The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
The current plan is to attempt to start the Holiday Forums on December 23rd sometime during the day. During this time, the Future State Planning Center will remain open. The Holiday Forum merge will last (if Vanilla cooperates) until January 3rd.
[PA Comic] Friday, December 5, 2014 - Tradition
Posts
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
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.
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.
like "obscenity" in a bygone era, this makes it easy to apply to anything you happen not to like
hence, conversations like this one
This prolly wouldn't happen if people thought about their definitions for more than a few seconds.
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.
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
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?
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.
Anyways, here's Rockstar's publisher:
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-12-09-take-two-if-you-dont-like-gta-dont-buy-it
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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