job, you're very wrong, at least if you work "at will" like most people. The guy who runs the discussion board associated with a webcomic you enjoy can censor you if you say something on the forums that's against the rules, no matter how artistically you say it. The people who put together that petition didn't have any power over Target-AU that Target-AU didn't freely choose to give them. That's why this is not censorship -- the lack of power to punish. Get it? The power to persuade is NOT the same as the power to use force.

    Also that Critcal Miss comic really sums it up nicely.

    Shambala on
    streever
  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    I still have a post to respond to above, but at this point I'm not sure where to go. Like Squidget, I'm really unsure what definitions are in play here. I seem to have a very low bar set for suppression of art, and the standard everyone else is holding to is.... jackbooted thugs, I guess?

    To me this is very clear cut. People disliked a piece of art, and a group of them gathered together in an attempt to remove that piece of art from its platform for moral reasons. This to me is clear-cut suppression, dictionary definition. If this does not cut it for people, what does? I'm not talking about effectiveness of the suppression, but the definition in action. If an attempt to remove art from public consumption is not suppression of art, than what the hell do you count as artistic suppression?

    The bolded has not happened.

    In order for the bolded to happen they'd have to be attempting to make it so GTA V could not be sold/distributed/published by anyone, including Rockstar. This could only be accomplished by the government. Are they petitioning the AU government?
    My definition would be that someone would have to be actually prevented from creating and selling their art. Which hasn't happened. Creating a piece of art does not entitle anyone to have it sold by any and all distributors they want.

    I'd argue that suppressing art isn't binary, you are not 100% suppressed or 100% free. Someone can be suppressing art without a 100% or even large degree of effectiveness. Is our major difference here merely that you see suppression as an end result, as opposed to an individual action or process?

    Using this type of definition seems to be (again) pushing it all back towards the government. The logic that I'm reading in your posts seems to say that it's not totally effective, and would need the government to be totally effective, and therefore it is not suppression. I don't agree.

    The we fall back on a semantic argument that will go nowhere.

    Because unless artists get a free wad of cash, mandatory consumption, and distribution from every retailer they're under some form of suppression with your views.

    Basically unless we trample freedom of choice by every entity besides the artist art is suppressed. And I don't think that an effective use of the term or a useful metric.

    We can't have freedom of expression without having freedom of conflict. We can't guarantee a system for profit off of expression.

    I haven't fallen back on a semantic argument, I'm trying to figure out how you are defining suppression. My impression from the last few posts is that people here seem to view it as a binary issue, whereas I do not. If that can be mostly confirmed, I can move forward from there.

    Well, or not. Can't really move forward if we're arguing from entirely separate premises, but even that would be good to know. Would save time for everyone I imagine. Personally, seeing it as binary thing makes little sense to me. I'm not stupid, I know we don't treat every issue of suppression as a great evil or wrong, there's a gradient of responses to a gradient of actions. But it is an important topic to me, and to see it reduced to "you still have a platform for your art (however small) somewhere (perhaps a personal deviant art page), therefore you have not really been suppressed". Has this situation gotten there? No. But it's a significant action and I'm surprised people aren't treating it as such.

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    I still have a post to respond to above, but at this point I'm not sure where to go. Like Squidget, I'm really unsure what definitions are in play here. I seem to have a very low bar set for suppression of art, and the standard everyone else is holding to is.... jackbooted thugs, I guess?

    To me this is very clear cut. People disliked a piece of art, and a group of them gathered together in an attempt to remove that piece of art from its platform for moral reasons. This to me is clear-cut suppression, dictionary definition. If this does not cut it for people, what does? I'm not talking about effectiveness of the suppression, but the definition in action. If an attempt to remove art from public consumption is not suppression of art, than what the hell do you count as artistic suppression?

    The bolded has not happened.

    In order for the bolded to happen they'd have to be attempting to make it so GTA V could not be sold/distributed/published by anyone, including Rockstar. This could only be accomplished by the government. Are they petitioning the AU government?
    My definition would be that someone would have to be actually prevented from creating and selling their art. Which hasn't happened. Creating a piece of art does not entitle anyone to have it sold by any and all distributors they want.

    I'd argue that suppressing art isn't binary, you are not 100% suppressed or 100% free. Someone can be suppressing art without a 100% or even large degree of effectiveness. Is our major difference here merely that you see suppression as an end result, as opposed to an individual action or process?

    Using this type of definition seems to be (again) pushing it all back towards the government. The logic that I'm reading in your posts seems to say that it's not totally effective, and would need the government to be totally effective, and therefore it is not suppression. I don't agree.

    It doesn't push it all back to government. Anyone and any organization is capable of suppression. And I've never said government is required to make it effective.

    But in order to actually suppress Rockstar, Target would have to prevent Rockstar from creating and selling their art. Which Target hasn't done. Neither have the petitioners. At all.

    streever
  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    edited December 2014
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    And when they actually succeed, we will call it suppression, sure. Right now, you are conflating a slight consumer inconvenience with suppression of a specific installation of consumer-quality entertainment art.

    It is annoying, but not a fundamental attack on your rights. When a bicyclist is legally driving on the road, causing me to move slower, it annoys me, but it does not stop my ability to drive nor move one lane over so I can go faster. Go car analogy!

    Am I correct, than, in assuming that you do view suppression as a binary issue? You either are or are not?

    If this is the mindset here, it's good for me to know. It will save a lot of posts when we're defining the term in completely different ways.
    When a bunch of bicyclists are clogging up all lanes of the road such I can't proceed, then yes. I would probably express anger and want the government to intervene. Also, car analogies suck. :D

    If you honestly believe that all of these little ways that chip away at the distribution of the product count as suppression, even while the product is widely available and is still one of the best-selling games of all time, then you are literally invoking the slippery slope argument. There is no evidence that this is either impacting the sales of the game nor impacting the ability for gamers to gain access to it, as with most similar consumer products. Again, I will point out that this is no different than CVS pulling cigarettes from their shelves (remember, you can still get cigarettes in nearly all pharmacies in the US).

    Context is extremely important in all things, but especially in this issue. Sure, we get from the context that Australia has had problems with actual real censorship, so I can get the anger over this issue. But the context also is that GTA V sales are not damaged, nor is the access to the game denied, nor is there a systematic banning of this game across multiple vendors worldwide. Are you honestly suggesting that Target-AU is FORCED to stock this video game? Because if we are talking about ridiculous definitions...

    Hahnsoo1 on
    8i1dt37buh2m.png
Sign In or Register to comment.