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

1910111214

Posts

  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    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.

    Than I suppose I'll have to settle that your definition is far too narrow. Not sure how else to put it, to me it seems like you're putting a horrific extreme of suppression as the basic definition.

  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    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...

    People keep asking if I'm saying X (am i suggesting target be forced to stock a game?!?!?) and no, I have never said X.

    I've only put forth that I view removing a platform for art at the behest of an outraged mob to be a facet of suppression. Not the all in all, not the worst possible kind, but a facet of. When a group of people band together and attempt to remove art from places that it can be accessed, that is suppression. Or in the context of this thread, how I see it. I know we may disagree, but I do not beleive this is a particularly outlandish or partisan view I am putting out there.

  • ShambalaShambala Registered User regular
    edited December 2014
    Than I suppose I'll have to settle that your definition is far too narrow. Not sure how else to put it, to me it seems like you're putting a horrific extreme of suppression as the basic definition.

    But it seems like your definition is that if someone claims that something they've done is Art, no one is allowed to tell them, "Yuck, get that outta my store, I'm not selling that in here!" or that would be suppression of art and wrong.

    Censorship is about stopping people from creating or punishing them if they do. That requires power -- the ability to use force. It's not about telling someone "Yuck, I hate that. Take it elsewhere, buddy."

    Shambala on
  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    Shambala wrote: »
    Than I suppose I'll have to settle that your definition is far too narrow. Not sure how else to put it, to me it seems like you're putting a horrific extreme of suppression as the basic definition.

    But it seems like your definition is that if someone claims that something they've done is Art, no one is allowed to tell them, "Yuck, get that outta my store, I'm not selling that in here!" or that would be suppression of art and wrong.

    Censorship is about stopping people from creating or punishing them if they do. That requires power -- the ability to use force. It's not about telling someone "Yuck, I hate that. Take it elsewhere, buddy."

    That is not my definition. A store is welcome to carry or not carry what they like, that is business. Even a business forced by public opinion to reject art because of pressure is fine, that is how businesses work. However, the public attempting to exert that pressure is engaging in an act of suppression.

    You'll also notice that because censorship has been extremely narrowly defined in this thread, I am not using the word. Though it appears that we are now using similar definitions for suppression, so I may have to locate another suitable term that hasn't been put through the same process yet ;)

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited December 2014
    Quid wrote: »
    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.

    Than I suppose I'll have to settle that your definition is far too narrow. Not sure how else to put it, to me it seems like you're putting a horrific extreme of suppression as the basic definition.

    Your definition results in literally everything and everyone being suppressed at all times. It makes the statement "Rockstar is being suppressed" synonymous with "Rockstar exists." That is not useful for any discussion.

    Quid on
    Aegeri
  • ShambalaShambala Registered User regular
    edited December 2014
    That is not my definition. A store is welcome to carry or not carry what they like, that is business. Even a business forced by public opinion to reject art because of pressure is fine, that is how businesses work. However, the public attempting to exert that pressure is engaging in an act of suppression.

    You'll also notice that because censorship has been extremely narrowly defined in this thread, I am not using the word. Though it appears that we are now using similar definitions for suppression, so I may have to locate another suitable term that hasn't been put through the same process yet ;)

    Making child porn illegal and locking up people who create, sell, and enjoy it is an act of both censorship and suppression. Trying to get something suppressed if you think it's terrible is a perfectly fine thing to do. It's the only moral thing to do, if you think something is bad. The problem here is that some gamers disagree with the petitioners that GTAV is a bad thing that should be suppressed. You are both entitled to your opinion on that, and you are entitled to state you opinion to whoever wants to listen to you. But what got us into this mess was Jerry calling this "censorship", when it isn't. I can agree that it counts as "suppression" -- but I can't agree to a premise of "And therefore it's wrong because art should never be suppressed." That part's clearly not true.

    It just comes down to the petitioners saying "We think this is wrong, please get it out of here," and gamers going "Hey, there's nothing wrong with that! That's not fair!" and Target-AU choosing to listen to and agree with the petitioners. That's all. You can call it dumb because it is, but I don't see any way to make an argument that it's wrong, in the sense of "a bad thing that should not have been allowed to happen." Some folks made a case to Target that a thing was bad, Target agreed, and some gamers are upset because they don't see anything wrong with GTAV. But there's no censorship or wrongdoing here. There's just a store that chose to listen to a group that wasn't your group. Nothing to scream about there.


    Shambala on
  • fightinfilipinofightinfilipino Angry as Hell #BLMRegistered User regular
    I've only put forth that I view removing a platform for art at the behest of an outraged mob to be a facet of suppression. Not the all in all, not the worst possible kind, but a facet of. When a group of people band together and attempt to remove art from places that it can be accessed, that is suppression. Or in the context of this thread, how I see it. I know we may disagree, but I do not beleive this is a particularly outlandish or partisan view I am putting out there.

    what you define as suppression, i view as "that happens every damn day on the free market have you been paying attention for the last 200 years?"

    not to sound hyperbolic, but boycotts have been a part of democratic institutions since democratic institutions existed. they are part of the dialogue between people and groups who disagree.

    by your definition, the removal by Target of Hanukkah wrapping paper because it might have had swastikas in the design is "suppression". that's absurd. by your definition, the free marketplace of ideas is engaging in suppression on an hourly basis because consumers find particular products or works of art or even ideas repugnant.

    that's not suppression. that is people deciding that something has little to no worth. people can and should absolutely have the ability to express ideas without fear of being blocked, but not all ideas have equal worth. some ideas are, surprisingly, incredibly terrible. those expressed ideas are not magically immune from consequences or critique or market forces or boycotts.

    come back when Rockstar is actually unable to express their artistic interpretation of hitting people over the head with a blunt object, or if their speech is somehow limited to a set of "preapproved" things. that would be actual suppression, government involvement or not.

    ffNewSig.png
    steam | Dokkan: 868846562
  • TychoCelchuuuTychoCelchuuu PIGEON Registered User regular
    Shambala wrote: »
    Than I suppose I'll have to settle that your definition is far too narrow. Not sure how else to put it, to me it seems like you're putting a horrific extreme of suppression as the basic definition.

    But it seems like your definition is that if someone claims that something they've done is Art, no one is allowed to tell them, "Yuck, get that outta my store, I'm not selling that in here!" or that would be suppression of art and wrong.

    Censorship is about stopping people from creating or punishing them if they do. That requires power -- the ability to use force. It's not about telling someone "Yuck, I hate that. Take it elsewhere, buddy."

    That is not my definition. A store is welcome to carry or not carry what they like, that is business. Even a business forced by public opinion to reject art because of pressure is fine, that is how businesses work. However, the public attempting to exert that pressure is engaging in an act of suppression.

    You'll also notice that because censorship has been extremely narrowly defined in this thread, I am not using the word. Though it appears that we are now using similar definitions for suppression, so I may have to locate another suitable term that hasn't been put through the same process yet ;)
    Is suppression bad?

  • TubeTube Registered User admin
    I feel like this discussion has been essentially going in circles for several pages.

    fightinfilipinofortyceresAnzekayTychoCelchuuuPAX_SkeletorAlbino BunnyXaquinJusticeforPlutoPsykoma
  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    Shambala wrote: »
    Than I suppose I'll have to settle that your definition is far too narrow. Not sure how else to put it, to me it seems like you're putting a horrific extreme of suppression as the basic definition.

    But it seems like your definition is that if someone claims that something they've done is Art, no one is allowed to tell them, "Yuck, get that outta my store, I'm not selling that in here!" or that would be suppression of art and wrong.

    Censorship is about stopping people from creating or punishing them if they do. That requires power -- the ability to use force. It's not about telling someone "Yuck, I hate that. Take it elsewhere, buddy."

    That is not my definition. A store is welcome to carry or not carry what they like, that is business. Even a business forced by public opinion to reject art because of pressure is fine, that is how businesses work. However, the public attempting to exert that pressure is engaging in an act of suppression.

    You'll also notice that because censorship has been extremely narrowly defined in this thread, I am not using the word. Though it appears that we are now using similar definitions for suppression, so I may have to locate another suitable term that hasn't been put through the same process yet ;)
    It's not that censorship is extremely narrowly defined, so much as the saying the term "censorship" brings all sorts of silly geese out of the woodwork to "defend their rights" and "fuck SJWs!" and all that. The term that is en vogue right now is "dog-whistle". Because the term means different things to different people based on their political/personal/cultural views, it acts as a catalyst for conflict. This isn't "political correctness" (maybe an indirect form of it), but it's just something that happens, especially in politics and online communities.

    To recognize that even common terms can have different definitions for different people is pluralism, the ability to think about different points of view at once. It's a concept to keep in mind and be cautious about... what you think you are saying may actually have entirely different meanings based on the audience.

    I mean, you went from "This is definitely suppression, pure and simple!" to "I view removing a platform for art at the behest of an outraged mob to be a facet of suppression. Not the all in all, not the worst possible kind, but a facet of." Something that probably more people may agree with. Also, it is disingenuous for you to compare the opinions of other people for what their definition of suppression is to "jack-booted thugs is the only thing that makes it suppression". Everyone has their own subjective bar as to what is acceptable, and making an opposing viewpoint seem like the extreme one is a political argument.

    Of course, Rockstar is probably loving this... they understand the "Streisand effect", and have always courted controversy with their Grand Theft Auto games because of it. I don't think you'll hear very many complaints from them.

    Di87pOF.jpg
    PSN: Hahnsoo | MH Rise: Hahnsoo, Switch FC: SW-0085-2679-5212
  • Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    Tube wrote: »
    I feel like this discussion has been essentially going in circles for several pages.

    Correct.

    I don't really know if there's any way to move forward here, it's basically been several pages of me and several others explaining over and over again our position, with those positions being twisted and questioned no matter how many times we definitively state our positions.

    No I don't.
    Cambiata
  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    Tube wrote: »
    I feel like this discussion has been essentially going in circles for several pages.

    Correct.

    I don't really know if there's any way to move forward here, it's basically been several pages of me and several others explaining over and over again our position, with those positions being twisted and questioned no matter how many times we definitively state our positions.
    Pfft. I go to the internet to be told that I'm right and to tell other people that they are wrong! I don't know about you. :D (totally joking, of course)

    Di87pOF.jpg
    PSN: Hahnsoo | MH Rise: Hahnsoo, Switch FC: SW-0085-2679-5212
  • TubeTube Registered User admin
    Tube wrote: »
    I feel like this discussion has been essentially going in circles for several pages.

    Correct.

    I don't really know if there's any way to move forward here, it's basically been several pages of me and several others explaining over and over again our position, with those positions being twisted and questioned no matter how many times we definitively state our positions.

    I don't really want to say "ok that's enough of this" or lock the thread, but I think it's pretty clear that all parties are at an impasse and have had ample time to state their positions.

    AegeriDeath of Ratsforty
  • fortyforty Registered User regular
    All I know is that I wish I didn't have to work so much so that I had more free time to play the latest hit video games, such as Grand Theft Auto V, by Rockstar Games!

    The best card in Hearthstone is your credit card.
  • -Tal-Tal Registered User regular
    I, an independent video gamer, too also wish that I could play more of the hot new video game Grand Theft Auto V, recently remastered for the PlayStation®4 Computer Entertainment System and the Xbox One™

    PNk1Ml4.png
    CambiataMrMiscreant
  • Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    Tube wrote: »
    Tube wrote: »
    I feel like this discussion has been essentially going in circles for several pages.

    Correct.

    I don't really know if there's any way to move forward here, it's basically been several pages of me and several others explaining over and over again our position, with those positions being twisted and questioned no matter how many times we definitively state our positions.

    I don't really want to say "ok that's enough of this" or lock the thread, but I think it's pretty clear that all parties are at an impasse and have had ample time to state their positions.

    At this point unless some new people enter it's just about forked.

    No I don't.
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    edited December 2014
    Well, people can't even agree on the definition of terms. Aka we can't agree on what words mean. Is the thing with these kind of high emotion subjects, we might as well be talking on a different language, as Tycho has said on the past. Which makes this argument go in circles.

    TryCatcher on
  • Crimson KingCrimson King Registered User regular
    everyone agrees that censorship is bad but nobody can agree precisely what it is

    like "obscenity" in a bygone era, this makes it easy to apply to anything you happen not to like

    hence, conversations like this one

  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    That's a good example of projection if I've seen one.

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Well, people can't even agree on the definition of terms. Aka we can't agree on what words mean. Is the thing with these kind of high emotion subjects, we might as well be talking on a different language, as Tycho has said on the past. Which makes this argument go in circles.

    This prolly wouldn't happen if people thought about their definitions for more than a few seconds.

  • streeverstreever Registered User regular
    edited December 2014
    SquidGet08 & Frankiedarling:
    I actually explained the definition of censorship! Page 1, I think, but here we go again:

    Censorship
    the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts.

    Who, when Target doesn't sell GTA V, is 'officially' 'suppressing' the game?

    Official: relating to an authority or public body and its duties, actions, and responsibilities.
    Suppression: the action of suppressing something such as an activity or publication.
    Suppress: to withhold from disclosure or publication (truth, evidence, a book, names, etc.).

    A: Target AU is not an 'official' in any meaningful sense; it does not describe or create codes of conduct, nor does it enforce or determine morality. It holds no authority as a public body.
    B: Suppression is key. Not being able to buy an item at Target AU does not (necessarily) mean it is suppressed; if I can legally and easily buy said item at no additional cost via the internet, for instance, it is not 'suppressed'. Suppression is to withhold from disclosure or publication. GTA V is disclosed, published, and readily available.

    Dragon Age: Inquisition banned in India? Yes, that's suppression. You literally can't buy it--legally--in anyway, and the reasoning is because the government objects to the sexuality in the game.

    My local library refusing to loan Catcher in the Rye? YES. That is censorship. Why?

    Libraries are official; they are state-funded, and serve as an arm of the government. This is what makes them 'official'. Libraries have an obligation to loan books--for free--to members of the State. If they refuse, and I have no money, I am actually unable to get this book.

    For profit enterprise is *not* an official; it does not hold authority or sway over private citizens. Is it censorship that Target AU doesn't sell the complete works of Graham Greene? Is it censorship that I can't buy Tropic of Cancer at Kidz Book Stores? Is it censorship that I can't buy Erica Jong's Fear of Flying at the gas station?

    No.

    I'm well aware that the definition of 'censorship' does not say 'state'. It does, however, say 'official' and 'suppression', and neither is relevant or invoked in this issue.

    streever on
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    edited December 2014
    You came up with the "official" bit to use it as a synonym for "goverment" just to justify the "only goverment can do censorship" line. Which, besides being a lie, is a poor way to discuss things.

    TryCatcher on
  • Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    You came up with the "official" bit to use it as a synonym for "goverment" just to justify the "only goverment can do censorship" line. Which, besides being a lie, is a poor way to discuss things.

    He came up with part of the definition?

    Argue how this is officially suppressing GTA V. Make that point and you win that GTA V is being censored.

    But at this point I don't see how it's even suppressing GTA V

    No I don't.
    streever
  • -Tal-Tal Registered User regular
    everyone agrees that censorship is bad

    actually I disagreed with this....

    PNk1Ml4.png
    Death of Rats
  • Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    -Tal wrote: »
    everyone agrees that censorship is bad

    actually I disagreed with this....

    Actually, I agree with you on this. But only in the most extreme cases, such as child pornography and other things I can't actually think of.

    Maybe Bad Rats?

    Terminator Salvation?

    Larry the cable guy?

    No I don't.
  • AegeriAegeri Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    edited December 2014
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    You came up with the "official" bit to use it as a synonym for "goverment" just to justify the "only goverment can do censorship" line. Which, besides being a lie, is a poor way to discuss things.

    So you believe the Government should therefore censor free expression by requiring retailers to stock anything at a creators request? Should every retailer in the world be forced to keep Bad Rats in stock or be accused of censorship?

    I've brought this up before, but I honestly don't think you lot understand what you're trying to actually argue about whatsoever.

    Aegeri on
    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • ShambalaShambala Registered User regular
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    You came up with the "official" bit to use it as a synonym for "goverment" just to justify the "only goverment can do censorship" line. Which, besides being a lie, is a poor way to discuss things.

    If by "came up with" you mean "looked it up in the DICTIONARY" then yeah, I guess he "came up with" the "official" part. As I said last page, the issue is one of having power. The petitioners have no power over Target-AU (or anyone else for that matter.) All they can do is ask. Then Target-AU can decide. That's IT. That's all there is. No one in this situation has any power to force anything on anyone.

    streever
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    Is an attempt to do so, which is specially important given the context that Australia and the gaming industry handle. The lack of success of that attempt doesn't change the fact that is an attempt of suppression. Also, that petition is built on a false premise, given than if GTA V actually promoted "violence against women" (unlike, let's say, 50 Shades of Gray because reasons), Australia's rating board would have said something about it. They just gave it a +18 rating and went on their way.

    Anyways, here's Rockstar's publisher:

    http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-12-09-take-two-if-you-dont-like-gta-dont-buy-it

  • streeverstreever Registered User regular
    "the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts."

    That's not 'an attempt'; that's why the power aspect is important. THAT is the definition; you are wiggling it into something broad, unclear, and less well-defined. Why? The dictionary and academia define censorship quite well. Why do we need your looser, broader, less clear definition? Oh, that's right; we use that definition so you can criticize Target AU on this without any substance behind your argument :-(.

    Did you know the etymology of the word 'censorship'? It is derived from the Roman word "censor", which was a government official who suppressed works that seemed 'amoral' or against the State morality.

  • Raiden333Raiden333 Registered User regular
    So it looks like the next step has occurred.

    "We petition society to pressure the federal government to ban the sale and use of this game in Canada."

    Can we agree this is bad? That this one actually IS a call for censorship?

    There was a steam sig here. It's gone now.
    forty
  • Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    Raiden333 wrote: »
    So it looks like the next step has occurred.

    "We petition society to pressure the federal government to ban the sale and use of this game in Canada."

    Can we agree this is bad? That this one actually IS a call for censorship?

    Yes. And it's bullshit.

    No I don't.
    QuidfortyAlbino BunnyCambiataCommander ZoomAegeriCrimson King
  • Senna1Senna1 Registered User regular
    streever wrote: »
    That's not 'an attempt'; that's why the power aspect is important. THAT is the definition; you are wiggling it into something broad, unclear, and less well-defined. Why? The dictionary and academia define censorship quite well. Why do we need your looser, broader, less clear definition? Oh, that's right; we use that definition so you can criticize Target AU on this without any substance behind your argument :-(.

    Target AU's actions don't have to be the result of "official government" censorship to bear substantive, valid, criticism.
    The fact is that a minority, claiming moral superiority (and, by extension, authority), successfully campaigned to have a product removed from store shelves using specious claims. The group precipitating this action has not declared GTA to be morally objectionable as a whole - they claim it is an attack on women specifically, and that this fact makes it unacceptable for consumption. A claim that is patently ridiculous when you examine the entirety of the game, which gleefully attacks essentially every aspect of our culture. It's not as if this is a moralizing game that slips subliminal sexism in at every opportunity; the whole thing is a showcase of our worst aspects from front to back.

    Petitioning/boycotting ARE acts of free speech, and should certainly not be restricted. But the flip side of that is that if your petition/cause engages in intellectually dishonest arguments in pursuit of its goals, expect to be called out on it. Especially if it works. And this petition raises all kinds of false banners, from its main trunk of sexism discussed above, to concerned grandmothers who don't want their precious grandchildren playing it (uh, how about you talk to your kids then, you know, THE PARENTS of said snowflakes, about what game ratings mean, and they fact that they already can't play/buy it without adult approval).

    It's the same old tired puritanical morlizing BS that has been targeting videogames since the start, and they won't stop. They've been going after youth-focused media for decades. Videogames are the ripe target now, but let's not pretend these aren't the same groups that hated metal, role-playing, hip-hop, rock music, comics, etc... Any media that has engaged in boundary-pushing in the last century. Sure, this time they've found some useful 'youth-y' mouthpieces to spearhead their cause, but that's propaganda 101, and anyone who genuinely believes this is some enlightened pro-women feminist movement is being duped.

    TryCatcherFrankiedarling
  • streeverstreever Registered User regular
    edited December 2014
    Senna1:
    Sure, you can criticize Target AU! It's just not censorship, so using that term is lazy and makes for a poor critique.

    Feel free to make your compelling argument for why people can't be upset or offended about a mission that requires sexually abusing sex workers, or, feel free to make a compelling argument for why that isn't offensive or shouldn't be sufficient cause for someone to feel offended.

    I'm just saying, "censorship is bad are you pro censor!" is a ridiculous 'argument' I'm seeing all over this thread.

    Raiden333:
    ahh slippery slope! Is that really the next step? is a small petition in Australia to Target AU *really* the logical first step before Canada bans the entire game? I think it's fair to say that there isn't any evidence of that; I am against Canada banning the game, and think that would be wrong. I'm entirely pro the people making the petition, however, I am opposed to the requested outcome and would not sign the petition.

    streever on
  • Raiden333Raiden333 Registered User regular
    streever wrote: »
    Raiden333:
    ahh slippery slope! Is that really the next step? is a small petition in Australia to Target AU *really* the logical first step before Canada bans the entire game? I think it's fair to say that there isn't any evidence of that; I am against Canada banning the game, and think that would be wrong. I'm entirely pro the people making the petition, however, I am opposed to the requested outcome and would not sign the petition.

    Do you honestly believe that the Canda petition exists in a vacuum, and was not influenced by, if not directly inspired by, the success of the Target Australia one?

    I stayed out of this thread because while I believed Target is 100% free to not sell the game, I feared it would provide fuel for attempts at actual censorship, and figured my claims would be (rightfully) called out as a slippery slope argument.

    Now it's happening, so here I am. I don't think the petition is going to work, but it's still gross to see.

    There was a steam sig here. It's gone now.
    TryCatcherfortyFrankiedarling
  • Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    edited December 2014
    Raiden333 wrote: »
    streever wrote: »
    Raiden333:
    ahh slippery slope! Is that really the next step? is a small petition in Australia to Target AU *really* the logical first step before Canada bans the entire game? I think it's fair to say that there isn't any evidence of that; I am against Canada banning the game, and think that would be wrong. I'm entirely pro the people making the petition, however, I am opposed to the requested outcome and would not sign the petition.

    Do you honestly believe that the Canda petition exists in a vacuum, and was not influenced by, if not directly inspired by, the success of the Target Australia one?

    I stayed out of this thread because while I believed Target is 100% free to not sell the game, I feared it would provide fuel for attempts at actual censorship, and figured my claims would be (rightfully) called out as a slippery slope argument.

    Now it's happening, so here I am. I don't think the petition is going to work, but it's still gross to see.

    I think they may be related to one another, but at the moment this has less than 200 supporters. If this doesn't take off, maybe that's a sign that people who support putting pressure on a retailer to pull a product see government intervention as a vastly different thing.

    Or at least enough to go from 40k to sub 10k?

    Death of Rats on
    No I don't.
    QuidCambiata
  • streeverstreever Registered User regular
    Raiden333 wrote: »
    streever wrote: »
    Raiden333:
    ahh slippery slope! Is that really the next step? is a small petition in Australia to Target AU *really* the logical first step before Canada bans the entire game? I think it's fair to say that there isn't any evidence of that; I am against Canada banning the game, and think that would be wrong. I'm entirely pro the people making the petition, however, I am opposed to the requested outcome and would not sign the petition.

    Do you honestly believe that the Canda petition exists in a vacuum, and was not influenced by, if not directly inspired by, the success of the Target Australia one?

    I stayed out of this thread because while I believed Target is 100% free to not sell the game, I feared it would provide fuel for attempts at actual censorship, and figured my claims would be (rightfully) called out as a slippery slope argument.

    Now it's happening, so here I am. I don't think the petition is going to work, but it's still gross to see.

    No, I didn't say it existed in a vacuum, and I don't doubt that it was influenced by the target au petition. I just find it a bit hard to fathom that a petition that took a year old game off a few shelves is actually going to have any real impact on a nation; do you know how many serious petitions exist that change nothing, even with legislative support?

    Meanwhile, India actually did ban Dragon Age: Inquisition. I'm saving my righteous indignation for things that happened and for people who don't understand the definition of censorship.

    CambiataQuidAegeri
  • beeftruckbeeftruck Registered User regular
    Been browsing the main gaming subreddits. Delighted to see that the general gaming public still isn't buying this "but it's only a little censorship, that doesn't count" routine one bit and is invoking Jack Thompson.

    But don't worry, I'm sure a few more shitty "everything is problematic" articles from the hacks at Polygon will turn this right around.

  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited December 2014
    Some of y'all are acting like you don't know what astroturfing is. Like, some of these more ridiculous petitions showing up on places like change.org couldn't possibly be the work of agitators trying to malign those who petitioned Target and make them look like insane crusaders out to censor everything with actual jackboots and law enforcement.

    No, no, they have to be serious. They couldn't possibly be exactly like 4chan's attempts to make feminism look bad with the "Bleed Free" movement or anything.

    Pony on
    streeverQuidAegeri
  • streeverstreever Registered User regular
    edited December 2014
    Pony--or like the MANY people who signed the Target petition to say they were opposed to the petition itself?

    Beeftruck: No, it isn't 'a little censorship'. It's actually *not* censorship, per the dictionary definition. Please, catch up with the last few pages of the thread.

    streever on
    AegeriQuidCambiata
  • -Tal-Tal Registered User regular
    arguing over the definition of censorship doesn't seem useful when all that word really means for the rhetorical purposes of this argument is "this is bad"

    at that point you may as well argue directly about is what is actually happening bad or not bad, whether or not it is censorship

    PNk1Ml4.png
    streever
Sign In or Register to comment.