Ironically, all the "shocked, shocked I tell you" language is coming from the people who think that every store should carry every game that they like, and that it's somehow deeply morally wrong for a store to not stock something.
Those who appoint themselves as morality police and guardians of culture, and see fit to exert pressure against the sale of art they find objectionable, are enemies of freedom of expression. In this case they may be small, trifling, inconsequential enemies when measured against the grand scheme of things, but their relative lack of ability to censor doesn't make their attitude any more welcome.
Again I'm baffled that anyone who is the least bit familiar with gaming culture could be so insulated or naive as to imagine that this approach would earn them anything other than a torrent of metaphorical hurled tomatoes and booing in response, or that "Don't worry, we're trying to use corporate power rather than governmental!" would somehow earn them a pass.
Man, these "Because culture" arguments really drive me nuts.
When I was growing up, the "because culture" argument for censoring things was that stuff would make you gay. Things needed to be censored lest young people be turned gay. Before that it was rap music turned people into cop killers because culture (oh how backwards that's turned out to be!). Before that, before that, before that, I could go on forever back into times I've only read about.
We all know now that's absolutely pants on head retarded.
I can't believe the "Video games make young people into killers" meme has been resurrected as "Video games make young people into women killers because culture." At least in the 90's there were a high profile few school shootings and copy cats people could latch onto for evidence, as dubious a proof as they may have been for their convictions. There is nothing of the sort to hang these new convictions off of. It's invented entirely out of thin air.
But I'm told it's subtle. So subtle you almost have to take it on faith. I think they call it "listen and believe" now?
I can't believe so many people listen and believe in the "listen and believe" dogma.
Ironically, all the "shocked, shocked I tell you" language is coming from the people who think that every store should carry every game that they like, and that it's somehow deeply morally wrong for a store to not stock something.
Those who appoint themselves as morality police and guardians of culture, and see fit to exert pressure against the sale of art they find objectionable, are enemies of freedom of expression. In this case they may be small, trifling, inconsequential enemies when measured against the grand scheme of things, but their relative lack of ability to censor doesn't make their attitude any more welcome.
Again I'm baffled that anyone who is the least bit familiar with gaming culture could be so insulated or naive as to imagine that this approach would earn them anything other than a torrent of metaphorical hurled tomatoes and booing in response, or that "Don't worry, we're trying to use corporate power rather than governmental!" would somehow earn them a pass.
You see this this way, as being morality police, but I see it as trying to make my space, games, a more accepting and welcoming place for those who have been turned off by negative elements of the industry/culture/games.
I don't want to censor games, I want them to live up to their full potential as a medium. And while I don't mind and actually enjoy most games no matter the content, loudly talking about what content bothers me tells developers what they might try and improve on. GTA V is a good deal better about this shit than it's predicessors precisely because people like me have been vocal.
Death of Rats on
No I don't.
0
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
OK so guys you realize by doing the "listen and believe" rhetoric, you're outing yourselves as a group that put consumer pressure on a journalist to try to get them fired for saying mean words, right?
So by your definition (not mine, remember), you are avid, enthusiastic censors.
By my definition you're just using your consumer rights. Just like the people who pressured Target were using their consumer rights. Using them in a way I think is dumb, but it's still not censorship.
Either neither example is censorship or they both are. Make up your minds.
OK so guys you realize by doing the "listen and believe" rhetoric, you're outing yourselves as a group that put consumer pressure on a journalist to try to get them fired for saying mean words, right?
So by your definition (not mine, remember), you are avid, enthusiastic censors.
By my definition you're just using your consumer rights. Just like the people who pressured Target were using their consumer rights. Using them in a way I think is dumb, but it's still not censorship.
Either neither example is censorship or they both are. Make up your minds.
One can scoff at concepts like "listen and believe" without being part of specific groups who also scoff at it. The concept alone is worthy of mockery and derision on its own.
Man, these "Because culture" arguments really drive me nuts.
When I was growing up, the "because culture" argument for censoring things was that stuff would make you gay. Things needed to be censored lest young people be turned gay. Before that it was rap music turned people into cop killers because culture (oh how backwards that's turned out to be!). Before that, before that, before that, I could go on forever back into times I've only read about.
We all know now that's absolutely pants on head retarded.
I can't believe the "Video games make young people into killers" meme has been resurrected as "Video games make young people into women killers because culture." At least in the 90's there were a high profile few school shootings and copy cats people could latch onto for evidence, as dubious a proof as they may have been for their convictions. There is nothing of the sort to hang these new convictions off of. It's invented entirely out of thin air.
But I'm told it's subtle. So subtle you almost have to take it on faith. I think they call it "listen and believe" now?
I can't believe so many people listen and believe in the "listen and believe" dogma.
Yes, it's absolutely shocking people believe in the idea that you should listen when someone else tells you their troubles and instead of doubting it believe them. I can't believe anyone would be so decent
OK so guys you realize by doing the "listen and believe" rhetoric, you're outing yourselves as a group that put consumer pressure on a journalist to try to get them fired for saying mean words, right?
So by your definition (not mine, remember), you are avid, enthusiastic censors.
By my definition you're just using your consumer rights. Just like the people who pressured Target were using their consumer rights. Using them in a way I think is dumb, but it's still not censorship.
Either neither example is censorship or they both are. Make up your minds.
One can scoff at concepts like "listen and believe" without being part of specific groups who also scoff at it. The concept alone is worthy of mockery and derision on its own.
The concept that different people from different backgrounds are being honest when they experience different things from others is worth mocking?
Ironically, all the "shocked, shocked I tell you" language is coming from the people who think that every store should carry every game that they like, and that it's somehow deeply morally wrong for a store to not stock something.
Those who appoint themselves as morality police and guardians of culture, and see fit to exert pressure against the sale of art they find objectionable, are enemies of freedom of expression. In this case they may be small, trifling, inconsequential enemies when measured against the grand scheme of things, but their relative lack of ability to censor doesn't make their attitude any more welcome.
Again I'm baffled that anyone who is the least bit familiar with gaming culture could be so insulated or naive as to imagine that this approach would earn them anything other than a torrent of metaphorical hurled tomatoes and booing in response, or that "Don't worry, we're trying to use corporate power rather than governmental!" would somehow earn them a pass.
You see this this way, as being morality police, but I see it as trying to make my space, games, a more accepting and welcoming place for those who have been turned off by negative elements of the industry/culture/games.
I don't want to censor games, I want them to live up to their full potential as a medium. And while I don't mind and actually enjoy most games no matter the content, loudly talking about what content bothers me tells developers what they might try and improve on. GTA V is a good deal better about this shit than it's predicessors precisely because people like me have been vocal.
I thin you're being unfair to yourself by conflating yourself with the type of people that petitioned to have GTA V removed from stores. The end game for those people is not "GTA 6 has thematic improvements due to feminist criticism", it is "GTA 6 does not get made". The point here isn't to get GTA V only removed from target and K Mart, the point is to get it removed from as many places as possible so that products they disapprove of are not commercially viable. Whether that goal fits the technical definition of censorship is a pretty academic distinction.
Ironically, all the "shocked, shocked I tell you" language is coming from the people who think that every store should carry every game that they like, and that it's somehow deeply morally wrong for a store to not stock something.
Those who appoint themselves as morality police and guardians of culture, and see fit to exert pressure against the sale of art they find objectionable, are enemies of freedom of expression. In this case they may be small, trifling, inconsequential enemies when measured against the grand scheme of things, but their relative lack of ability to censor doesn't make their attitude any more welcome.
Again I'm baffled that anyone who is the least bit familiar with gaming culture could be so insulated or naive as to imagine that this approach would earn them anything other than a torrent of metaphorical hurled tomatoes and booing in response, or that "Don't worry, we're trying to use corporate power rather than governmental!" would somehow earn them a pass.
You see this this way, as being morality police, but I see it as trying to make my space, games, a more accepting and welcoming place for those who have been turned off by negative elements of the industry/culture/games.
I don't want to censor games, I want them to live up to their full potential as a medium. And while I don't mind and actually enjoy most games no matter the content, loudly talking about what content bothers me tells developers what they might try and improve on. GTA V is a good deal better about this shit than it's predicessors precisely because people like me have been vocal.
I thin you're being unfair to yourself by conflating yourself with the type of people that petitioned to have GTA V removed from stores. The end game for those people is not "GTA 6 has thematic improvements due to feminist criticism", it is "GTA 6 does not get made". The point here isn't to get GTA V only removed from target and K Mart, the point is to get it removed from as many places as possible so that products they disapprove of are not commercially viable. Whether that goal fits the technical definition of censorship is a pretty academic distinction.
True. I'm having a really hard time separating this from the negativity being handed out in the gaming space recently. Think maybe I should take a break from the thread.
OK so guys you realize by doing the "listen and believe" rhetoric, you're outing yourselves as a group that put consumer pressure on a journalist to try to get them fired for saying mean words, right?
So by your definition (not mine, remember), you are avid, enthusiastic censors.
By my definition you're just using your consumer rights. Just like the people who pressured Target were using their consumer rights. Using them in a way I think is dumb, but it's still not censorship.
Either neither example is censorship or they both are. Make up your minds.
One can scoff at concepts like "listen and believe" without being part of specific groups who also scoff at it. The concept alone is worthy of mockery and derision on its own.
The concept that different people from different backgrounds are being honest when they experience different things from others is worth mocking?
The concept that I'm to believe anything a speaker says to me, accept it as gospel, and not ask for proof, evidence, or clarification of these concepts is most definitely worth mocking.
I would prefer not to associate myself with any organization that borrows from the 1984 playbook.
Man, these "Because culture" arguments really drive me nuts.
When I was growing up, the "because culture" argument for censoring things was that stuff would make you gay. Things needed to be censored lest young people be turned gay. Before that it was rap music turned people into cop killers because culture (oh how backwards that's turned out to be!). Before that, before that, before that, I could go on forever back into times I've only read about.
We all know now that's absolutely pants on head retarded.
I can't believe the "Video games make young people into killers" meme has been resurrected as "Video games make young people into women killers because culture." At least in the 90's there were a high profile few school shootings and copy cats people could latch onto for evidence, as dubious a proof as they may have been for their convictions. There is nothing of the sort to hang these new convictions off of. It's invented entirely out of thin air.
But I'm told it's subtle. So subtle you almost have to take it on faith. I think they call it "listen and believe" now?
Back when people were saying "it turns you gay," this was a bad argument for one other reason: being gay isn't a bad thing. So we have two disagreements between the two parties here: first, we think culture can't turn you gay, or we think it can. Second, we think being gay is a problem, or we think it isn't.
Personally I don't think pop culture can turn you gay (although it's pretty obvious that culture generally can turn you "gay" or at least make you want to have sex with people of the same gender - look at Ancient Greece) but I don't really care one way or another. It seems to me that this is irrelevant because even if GTA V turned people into flaming homos, who cares? It would still be fine to sell it to people. The people who would want GTA V banned from Target would be people who are heterosexist.
In this case, though, I don't think we have both disagreements. We still have one disagreement ("does GTA V contribute to violence against women, especially marginalized women like sex workers?") but we don't have the other disagreement ("is violence against women, especially marginalized women like sex workers, a bad thing?"). Everyone agrees violence against women is a bad thing.
So equating those who want GTA V not to be sold at Target because they think it leads to violence against women with people who want something banned from Target because they think it turns you gay is a bad comparison in at least one key way. It's bad because being gay is not bad and arguing that stuff that turns you gay is bad is heterosexist.
The English language is pretty robust, it has a history of surviving the evolving definitions of words.
Censorship is a word which gets knee-jerk negative reactions. The disappointing thing is that Jerry is trying to redefine censorship so he can use those knee-jerk negative reactions to support his argument. It's manipulative.
I think that most of the people upset about the news post would have been perfectly fine with it if Jerry hadn't tried to paint target as censors.
You see this this way, as being morality police, but I see it as trying to make my space, games, a more accepting and welcoming place for those who have been turned off by negative elements of the industry/culture/games.
If your tactics for accomplishing this include exerting pressure against the sale and distribution of art you find objectionable then you are still the enemy of free expression. Every other wave of would-be moral guardians thought they had important reasons too.
While I don't think in this case it's anything to get worked up over, blocking sales is just in general a very poor way to initiate change. It's better to talk to devs to change their games and convince people to not buy objectionable games instead of trying to get some third party distributor to block access to them (which, as Tycho said, is increasingly futile in this digital age).
1. petitioners stand triumphantly in target as gtav is wheeled out "aha! now nobody will be exposed to this violent sexist video game!"
2. across the street, they see people going to buy gtav at the wal-mart
3. petitioners: "I did nazi that coming!"
the bill is in the mail, mike and jerry
-Tal on
+3
Andy JoeWe claim the land for the highlord!The AdirondacksRegistered Userregular
I'm saying, you decried their tactics when they used those tactics because of their agenda, but now when some other group's agenda aligns with something you support, suddenly those tactics are okay?
I'm pretty sure they were decrying the agenda, not the tactics. It would be really, really strange for social progressives oppose boycotts in principle, after all.
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, Moderatormod
I think that I am having trouble mustering any vitriol for this subject at all, or the ability to see the last 7 pages of this thread as anything other than self-important poppycock from people looking for an excuse to argue, because I have never in my life considered (or even KNOWN anyone who's considered) buying a game at Target. Hell, I don't even know anyone who's walked into a store, or farther than their front porch, to acquire a game they want to play in a number of years greater than one.
Stores have literal shelves for games? You don't say.
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
I think that I am having trouble mustering any vitriol for this subject at all, or the ability to see the last 7 pages of this thread as anything other than self-important poppycock from people looking for an excuse to argue, because I have never in my life considered (or even KNOWN anyone who's considered) buying a game at Target. Hell, I don't even know anyone who's walked into a store, or farther than their front porch, to acquire a game they want to play in a number of years greater than one.
Stores have literal shelves for games? You don't say.
Nazis are very old. They don't have any truck with these digital whatchamahoozits.
0
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, Moderatormod
1. petitioners stand triumphantly in target as gtav is wheeled out "aha! now nobody will be exposed to this violent sexist video game!"
2. across the street, they see people going to buy gtav at the wal-mart
3. petitioners: "I did nazi that coming!"
the bill is in the mail, mike and jerry
The only problem is that we don't have wal-mart here.
0
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, Moderatormod
Actually my grandfather was an engineer and loved new technology. He was one of the first people in the country to have a home computer, and he wrote little programs for it. If he were still around and playing chess on his computer he would probably trying out new AIs via steam or something.
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, Moderatormod
BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD etc etc
We are also required to tithe annually and redeem our firstborn lambs.
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
0
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
This place is lousy with blood mages I see. Call in the Templars and burn it down.
Let's make the joke better. Instead of burning the boxes of unsold copies of GTA, maybe the Target employees can build a little house out of them in the back room.
The Target ban of GTA 5 takes us back to early 2000 with the likes of Jack Thompson. His issue was that he claimed that violence in video games rubbed off on to the people that played it. To that end, he attempted to censor the games. Of course, we all know that violence in video games does not make someone more violent. There's been countless studies on that topic. This is the same thing in that baseless accusations are being made against a game, with no data to back it up. Just feels.
Has anyone actually read the reasoning behind the pull? A group petitioned Target to remove the game because GTA5 depicts violence against women. The group is lying by omission. GTA5 depicts violence against everyone. It's also a game that is intended for 18+ audience and is only sold to an 18+ audience in Aus. Seriously. It is illegal in Aus to sell an 18+ game to a minor. So what this group is telling Target is that GTA 5, BAD, and adults shouldn't make their own choice on how to purchase media. But, Game of Thrones, GOOD. 50 Shades of Gray, GOOD. Notice the double standard?
Also, if GTA5 DID depict violence against women, it would not have even been allowed on the shelves to begin with because their consumer board doesn't allow that in games period.
This boils down to an attempt at censorship because people got their feels hurt. Sorry. Don't play the game if you don't like it. Let adults make their own choices about what they should and should not purchase. I don't need your shitty moral compass to tell me how to live my life.
And companies don't have to stock games they don't want to. And consumers have a right and duty to tell companies what they want. We're not.missing the point at all. We just don't exactly agree with the normal overly defensive, persecuted gamer outlook on this shit. The sky isn't falling, and no one is making it so GTA V is unavailable to people who want it.
So baseless accusations and people following through on those accusations as if they are true is ok? Is that where we are in society? Where we celebrate uneducated opinions and policies?
Well, for starters the accusations aren't baseless unless you want to tell me that shooting prostitutes in GTA isn't a thing. Whether or not that is a bad thing is where people are split on.
And I don't think anyone in here has really celebrated the game being removed from Target, unless not panicking over it counts as celebration.
The incentive is to commit sexual violence against women, then abuse or kill them to proceed or get 'health' points – and now Target are stocking it and promoting it for your Xmas stocking.
Can anyone point me to screenshots of where players "commit sexual violence" against women as distinct from the plain old killing any character gets if the player chooses to attack them? How about the part where you get health points for it, or need to do so in order to proceed? Oh yeah, none of this is actually in the game and it's all the exact same misrepresentative tripe we've been hearing from moralizing demagogues on this exact subject for eons now.
The incentive is to commit sexual violence against women, then abuse or kill them to proceed or get 'health' points – and now Target are stocking it and promoting it for your Xmas stocking.
Can anyone point me to screenshots of where players "commit sexual violence" against women as distinct from the plain old killing any character gets if the player chooses to attack them? How about the part where you get health points for it, or need to do so in order to proceed? Oh yeah, none of this is actually in the game and it's all the exact same misrepresentative tripe we've been hearing from moralizing demagogues on this exact subject for eons now.
The violence not descriminating based on gender doesn't make it so it doesn't exist. So yes, that part of their complaint is true.
The health points is the standard GTA get health for going to a prostitute. So that part is true.
The incentive for going to a prostitute is health points. So there's that part.
And the incentive for killing the prostitute is to get your money that you paid them for the health points back. So that part is also true.
There are points in the game where you own a strip club. There's a mechanic in in the strip club where you touch the stripper while trying to not get caught by the bouncer. This is abusing a sex worker. If you do it correctly, the stripper likes you more. If they like you enough, they start seeing you outside of the strip club.
This is incentivising abusing a sex worker in order to proceed in your interactions with that character.
What they are saying is true, it is in the game. Apparently you're just ignorant of the content of a game you're willing to defend. Maybe don't call people liars if you actually don't know if they are?
Death of Rats on
No I don't.
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
I bought a game from Target, because it's the only place that sells new games at about $64 or so completely new. Call of Spacey was perfect for Christmas due to that price.
That was pre-dumb decision from them, which could have meant something when GTAV was just out, but now is a meaningless PR gesture. I probably won't buy games from Target in future because I dislike their approach - not that I have any intent of ever buying GTA V due to its treatment of women ( prostitutes and transgender prostitutes in particular).
I'm saying, you decried their tactics when they used those tactics because of their agenda, but now when some other group's agenda aligns with something you support, suddenly those tactics are okay?
I'm pretty sure they were decrying the agenda, not the tactics. It would be really, really strange for social progressives oppose boycotts in principle, after all.
That's my point, though.
Consumer pressure, boycotts, letter writing campaigns, and various other kinds of community activism are something all sorts of people of all sorts of political agendas engage in.
My point was that I have literally seen people on this forum, including some in this thread, including some who have denied that they did it, very recently within the past few months talk all sorts of shit about a very specific group of people they disagreed with using these sorts of tactics to get their way.
And while they might be revising (or they might see it as clarifying, if they feel they were misunderstood) nowadays that, well, it's not their methods they found objectionable, merely their agenda, that was not what they were saying at the time and it never is.
There's this dissonant hypocrisy among some folks when they get really fired up against a perceived foe where all of the things that foe does are objectionable because of the intent behind it, not the actions they are taking, but nonetheless the actions taken are harped at as one and the same because it all becomes cross-linked with the people you're opposed to.
And this isn't limited to any specific political stripe, either, this behavior. Right now, on the internet, there's people from that other group who months ago were exerting consumer pressure to get their way politically that are crying bloody foul over Target's decision regarding GTAV. These people do not at all recognize how the pressure exerted on Target that led them to the decision is an identical tactic to the ones that same group used to get their own political way.
Or more accurately, if they do, they don't care, because when they were doing it, they were in the right (in their opinion), and I feel this is a salient point that can't be overlooked. It's easy to say "It's okay for us to do this, because we're right" and then in turn be shocked or dismayed when someone else uses the same tactics and methodology but to an end that you don't agree with.
Either the tactic is acceptable, or it isn't. Now, there are some people here who are saying "Well, of course the tactic is acceptable. I think sometimes its usage is stupid or ill-informed or I oppose the reasoning behind it, but the tactic is a valid one even if it's used for bad ends". Some of them, I think, are being honest. Some of them are either being dishonest (with others, and possibly themselves) or have adjusted how they feel about this stuff in the past couple months, because that is not the views I saw those same people express on the subject months ago. Or maybe they communicated themselves poorly? Who is to say? Nonetheless, they're not the only people in the world to do this.
That's the point I'm trying to make, and side-stepping it is missing an opportunity for introspection, I think. It's important to consider the difference between intent and consequence, not just when you are outraged about something but when people who aren't you are outraged about something and you are not.
Not because "Well, maybe they have a point!"
They don't, necessarily. But what's important to consider is are you being dismissive of their outrage simply because this time, the coin landed your way? Would you be as nonchalant if the intent outraged you?
Either the tactic is acceptable, or it isn't. Now, there are some people here who are saying "Well, of course the tactic is acceptable. I think sometimes its usage is stupid or ill-informed or I oppose the reasoning behind it, but the tactic is a valid one even if it's used for bad ends". Some of them, I think, are being honest. Some of them are either being dishonest (with others, and possibly themselves) or have adjusted how they feel about this stuff in the past couple months, because that is not the views I saw those same people express on the subject months ago. Or maybe they communicated themselves poorly? Who is to say? Nonetheless, they're not the only people in the world to do this.
That's the point I'm trying to make, and side-stepping it is missing an opportunity for introspection, I think. It's important to consider the difference between intent and consequence, not just when you are outraged about something but when people who aren't you are outraged about something and you are not.
Not because "Well, maybe they have a point!"
They don't, necessarily. But what's important to consider is are you being dismissive of their outrage simply because this time, the coin landed your way? Would you be as nonchalant if the intent outraged you?
I don't think "the coin landed your way" is a good way to describe the difference between bigots trying to make homosexuals into personae non gratae by making it socially unacceptable to depict homosexuals as anything other than wicked, perverted, and sick (or pick your favorite other kind of bad social pressure) on the one hand, and people trying to reduce violence against women on the other hand. These aren't just two sides of the same coin which sometimes lands the way we like it and which other times lands the way we don't like it. Unless you're willing to say "well it's all just subjective opinion," some things are right and some things are wrong and being in favor of the right stuff and against the wrong stuff is a consistent ethical position to hold, and this includes being in favor of social pressure against the wrong stuff and in favor of the right stuff.
Posts
Those who appoint themselves as morality police and guardians of culture, and see fit to exert pressure against the sale of art they find objectionable, are enemies of freedom of expression. In this case they may be small, trifling, inconsequential enemies when measured against the grand scheme of things, but their relative lack of ability to censor doesn't make their attitude any more welcome.
Again I'm baffled that anyone who is the least bit familiar with gaming culture could be so insulated or naive as to imagine that this approach would earn them anything other than a torrent of metaphorical hurled tomatoes and booing in response, or that "Don't worry, we're trying to use corporate power rather than governmental!" would somehow earn them a pass.
I can't believe so many people listen and believe in the "listen and believe" dogma.
You see this this way, as being morality police, but I see it as trying to make my space, games, a more accepting and welcoming place for those who have been turned off by negative elements of the industry/culture/games.
I don't want to censor games, I want them to live up to their full potential as a medium. And while I don't mind and actually enjoy most games no matter the content, loudly talking about what content bothers me tells developers what they might try and improve on. GTA V is a good deal better about this shit than it's predicessors precisely because people like me have been vocal.
So by your definition (not mine, remember), you are avid, enthusiastic censors.
By my definition you're just using your consumer rights. Just like the people who pressured Target were using their consumer rights. Using them in a way I think is dumb, but it's still not censorship.
Either neither example is censorship or they both are. Make up your minds.
One can scoff at concepts like "listen and believe" without being part of specific groups who also scoff at it. The concept alone is worthy of mockery and derision on its own.
Yes, it's absolutely shocking people believe in the idea that you should listen when someone else tells you their troubles and instead of doubting it believe them. I can't believe anyone would be so decent
The concept that different people from different backgrounds are being honest when they experience different things from others is worth mocking?
I thin you're being unfair to yourself by conflating yourself with the type of people that petitioned to have GTA V removed from stores. The end game for those people is not "GTA 6 has thematic improvements due to feminist criticism", it is "GTA 6 does not get made". The point here isn't to get GTA V only removed from target and K Mart, the point is to get it removed from as many places as possible so that products they disapprove of are not commercially viable. Whether that goal fits the technical definition of censorship is a pretty academic distinction.
True. I'm having a really hard time separating this from the negativity being handed out in the gaming space recently. Think maybe I should take a break from the thread.
The concept that I'm to believe anything a speaker says to me, accept it as gospel, and not ask for proof, evidence, or clarification of these concepts is most definitely worth mocking.
I would prefer not to associate myself with any organization that borrows from the 1984 playbook.
Personally I don't think pop culture can turn you gay (although it's pretty obvious that culture generally can turn you "gay" or at least make you want to have sex with people of the same gender - look at Ancient Greece) but I don't really care one way or another. It seems to me that this is irrelevant because even if GTA V turned people into flaming homos, who cares? It would still be fine to sell it to people. The people who would want GTA V banned from Target would be people who are heterosexist.
In this case, though, I don't think we have both disagreements. We still have one disagreement ("does GTA V contribute to violence against women, especially marginalized women like sex workers?") but we don't have the other disagreement ("is violence against women, especially marginalized women like sex workers, a bad thing?"). Everyone agrees violence against women is a bad thing.
So equating those who want GTA V not to be sold at Target because they think it leads to violence against women with people who want something banned from Target because they think it turns you gay is a bad comparison in at least one key way. It's bad because being gay is not bad and arguing that stuff that turns you gay is bad is heterosexist.
Censorship is a word which gets knee-jerk negative reactions. The disappointing thing is that Jerry is trying to redefine censorship so he can use those knee-jerk negative reactions to support his argument. It's manipulative.
I think that most of the people upset about the news post would have been perfectly fine with it if Jerry hadn't tried to paint target as censors.
If your tactics for accomplishing this include exerting pressure against the sale and distribution of art you find objectionable then you are still the enemy of free expression. Every other wave of would-be moral guardians thought they had important reasons too.
1. petitioners stand triumphantly in target as gtav is wheeled out "aha! now nobody will be exposed to this violent sexist video game!"
2. across the street, they see people going to buy gtav at the wal-mart
3. petitioners: "I did nazi that coming!"
the bill is in the mail, mike and jerry
I'm pretty sure they were decrying the agenda, not the tactics. It would be really, really strange for social progressives oppose boycotts in principle, after all.
Stores have literal shelves for games? You don't say.
Animal.
Nazis are very old. They don't have any truck with these digital whatchamahoozits.
And I totally respect that, grandpa.
The only problem is that we don't have wal-mart here.
I WILL DRINK YOUR BLOOD
We are also required to tithe annually and redeem our firstborn lambs.
... unless the Nazis built houses, too.
So baseless accusations and people following through on those accusations as if they are true is ok? Is that where we are in society? Where we celebrate uneducated opinions and policies?
Seems backwards to me.
And I don't think anyone in here has really celebrated the game being removed from Target, unless not panicking over it counts as celebration.
I can't help but stare at it everytime I see one of your posts
It even made me forget about why I was in this thread to begin with
Incorrect.
Can anyone point me to screenshots of where players "commit sexual violence" against women as distinct from the plain old killing any character gets if the player chooses to attack them? How about the part where you get health points for it, or need to do so in order to proceed? Oh yeah, none of this is actually in the game and it's all the exact same misrepresentative tripe we've been hearing from moralizing demagogues on this exact subject for eons now.
The violence not descriminating based on gender doesn't make it so it doesn't exist. So yes, that part of their complaint is true.
The health points is the standard GTA get health for going to a prostitute. So that part is true.
The incentive for going to a prostitute is health points. So there's that part.
And the incentive for killing the prostitute is to get your money that you paid them for the health points back. So that part is also true.
There are points in the game where you own a strip club. There's a mechanic in in the strip club where you touch the stripper while trying to not get caught by the bouncer. This is abusing a sex worker. If you do it correctly, the stripper likes you more. If they like you enough, they start seeing you outside of the strip club.
This is incentivising abusing a sex worker in order to proceed in your interactions with that character.
What they are saying is true, it is in the game. Apparently you're just ignorant of the content of a game you're willing to defend. Maybe don't call people liars if you actually don't know if they are?
I bought a game from Target, because it's the only place that sells new games at about $64 or so completely new. Call of Spacey was perfect for Christmas due to that price.
That was pre-dumb decision from them, which could have meant something when GTAV was just out, but now is a meaningless PR gesture. I probably won't buy games from Target in future because I dislike their approach - not that I have any intent of ever buying GTA V due to its treatment of women ( prostitutes and transgender prostitutes in particular).
Now... Am I censoring Target by doing this...
That's my point, though.
Consumer pressure, boycotts, letter writing campaigns, and various other kinds of community activism are something all sorts of people of all sorts of political agendas engage in.
My point was that I have literally seen people on this forum, including some in this thread, including some who have denied that they did it, very recently within the past few months talk all sorts of shit about a very specific group of people they disagreed with using these sorts of tactics to get their way.
And while they might be revising (or they might see it as clarifying, if they feel they were misunderstood) nowadays that, well, it's not their methods they found objectionable, merely their agenda, that was not what they were saying at the time and it never is.
There's this dissonant hypocrisy among some folks when they get really fired up against a perceived foe where all of the things that foe does are objectionable because of the intent behind it, not the actions they are taking, but nonetheless the actions taken are harped at as one and the same because it all becomes cross-linked with the people you're opposed to.
And this isn't limited to any specific political stripe, either, this behavior. Right now, on the internet, there's people from that other group who months ago were exerting consumer pressure to get their way politically that are crying bloody foul over Target's decision regarding GTAV. These people do not at all recognize how the pressure exerted on Target that led them to the decision is an identical tactic to the ones that same group used to get their own political way.
Or more accurately, if they do, they don't care, because when they were doing it, they were in the right (in their opinion), and I feel this is a salient point that can't be overlooked. It's easy to say "It's okay for us to do this, because we're right" and then in turn be shocked or dismayed when someone else uses the same tactics and methodology but to an end that you don't agree with.
Either the tactic is acceptable, or it isn't. Now, there are some people here who are saying "Well, of course the tactic is acceptable. I think sometimes its usage is stupid or ill-informed or I oppose the reasoning behind it, but the tactic is a valid one even if it's used for bad ends". Some of them, I think, are being honest. Some of them are either being dishonest (with others, and possibly themselves) or have adjusted how they feel about this stuff in the past couple months, because that is not the views I saw those same people express on the subject months ago. Or maybe they communicated themselves poorly? Who is to say? Nonetheless, they're not the only people in the world to do this.
That's the point I'm trying to make, and side-stepping it is missing an opportunity for introspection, I think. It's important to consider the difference between intent and consequence, not just when you are outraged about something but when people who aren't you are outraged about something and you are not.
Not because "Well, maybe they have a point!"
They don't, necessarily. But what's important to consider is are you being dismissive of their outrage simply because this time, the coin landed your way? Would you be as nonchalant if the intent outraged you?