@Pony, if you're going to say people are being inconsistent, it'd be nice if you'd either name names, post examples, or something.
Because right now you're painting people as hypocrites without the consideration to back up your claims in the slightest.
I know that's a lot to ask but if you're going to badmouth people at least have the courtesy to do it directly. Don't just go "they, them, your" and not name names when you're talking about people in this conversation.
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.
Sexual violence is commonly defined as "sexual activity where consent is not obtained or freely given" and unsurprisingly isn't in the game. Even if you want to argue the specifics of that definition, the term certainly isn't a catch-all for any violence where the victim is female. This is just the tired old "women aren't invincible" complaint.
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.
The petition doesn't reference restoring health by having sex with prostitutes, it claims that players receive health specifically for abusing and killing them, which of course isn't in the game either. I just quoted it, didn't you read it? What's more, it's possible to kill any random character in the game and take their money. It's called robbery and murder and isn't nearly as good at grabbing headlines as the stuff they made up.
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.
So we've gone from "commit sexual violence against women, then abuse or kill them to proceed or get health points" all the way down to this?
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?
Yeah maybe you should check up on what words mean before you type smug garbage like this. Flinging feces over a sandbox game not bending its laws of physics to prevent player actions you find offensive wasn't a convincing argument when it was coming from Jack Thompson a million years ago, and it isn't one now.
Christ I've killed and eaten children in Unreal World and they distributed that game to libraries for its educational value over in Finland where it's developed.
beeftruck on
+1
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
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 know if you mean me specifically, since you're being vague and all. Nevertheless I went back to the specific thread on this forum to find out what you mean, and if you are referring to me, I have to say that the circumstances that I called out are way different than this current situation, and the things I said made sense in terms of those specific actions.
For example, I made a post about the movement to pressure Nintendo into refusing to offer review copies of games to reviewers who make negative reviews about Nintendo product.
That's a clearly different situation. First off it's an actual direct line to suppresion of actual speech (trying to stop someone from writing something on any venue). But even in that situation, I never used the word "censorship." I spoke of it as pro-journalistic corruption, since in an ethical journalist organization there is a wall between marketing and journalists.
Like maybe point to a specific example that you think is 1 to 1, but I sincerely doubt you'll be able to do it. Because a store not carrying a triple-A game when all the other stores are still carrying it and the game has been out for months already is just not comparable to, for example, a journalist being run out of her industry permanently.
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.
It's baseless because their argument isn't whether or not it is in the game. Their argument is that the player is encouraged to do those acts against women as an incentive to playing the game, and that's a damn lie.
That's like saying that Skyrim is a violence simulator against women because you can murder women in the game. Worse yet, you can take their clothes off and drag them around! We know that's an absurd argument for censorship because that's not what the game is about at all.
In fact, as far as the GTA 5 game goes, you only kill two women in the actual story line apparently.
Then of course we must ask, what is the ultimate end to all of this complaining? Do we have to change games so that women can no longer be hurt in any way in any game? Why? Are they not equal to men?
If we are so concerned about how women are treated in games, then why do we let bad things happen to women in other media? 50 Shades of Gray and Game of Thrones both depict horrible situations for women to be in. Why do they get a pass?
Or maybe games are like other pieces of media, where we are allowed to introduce content into the world under the idea of free creativity and expression. Once out there, rational adults can decide whether or not they choose to buy such things. To inject one's personal morality into the fray to make the choice for another rational adult is wrong. That's the underlining problem with this whole thing.
What makes it worse, and makes me the most upset, is that those complaining lied about what the game is actually about. It would be like me saying that World of Warcraft is actually a porn simulator because a player can wear [Gnomish X-Ray Specs] and see people in their underwear.
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.
Sexual violence is commonly defined as "sexual activity where consent is not obtained or freely given" and unsurprisingly isn't in the game. Even if you want to argue the specifics of that definition, the term certainly isn't a catch-all for any violence where the victim is female. This is just the tired old "women aren't invincible" complaint.
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.
The petition doesn't reference restoring health by having sex with prostitutes, it claims that players receive health specifically for abusing and killing them, which of course isn't in the game either. I just quoted it, didn't you read it? What's more, it's possible to kill any random character in the game and take their money. It's called robbery and murder and isn't nearly as good at grabbing headlines as the stuff they made up.
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.
So we've gone from "commit sexual violence against women, then abuse or kill them to proceed or get health points" all the way down to this?
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?
Yeah maybe you should check up on what words mean before you type smug garbage like this. Flinging feces over a sandbox game not bending its laws of physics to prevent player actions you find offensive wasn't a convincing argument when it was coming from Jack Thompson a million years ago, and it isn't one now.
Christ I've killed and eaten children in Unreal World and they distributed that game to libraries for its educational value over in Finland where it's developed.
Thanks for the link to the definition of sexual violence. Here, I'll post what that has to say, bolding the part that coincides with the part of your post that makes me think you didn't read the definition.
Sexual violence (SV) is any sexual act that is perpetrated against someone's will. SV encompasses a range of offenses, including a completed nonconsensual sex act (i.e., rape), an attempted nonconsensual sex act, abusive sexual contact (i.e., unwanted touching), and non-contact sexual abuse (e.g., threatened sexual violence, exhibitionism, verbal sexual harassment). These four types are defined in more detail below. All types involve victims who do not consent, or who are unable to consent or refuse to allow the act.
A completed sex act is defined as contact between the penis and the vulva or the penis and the anus involving penetration, however slight; contact between the mouth and penis, vulva, or anus; or penetration of the anal or genital opening of another person by a hand, finger, or other object.
An attempted (but not completed) sex act
Abusive sexual contact is defined as intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person without his or her consent, or of a person who is unable to consent or refuse.
Non-contact sexual abuse does not include physical contact of a sexual nature between the perpetrator and the victim. It includes acts such as voyeurism; intentional exposure of an individual to exhibitionism; unwanted exposure to pornography; verbal or behavioral sexual harassment; threats of sexual violence to accomplish some other end; or taking nude photographs of a sexual nature of another person without his or her consent or knowledge, or of a person who is unable to consent or refuse.
You see, breaking the rules about touching a stripper is sexual violence according to the webpage you linked.
Or maybe games are like other pieces of media, where we are allowed to introduce content into the world under the idea of free creativity and expression. Once out there, rational adults can decide whether or not they choose to buy such things. To inject one's personal morality into the fray to make the choice for another rational adult is wrong. That's the underlining problem with this whole thing.
Let's flip that around a little bit:
Once out there, rational adults can decide whether or not they choose to SELL such things.
That's absolutely valid too, right? If I'm running a store, I have the choice of whether or not to sell certain items. If I'm running an independent games store and choose not to sell GTA V because of rampant misogyny and transphobia, that's my choice. If no store decides to sell a particular piece of media because they find it offensive and don't want it representing their store, that's not them being against free expression, that's them expressing themselves.
Rockstar is free to create their games. They can't force stores to sell it for them.
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 know if you mean me specifically, since you're being vague and all. Nevertheless I went back to the specific thread on this forum to find out what you mean, and if you are referring to me, I have to say that the circumstances that I called out are way different than this current situation, and the things I said made sense in terms of those specific actions.
For example, I made a post about the movement to pressure Nintendo into refusing to offer review copies of games to reviewers who make negative reviews about Nintendo product.
That's a clearly different situation. First off it's an actual direct line to suppresion of actual speech (trying to stop someone from writing something on any venue). But even in that situation, I never used the word "censorship." I spoke of it as pro-journalistic corruption, since in an ethical journalist organization there is a wall between marketing and journalists.
Like maybe point to a specific example that you think is 1 to 1, but I sincerely doubt you'll be able to do it. Because a store not carrying a triple-A game when all the other stores are still carrying it and the game has been out for months already is just not comparable to, for example, a journalist being run out of her industry permanently.
This is what I'm talking about. You're making arguments of intent and degree of effectiveness, not the methods used.
You're essentially saying using consumer pressure to attempt to suppress expression is not okay in instances where
A.) it would potentially be effective at suppressing such expression and actively inhibiting people from these things
B.) you believe the people doing so are doing it out of a malign agenda you object to or
C.) both
Because you seem at the very least comfortable with it if it's not, in your opinion, an effective form of suppresion. You dismiss Target's decision (and those of retailers who followed suit) by pointing out, well, the game is months old and available in a myriad of other ways, so that's not at all like EA deciding not to release DA:I in India due to a vague statement of not wanting to risk running afoul of local content laws.
Because remember, that's what happened there, so it's not technically censorship because EA made a pre-emptive choice to not release there rather than put themselves at risk of actual censorship (whether or not that was a real concern or if EA was more concerned about negative press in India is a matter of debate)
So, is that it, then? Is it just how comprehensive or effective it is?
Because "technically it's not censorship" sounds an awful lot like "actually, it's about..."
I think the idea behind India being as bad as actual censorship even though it's not technically censorship is that the reason EA didn't release the game there was the law, not public opinion. I assume Cambiata would not have used DA:I as an example if public opinion had prevented the game from being released. I don't see how "technically not censorship" sounds like "actually, it's about..." because it's not just the technical point that matters: as you yourself point out, Cambiata considers something that's technically not censorship in your mind to be just as bad as actual censorship, so clearly Cambiata is not pulling the "technically not censorship" move. Rather, Cambiata is drawing a distinction between social pressure and legal pressure. That doesn't seem to me anything like "actually, it's about..." at all.
+1
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
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 know if you mean me specifically, since you're being vague and all. Nevertheless I went back to the specific thread on this forum to find out what you mean, and if you are referring to me, I have to say that the circumstances that I called out are way different than this current situation, and the things I said made sense in terms of those specific actions.
For example, I made a post about the movement to pressure Nintendo into refusing to offer review copies of games to reviewers who make negative reviews about Nintendo product.
That's a clearly different situation. First off it's an actual direct line to suppresion of actual speech (trying to stop someone from writing something on any venue). But even in that situation, I never used the word "censorship." I spoke of it as pro-journalistic corruption, since in an ethical journalist organization there is a wall between marketing and journalists.
Like maybe point to a specific example that you think is 1 to 1, but I sincerely doubt you'll be able to do it. Because a store not carrying a triple-A game when all the other stores are still carrying it and the game has been out for months already is just not comparable to, for example, a journalist being run out of her industry permanently.
This is what I'm talking about. You're making arguments of intent and degree of effectiveness, not the methods used.
You're essentially saying using consumer pressure to attempt to suppress expression is not okay in instances where
A.) it would potentially be effective at suppressing such expression and actively inhibiting people from these things
B.) you believe the people doing so are doing it out of a malign agenda you object to or
C.) both
Because you seem at the very least comfortable with it if it's not, in your opinion, an effective form of suppresion. You dismiss Target's decision (and those of retailers who followed suit) by pointing out, well, the game is months old and available in a myriad of other ways, so that's not at all like EA deciding not to release DA:I in India due to a vague statement of not wanting to risk running afoul of local content laws.
Because remember, that's what happened there, so it's not technically censorship because EA made a pre-emptive choice to not release there rather than put themselves at risk of actual censorship (whether or not that was a real concern or if EA was more concerned about negative press in India is a matter of debate)
So, is that it, then? Is it just how comprehensive or effective it is?
Because "technically it's not censorship" sounds an awful lot like "actually, it's about..."
So maybe that's not strong argument, yeah?
Meh, I don't know what you're getting at, man.
Any time a store decides not to stock something: That's not censorship. That's not even "not technically" censorship. I'd even go so far as to say that's an expression of the freedom of speech. It's the exact opposite of censorship.
Not being able to sell a game in a country, because the law there is onerous, yeah I'd call that censorship.
Like the closest example from the GG events was Intel pulling their ads. That's as close to a 1 to 1 to the current situation as it's possible to find in that dreck. And that was a perfectly legitimate consumer action. Intel was dumb to cave, but the action was legitimate.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
I think it's easy to say "nobody has a right to product distribution"
That's an easy argument to make, it's uncontroversial.
Do other people have a right to say "you should not distribute that product because we find it offensive" and use consumer pressure to compel that viewpoint? I believe so, and I think that's a universal right whether or not I agree with the reasoning or intent behind it.
But make no mistake, I don't try to hair-split and say "but technically, that's not censorship!"
No, it is. I'm just comfortable with the idea that as a society we do censor some things and say they are unacceptable to distribute, not just by force of law but by activism and political pressure.
Because if they're equally effective in inhibiting a work from being distributed, then they're essentially the same thing.
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 know if you mean me specifically, since you're being vague and all. Nevertheless I went back to the specific thread on this forum to find out what you mean, and if you are referring to me, I have to say that the circumstances that I called out are way different than this current situation, and the things I said made sense in terms of those specific actions.
For example, I made a post about the movement to pressure Nintendo into refusing to offer review copies of games to reviewers who make negative reviews about Nintendo product.
That's a clearly different situation. First off it's an actual direct line to suppresion of actual speech (trying to stop someone from writing something on any venue). But even in that situation, I never used the word "censorship." I spoke of it as pro-journalistic corruption, since in an ethical journalist organization there is a wall between marketing and journalists.
Like maybe point to a specific example that you think is 1 to 1, but I sincerely doubt you'll be able to do it. Because a store not carrying a triple-A game when all the other stores are still carrying it and the game has been out for months already is just not comparable to, for example, a journalist being run out of her industry permanently.
This is what I'm talking about. You're making arguments of intent and degree of effectiveness, not the methods used.
You're essentially saying using consumer pressure to attempt to suppress expression is not okay in instances where
A.) it would potentially be effective at suppressing such expression and actively inhibiting people from these things
B.) you believe the people doing so are doing it out of a malign agenda you object to or
C.) both
Because you seem at the very least comfortable with it if it's not, in your opinion, an effective form of suppresion. You dismiss Target's decision (and those of retailers who followed suit) by pointing out, well, the game is months old and available in a myriad of other ways, so that's not at all like EA deciding not to release DA:I in India due to a vague statement of not wanting to risk running afoul of local content laws.
Because remember, that's what happened there, so it's not technically censorship because EA made a pre-emptive choice to not release there rather than put themselves at risk of actual censorship (whether or not that was a real concern or if EA was more concerned about negative press in India is a matter of debate)
So, is that it, then? Is it just how comprehensive or effective it is?
Because "technically it's not censorship" sounds an awful lot like "actually, it's about..."
So maybe that's not strong argument, yeah?
Meh, I don't know what you're getting at, man.
Any time a store decides not to stock something: That's not censorship. That's not even "not technically" censorship. I'd even go so far as to say that's an expression of the freedom of speech. It's the exact opposite of censorship.
Not being able to sell a game in a country, because the law there is onerous, yeah I'd call that censorship.
Like the closest example from the GG events was Intel pulling their ads. That's as close to a 1 to 1 to the current situation as it's possible to find in that dreck. And that was a perfectly legitimate consumer action. Intel was dumb to cave, but the action was legitimate.
But it wasn't "a store decided not to sell something", like some individual owner of a mom n pop game store was like "no sir, I don't care for this game and won't carry it"
It was a corporate decision by a major national retailer, which other retailers followed (causing an, albeit limited, trend) that was arrived at due to consumer pressure and the activism of thousands.
You are dismissive of it because as such actions go, it was more symbolic than practically effective.
But being participatory in those sorts of decisions is, for example, how the MPAA has positioned itself as a de facto censorship authority of American film and if you don't think that has had a massive artistic impact on film...
I think it's easy to say "nobody has a right to product distribution"
That's an easy argument to make, it's uncontroversial.
Do other people have a right to say "you should not distribute that product because we find it offensive" and use consumer pressure to compel that viewpoint? I believe so, and I think that's a universal right whether or not I agree with the reasoning or intent behind it.
But make no mistake, I don't try to hair-split and say "but technically, that's not censorship!"
No, it is. I'm just comfortable with the idea that as a society we do censor some things and say they are unacceptable to distribute, not just by force of law but by activism and political pressure.
Because if they're equally effective in inhibiting a work from being distributed, then they're essentially the same thing.
Again, it's as much censorship as the alternative, which is forcing distributors to distribute products without choice.
If one is censorship, so is the other, so crying censorship on behalf of one entity while ignoring that the alternative is censorship for another entity is kinda pointless.
Especially when the censorship you're ignoring in the alternative is an absolute censorship, completely taking the right away from a business to decide what they will/will not stock, where the other is at most a "you can make and sell that, but not in my store" type censorship.
One is a little more meaningful and damning than the other. It's not the "censorship" on display by Target or the consumer movement.
By that reasoning a widespread power outage is censorship. I mean, after all, it's just as effective therefore the same thing.
Nice try, Quid. But you're talking to me, here, not a certain pedantic robot.
No, that's not the same thing, unless the power outage was caused by people trying to prevent people from playing the game.
I'm not saying intent is meaningless. I'm saying that the cavalier attitude about this, if not about intent, seems to be about effectiveness. I'm trying to hash out where you lot are coming from because I find you perspective disconcerting.
Basically every action ever is censorship following this logic.
If we start calling every limiting action by a corporation/individual censorship then when we have issues of absolute government enforced censorship people will just think those against it are silly reactionary geese.
So basically could we not cry censorship in cases such as this just to rally the troops and play on emotions? Censorship, real censorship is a horrible thing that people need to be wary of. This isn't that.
Basically every action ever is censorship following this logic.
If we start calling every limiting action by a corporation/individual censorship then when we have issues of absolute government enforced censorship people will just think those against it are silly reactionary geese.
So basically could we not cry censorship in cases such as this just to rally the troops and play on emotions? Censorship, real censorship is a horrible thing that people need to be wary of. This isn't that.
Censorship is creating an atmosphere of pressure or threat of rebuke under which a person is unable to express themselves and their ability to distribute their expression is being actively inhibited.
That can be a horrible thing. It often is. It isn't always, though. It also doesn't always take the form of enforcement by the rule of law.
The MPAA, for example, isn't a legal authority and is technically participated in voluntarily. But the MPAA is absolutely a force for censorship, because they create that atmosphere of pressure and threat of rebuke for any filmmaker who wants mainstream wide distribution.
Is that a horrible thing? In some ways, yes, but only because the MPAA itself is a horrible organization that has fucked up agendas and shit. In terms of the principles of having a film rating system that would help guide consumers? No. But that still requires saying "if you want this kind of rating, you can't have this kind of content", and because of the economic realities of how those ratings affect distribution and viewership, it still becomes... censorship.
Make no mistake, the only reason the ESRB doesn't have that kind of power (and accordingly, the same chilling effect on game content) is nobody gives a shit about the ESRB. Not nearly to the extent they do the MPAA, at the very least.
"censorship" is a dogwhistle term for people who want to get feminism out of videogames
best case scenario mike and jerry are totally oblivious to this, worst case they know and don't care
neither is good
that's it. that's the whole argument
Nope.
It's easy for you to see it that way, only because on this issue, this particular time, the game in question is misogynistic (which it is, lest anyone think I'm arguing otherwise)
But it's not so easy if it's about, say, Dragon Age, is it?
Seriously, was anyone on the other side of this really imagining that they could trot out the old "look how you can kill this prostitute" meme from the last failed wave of moral panic and not get garbage metaphorically thrown at them?
A retailer has the right to sell or not sell anything it pleases.
That doesn't get anyone off the hook for pressuring said retailer for censorship.
But if a retailer can stock what it wants without it being censorship how is consumers telling them what to and not to stock suddenly censorship?
There's a jump in the logic there. Seemingly just because GTA5 is a game and the reason people don't want it stocked is about a bit of the game people find controversial as an accusation.
I mean, no one would give a rats ass if 40,000 signatures caused Ride to Hell: Retribution to be removed from Steam on the basis of being a glitchy piece of garbage so what makes that fine but 'hey maybe GTA has some shitty depictions of women' not?
"censorship" is a dogwhistle term for people who want to get feminism out of videogames
best case scenario mike and jerry are totally oblivious to this, worst case they know and don't care
neither is good
that's it. that's the whole argument
Nope.
It's easy for you to see it that way, only because on this issue, this particular time, the game in question is misogynistic (which it is, lest anyone think I'm arguing otherwise)
But it's not so easy if it's about, say, Dragon Age, is it?
it actually is, though
if a bunch of church people were trying to get dragon age pulled from shelves for being too gay that would be pretty fucked up but not because it was "censorship"
You see, breaking the rules about touching a stripper is sexual violence according to the webpage you linked.
So you admit that all that "kill women to get health points" whaargarble was a bunch of crap? Great, concession accepted.
Nope. That stuff is perfectly valid. I'm just not going to argue with you if you're going to deny valid points for no reason.
I mean, are you saying that these things don't exist in the game, that getting your health back while not spending any money isn't an incentive to use and then kill a prostitute in the game, or are you just blindly defending the game by attacking the validity of their argument instead of the severity of it?
You're calling them liars. I'm saying that's not true and pointing out why.
They can tell the truth and still be wrong about what they want in regards to the game. That's a valid argument. Calling them liars is not.
Nobody forced Target to sell a game against their will. They didn't say "we're not going to carry this game" and then responded to consumer pressure to change their mind and sell it, even though they didn't want to.
The opposite happened. They were perfectly happy to take people's money for this game, until consumer activists pressured them to change that view. You can argue they were not aware of how the game was misogynistic and offensive until they were made aware, and would not have sold the game in the first place if they knew otherwise, but that's ephemeral and I doubt it.
They made that decision, other retailers followed their lead, and the game lost some distribution. Was it an effective, comprehensive form of censorship? No. As has been pointed out, it's not especially difficult to acquire the game through other means.
But was it absolutely a naked attempt to convince retailers in general that games with this kind of content are unacceptable to distribute? Yes. Was it an attempt to tell the developers and publisher of the game "if you make a game with this kind of content, it will be harder to distribute because we will make sure of that, so maybe don't do that?" Absolutely.
A retailer has the right to sell or not sell anything it pleases.
That doesn't get anyone off the hook for pressuring said retailer for censorship.
I'm trying to understand your point here. Are you suggesting that if a retailer decides to sell something that is horribly offensive, people who complain about it and threaten boycotts about it are in the wrong? Do you think the Urban Outfitter blood-red stained Kent Shirt sweatshirt shouldn't have been pulled once it was ever once available for sale? Do you think the Walmart "I can't breathe" commercial (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/2014/12/05/wal-mart-can-breathe-commercial-outrages-viewers/nXVwpvPlIpdYg2dvovTxsI/story.html) shouldn't have been pulled? You're basically suggesting that people can't freely express their displeasure over other people's free expression. Is there literally no line that can be crossed?
Again, I'm not all in favor of banning GTA V or agree with Target's decision. I don't hate or dislike the game. I actually really enjoy it.
I think their goals here are silly, not helping the problems they're worried about.
However I'm not OK with demonizing them with buzzwords like censorship or liar. They're making a valid argument against the game. Their goals regarding the game, however, are only going to further push gamers to be reactionary in regards to criticism of the medium.
Nobody forced Target to sell a game against their will. They didn't say "we're not going to carry this game" and then responded to consumer pressure to change their mind and sell it, even though they didn't want to.
The opposite happened. They were perfectly happy to take people's money for this game, until consumer activists pressured them to change that view. You can argue they were not aware of how the game was misogynistic and offensive until they were made aware, and would not have sold the game in the first place if they knew otherwise, but that's ephemeral and I doubt it.
They made that decision, other retailers followed their lead, and the game lost some distribution. Was it an effective, comprehensive form of censorship? No. As has been pointed out, it's not especially difficult to acquire the game through other means.
But was it absolutely a naked attempt to convince retailers in general that games with this kind of content are unacceptable to distribute? Yes. Was it an attempt to tell the developers and publisher of the game "if you make a game with this kind of content, it will be harder to distribute because we will make sure of that, so maybe don't do that?" Absolutely.
your tone indicates that the reason all this is wrong should be obvious but actually i don't have a problem with any of it
Again, I'm not all in favor of banning GTA V or agree with Target's decision. I don't hate or dislike the game. I actually really enjoy it.
I think their goals here are silly, not helping the problems they're worried about.
However I'm not OK with demonizing them with buzzwords like censorship or liar. They're making a valid argument against the game. Their goals regarding the game, however, are only going to further push gamers to be reactionary in regards to criticism of the medium.
You consider censorship a demonized word, I don't.
I just don't want people to have illusions about what this, what it's akin to, and what it can lead to.
Nobody forced Target to sell a game against their will. They didn't say "we're not going to carry this game" and then responded to consumer pressure to change their mind and sell it, even though they didn't want to.
The opposite happened. They were perfectly happy to take people's money for this game, until consumer activists pressured them to change that view. You can argue they were not aware of how the game was misogynistic and offensive until they were made aware, and would not have sold the game in the first place if they knew otherwise, but that's ephemeral and I doubt it.
They made that decision, other retailers followed their lead, and the game lost some distribution. Was it an effective, comprehensive form of censorship? No. As has been pointed out, it's not especially difficult to acquire the game through other means.
But was it absolutely a naked attempt to convince retailers in general that games with this kind of content are unacceptable to distribute? Yes. Was it an attempt to tell the developers and publisher of the game "if you make a game with this kind of content, it will be harder to distribute because we will make sure of that, so maybe don't do that?" Absolutely.
your tone indicates that the reason all this is wrong should be obvious but actually i don't have a problem with any of it
I never, at any point, said it was wrong.
The point I made, all along, was that the inconsistencies being demonstrated here are worth addressing and thinking about because, unchecked, are actually kinda dangerous and how shitty things like the MPAA get empowered.
Again, I'm not all in favor of banning GTA V or agree with Target's decision. I don't hate or dislike the game. I actually really enjoy it.
I think their goals here are silly, not helping the problems they're worried about.
However I'm not OK with demonizing them with buzzwords like censorship or liar. They're making a valid argument against the game. Their goals regarding the game, however, are only going to further push gamers to be reactionary in regards to criticism of the medium.
You consider censorship a demonized word, I don't.
I just don't want people to have illusions about what this, what it's akin to, and what it can lead to.
It's misleading word. It's confused with violations of free speech, which this most certainly isn't. Myself, I believe using the word in these types of situations actually increases the chances of more extreme forms of censorship.
Nobody forced Target to sell a game against their will. They didn't say "we're not going to carry this game" and then responded to consumer pressure to change their mind and sell it, even though they didn't want to.
The opposite happened. They were perfectly happy to take people's money for this game, until consumer activists pressured them to change that view. You can argue they were not aware of how the game was misogynistic and offensive until they were made aware, and would not have sold the game in the first place if they knew otherwise, but that's ephemeral and I doubt it.
They made that decision, other retailers followed their lead, and the game lost some distribution. Was it an effective, comprehensive form of censorship? No. As has been pointed out, it's not especially difficult to acquire the game through other means.
But was it absolutely a naked attempt to convince retailers in general that games with this kind of content are unacceptable to distribute? Yes. Was it an attempt to tell the developers and publisher of the game "if you make a game with this kind of content, it will be harder to distribute because we will make sure of that, so maybe don't do that?" Absolutely.
your tone indicates that the reason all this is wrong should be obvious but actually i don't have a problem with any of it
I never, at any point, said it was wrong.
The point I made, all along, was that the inconsistencies being demonstrated here are worth addressing and thinking about because, unchecked, are actually kinda dangerous and how shitty things like the MPAA get empowered.
i am fairly sure that we are demonstrating no inconsistencies
I mean, i don't know who is supposed to be doing it, specifically, because you are using the passive voice
but i am looking at the behaviour of the four or five people that it seems reasonable to presume you are talking about and i am not finding any
I didn't realize that the contents of GTA V are the equivalent of years of research, cultural advancement, and art, amounting to the life's work of countless marginalized people.
I didn't realize that giving the player the ability to murder women and sex workers with impunity awarded a piece of media some sort of magical badge of artness wherewith it then becomes irreproachable and beyond all manner of criticism.
It's NEWS TO ME that a store opting not to stock a certain item on the shelves amounts to the erasure of entire peoples.
This is why Gabe and Tycho are among the worst kinds of people. See, everybody makes mistakes. That's fine! You fuck up, you apologize, you think about what you did wrong, and you try to do better next time.
But that's not what they do.
First they mock critics (just read about what they did with 'dickwolves'), then they bitch about how everyone is overreacting and 'oh god the whole world is so unreasonable we are artists don't you understand?' Then, MAYBE, they issue some halfhearted bullshit non-apology (remember when Gabe decided to talk about trans people on twitter and then his apology was basically: "No wait. It's cool guys. I totally have a trans friend lmao"), but more often they just whitewash the shit out of it. This is why you never ever see the phrase dickwolves on these boards anymore. Because saying that word and discussing that incident is fucking verboten. They do this shit OVER AND OVER AGAIN and they never ever EVER fucking own up to it.
These guys are a sublime mix of white, male, and wealthy privilege, seasoned with a healthy dash of artistic pretense and drizzled in pseudo-intellectuallism. They are a perfect storm of douchebaggery. They are reddit and 4chan personified. It's okay though. They totally have a charity that they can weaponize and use as a shield against criticism. That totally makes up for all the cultural harm they cause. I fucking hope that the next time one of them stubs a toe, they have to amputate the foot.
Nobody forced Target to sell a game against their will. They didn't say "we're not going to carry this game" and then responded to consumer pressure to change their mind and sell it, even though they didn't want to.
The opposite happened. They were perfectly happy to take people's money for this game, until consumer activists pressured them to change that view. You can argue they were not aware of how the game was misogynistic and offensive until they were made aware, and would not have sold the game in the first place if they knew otherwise, but that's ephemeral and I doubt it.
They made that decision, other retailers followed their lead, and the game lost some distribution. Was it an effective, comprehensive form of censorship? No. As has been pointed out, it's not especially difficult to acquire the game through other means.
But was it absolutely a naked attempt to convince retailers in general that games with this kind of content are unacceptable to distribute? Yes. Was it an attempt to tell the developers and publisher of the game "if you make a game with this kind of content, it will be harder to distribute because we will make sure of that, so maybe don't do that?" Absolutely.
People have always literally forced Target to sell the things they want via the market.
Posts
Because right now you're painting people as hypocrites without the consideration to back up your claims in the slightest.
I know that's a lot to ask but if you're going to badmouth people at least have the courtesy to do it directly. Don't just go "they, them, your" and not name names when you're talking about people in this conversation.
The petition doesn't reference restoring health by having sex with prostitutes, it claims that players receive health specifically for abusing and killing them, which of course isn't in the game either. I just quoted it, didn't you read it? What's more, it's possible to kill any random character in the game and take their money. It's called robbery and murder and isn't nearly as good at grabbing headlines as the stuff they made up.
So we've gone from "commit sexual violence against women, then abuse or kill them to proceed or get health points" all the way down to this?
Yeah maybe you should check up on what words mean before you type smug garbage like this. Flinging feces over a sandbox game not bending its laws of physics to prevent player actions you find offensive wasn't a convincing argument when it was coming from Jack Thompson a million years ago, and it isn't one now.
Christ I've killed and eaten children in Unreal World and they distributed that game to libraries for its educational value over in Finland where it's developed.
I don't know if you mean me specifically, since you're being vague and all. Nevertheless I went back to the specific thread on this forum to find out what you mean, and if you are referring to me, I have to say that the circumstances that I called out are way different than this current situation, and the things I said made sense in terms of those specific actions.
For example, I made a post about the movement to pressure Nintendo into refusing to offer review copies of games to reviewers who make negative reviews about Nintendo product.
That's a clearly different situation. First off it's an actual direct line to suppresion of actual speech (trying to stop someone from writing something on any venue). But even in that situation, I never used the word "censorship." I spoke of it as pro-journalistic corruption, since in an ethical journalist organization there is a wall between marketing and journalists.
Like maybe point to a specific example that you think is 1 to 1, but I sincerely doubt you'll be able to do it. Because a store not carrying a triple-A game when all the other stores are still carrying it and the game has been out for months already is just not comparable to, for example, a journalist being run out of her industry permanently.
For that matter, a single store not carrying a game when the game is still freely available isn't even comparable to Dragon Age: Inquisition not being able to be sold in India because of law.
It's baseless because their argument isn't whether or not it is in the game. Their argument is that the player is encouraged to do those acts against women as an incentive to playing the game, and that's a damn lie.
That's like saying that Skyrim is a violence simulator against women because you can murder women in the game. Worse yet, you can take their clothes off and drag them around! We know that's an absurd argument for censorship because that's not what the game is about at all.
In fact, as far as the GTA 5 game goes, you only kill two women in the actual story line apparently.
Then of course we must ask, what is the ultimate end to all of this complaining? Do we have to change games so that women can no longer be hurt in any way in any game? Why? Are they not equal to men?
If we are so concerned about how women are treated in games, then why do we let bad things happen to women in other media? 50 Shades of Gray and Game of Thrones both depict horrible situations for women to be in. Why do they get a pass?
Or maybe games are like other pieces of media, where we are allowed to introduce content into the world under the idea of free creativity and expression. Once out there, rational adults can decide whether or not they choose to buy such things. To inject one's personal morality into the fray to make the choice for another rational adult is wrong. That's the underlining problem with this whole thing.
What makes it worse, and makes me the most upset, is that those complaining lied about what the game is actually about. It would be like me saying that World of Warcraft is actually a porn simulator because a player can wear [Gnomish X-Ray Specs] and see people in their underwear.
Thanks for the link to the definition of sexual violence. Here, I'll post what that has to say, bolding the part that coincides with the part of your post that makes me think you didn't read the definition.
You see, breaking the rules about touching a stripper is sexual violence according to the webpage you linked.
Let's flip that around a little bit:
Once out there, rational adults can decide whether or not they choose to SELL such things.
That's absolutely valid too, right? If I'm running a store, I have the choice of whether or not to sell certain items. If I'm running an independent games store and choose not to sell GTA V because of rampant misogyny and transphobia, that's my choice. If no store decides to sell a particular piece of media because they find it offensive and don't want it representing their store, that's not them being against free expression, that's them expressing themselves.
Rockstar is free to create their games. They can't force stores to sell it for them.
3DS FC: 0817-3759-2788
This is what I'm talking about. You're making arguments of intent and degree of effectiveness, not the methods used.
You're essentially saying using consumer pressure to attempt to suppress expression is not okay in instances where
A.) it would potentially be effective at suppressing such expression and actively inhibiting people from these things
B.) you believe the people doing so are doing it out of a malign agenda you object to or
C.) both
Because you seem at the very least comfortable with it if it's not, in your opinion, an effective form of suppresion. You dismiss Target's decision (and those of retailers who followed suit) by pointing out, well, the game is months old and available in a myriad of other ways, so that's not at all like EA deciding not to release DA:I in India due to a vague statement of not wanting to risk running afoul of local content laws.
Because remember, that's what happened there, so it's not technically censorship because EA made a pre-emptive choice to not release there rather than put themselves at risk of actual censorship (whether or not that was a real concern or if EA was more concerned about negative press in India is a matter of debate)
So, is that it, then? Is it just how comprehensive or effective it is?
Because "technically it's not censorship" sounds an awful lot like "actually, it's about..."
So maybe that's not strong argument, yeah?
Meh, I don't know what you're getting at, man.
Any time a store decides not to stock something: That's not censorship. That's not even "not technically" censorship. I'd even go so far as to say that's an expression of the freedom of speech. It's the exact opposite of censorship.
Not being able to sell a game in a country, because the law there is onerous, yeah I'd call that censorship.
Like the closest example from the GG events was Intel pulling their ads. That's as close to a 1 to 1 to the current situation as it's possible to find in that dreck. And that was a perfectly legitimate consumer action. Intel was dumb to cave, but the action was legitimate.
That's an easy argument to make, it's uncontroversial.
Do other people have a right to say "you should not distribute that product because we find it offensive" and use consumer pressure to compel that viewpoint? I believe so, and I think that's a universal right whether or not I agree with the reasoning or intent behind it.
But make no mistake, I don't try to hair-split and say "but technically, that's not censorship!"
No, it is. I'm just comfortable with the idea that as a society we do censor some things and say they are unacceptable to distribute, not just by force of law but by activism and political pressure.
Because if they're equally effective in inhibiting a work from being distributed, then they're essentially the same thing.
But it wasn't "a store decided not to sell something", like some individual owner of a mom n pop game store was like "no sir, I don't care for this game and won't carry it"
It was a corporate decision by a major national retailer, which other retailers followed (causing an, albeit limited, trend) that was arrived at due to consumer pressure and the activism of thousands.
You are dismissive of it because as such actions go, it was more symbolic than practically effective.
But being participatory in those sorts of decisions is, for example, how the MPAA has positioned itself as a de facto censorship authority of American film and if you don't think that has had a massive artistic impact on film...
So, again, we're talking about effectiveness.
Again, it's as much censorship as the alternative, which is forcing distributors to distribute products without choice.
If one is censorship, so is the other, so crying censorship on behalf of one entity while ignoring that the alternative is censorship for another entity is kinda pointless.
Especially when the censorship you're ignoring in the alternative is an absolute censorship, completely taking the right away from a business to decide what they will/will not stock, where the other is at most a "you can make and sell that, but not in my store" type censorship.
One is a little more meaningful and damning than the other. It's not the "censorship" on display by Target or the consumer movement.
Nice try, Quid. But you're talking to me, here, not a certain pedantic robot.
No, that's not the same thing, unless the power outage was caused by people trying to prevent people from playing the game.
I'm not saying intent is meaningless. I'm saying that the cavalier attitude about this, if not about intent, seems to be about effectiveness. I'm trying to hash out where you lot are coming from because I find you perspective disconcerting.
If we start calling every limiting action by a corporation/individual censorship then when we have issues of absolute government enforced censorship people will just think those against it are silly reactionary geese.
So basically could we not cry censorship in cases such as this just to rally the troops and play on emotions? Censorship, real censorship is a horrible thing that people need to be wary of. This isn't that.
I'm not. I just have no illusions of what this is, and what the potential hazards are of not seeing at such.
By specifically speaking out against video game violence.
best case scenario mike and jerry are totally oblivious to this, worst case they know and don't care
neither is good
that's it. that's the whole argument
Among numerous other avenues. It's kinda a let's tackle all of the problems thing, since it's a societal problem.
So you admit that all that "kill women to get health points" whaargarble was a bunch of crap? Great, concession accepted.
Censorship is creating an atmosphere of pressure or threat of rebuke under which a person is unable to express themselves and their ability to distribute their expression is being actively inhibited.
That can be a horrible thing. It often is. It isn't always, though. It also doesn't always take the form of enforcement by the rule of law.
The MPAA, for example, isn't a legal authority and is technically participated in voluntarily. But the MPAA is absolutely a force for censorship, because they create that atmosphere of pressure and threat of rebuke for any filmmaker who wants mainstream wide distribution.
Is that a horrible thing? In some ways, yes, but only because the MPAA itself is a horrible organization that has fucked up agendas and shit. In terms of the principles of having a film rating system that would help guide consumers? No. But that still requires saying "if you want this kind of rating, you can't have this kind of content", and because of the economic realities of how those ratings affect distribution and viewership, it still becomes... censorship.
Make no mistake, the only reason the ESRB doesn't have that kind of power (and accordingly, the same chilling effect on game content) is nobody gives a shit about the ESRB. Not nearly to the extent they do the MPAA, at the very least.
That doesn't get anyone off the hook for pressuring said retailer for censorship.
Nope.
It's easy for you to see it that way, only because on this issue, this particular time, the game in question is misogynistic (which it is, lest anyone think I'm arguing otherwise)
But it's not so easy if it's about, say, Dragon Age, is it?
But if a retailer can stock what it wants without it being censorship how is consumers telling them what to and not to stock suddenly censorship?
There's a jump in the logic there. Seemingly just because GTA5 is a game and the reason people don't want it stocked is about a bit of the game people find controversial as an accusation.
I mean, no one would give a rats ass if 40,000 signatures caused Ride to Hell: Retribution to be removed from Steam on the basis of being a glitchy piece of garbage so what makes that fine but 'hey maybe GTA has some shitty depictions of women' not?
it actually is, though
if a bunch of church people were trying to get dragon age pulled from shelves for being too gay that would be pretty fucked up but not because it was "censorship"
the means are not a problem, just the ends
Nope. That stuff is perfectly valid. I'm just not going to argue with you if you're going to deny valid points for no reason.
I mean, are you saying that these things don't exist in the game, that getting your health back while not spending any money isn't an incentive to use and then kill a prostitute in the game, or are you just blindly defending the game by attacking the validity of their argument instead of the severity of it?
You're calling them liars. I'm saying that's not true and pointing out why.
They can tell the truth and still be wrong about what they want in regards to the game. That's a valid argument. Calling them liars is not.
The opposite happened. They were perfectly happy to take people's money for this game, until consumer activists pressured them to change that view. You can argue they were not aware of how the game was misogynistic and offensive until they were made aware, and would not have sold the game in the first place if they knew otherwise, but that's ephemeral and I doubt it.
They made that decision, other retailers followed their lead, and the game lost some distribution. Was it an effective, comprehensive form of censorship? No. As has been pointed out, it's not especially difficult to acquire the game through other means.
But was it absolutely a naked attempt to convince retailers in general that games with this kind of content are unacceptable to distribute? Yes. Was it an attempt to tell the developers and publisher of the game "if you make a game with this kind of content, it will be harder to distribute because we will make sure of that, so maybe don't do that?" Absolutely.
I'm trying to understand your point here. Are you suggesting that if a retailer decides to sell something that is horribly offensive, people who complain about it and threaten boycotts about it are in the wrong? Do you think the Urban Outfitter blood-red stained Kent Shirt sweatshirt shouldn't have been pulled once it was ever once available for sale? Do you think the Walmart "I can't breathe" commercial (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/2014/12/05/wal-mart-can-breathe-commercial-outrages-viewers/nXVwpvPlIpdYg2dvovTxsI/story.html) shouldn't have been pulled? You're basically suggesting that people can't freely express their displeasure over other people's free expression. Is there literally no line that can be crossed?
3DS FC: 0817-3759-2788
I think their goals here are silly, not helping the problems they're worried about.
However I'm not OK with demonizing them with buzzwords like censorship or liar. They're making a valid argument against the game. Their goals regarding the game, however, are only going to further push gamers to be reactionary in regards to criticism of the medium.
your tone indicates that the reason all this is wrong should be obvious but actually i don't have a problem with any of it
You consider censorship a demonized word, I don't.
I just don't want people to have illusions about what this, what it's akin to, and what it can lead to.
I never, at any point, said it was wrong.
The point I made, all along, was that the inconsistencies being demonstrated here are worth addressing and thinking about because, unchecked, are actually kinda dangerous and how shitty things like the MPAA get empowered.
It's misleading word. It's confused with violations of free speech, which this most certainly isn't. Myself, I believe using the word in these types of situations actually increases the chances of more extreme forms of censorship.
The ones people actually worry about.
i am fairly sure that we are demonstrating no inconsistencies
I mean, i don't know who is supposed to be doing it, specifically, because you are using the passive voice
but i am looking at the behaviour of the four or five people that it seems reasonable to presume you are talking about and i am not finding any
I didn't realize that giving the player the ability to murder women and sex workers with impunity awarded a piece of media some sort of magical badge of artness wherewith it then becomes irreproachable and beyond all manner of criticism.
It's NEWS TO ME that a store opting not to stock a certain item on the shelves amounts to the erasure of entire peoples.
This is why Gabe and Tycho are among the worst kinds of people. See, everybody makes mistakes. That's fine! You fuck up, you apologize, you think about what you did wrong, and you try to do better next time.
But that's not what they do.
First they mock critics (just read about what they did with 'dickwolves'), then they bitch about how everyone is overreacting and 'oh god the whole world is so unreasonable we are artists don't you understand?' Then, MAYBE, they issue some halfhearted bullshit non-apology (remember when Gabe decided to talk about trans people on twitter and then his apology was basically: "No wait. It's cool guys. I totally have a trans friend lmao"), but more often they just whitewash the shit out of it. This is why you never ever see the phrase dickwolves on these boards anymore. Because saying that word and discussing that incident is fucking verboten. They do this shit OVER AND OVER AGAIN and they never ever EVER fucking own up to it.
These guys are a sublime mix of white, male, and wealthy privilege, seasoned with a healthy dash of artistic pretense and drizzled in pseudo-intellectuallism. They are a perfect storm of douchebaggery. They are reddit and 4chan personified. It's okay though. They totally have a charity that they can weaponize and use as a shield against criticism. That totally makes up for all the cultural harm they cause. I fucking hope that the next time one of them stubs a toe, they have to amputate the foot.
People have always literally forced Target to sell the things they want via the market.
That's, like, their whole business plan.