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.
The ones people actually worry about.
I think not talking about censorship in these types of situations can lead to more worrying kinds.
I'm not making a slippery slope argument. I'm saying if you want to say "This is okay, and this is not, and this is why", that's fine, but elucidate that point, then. Quid, for example, has attempted to do so. Why you're okay with this, and not that, here, but not there, and so on.
I'm not interested in grabbing people by the buttonhole and going "Ahem, you're being a hypocrite, based on your previous statements..."
That's ancillary to my point. I'm trying to point out that it's important not to be blithe about this stuff. It's important not to just go "Yeah, this is okay, because I agree with the end result, regardless of the means"
The means matter, because they're just as likely to get used against the things you believe as for them, depending on the intent of those who are wielding the power and exerting the pressure, and if you have nothing to say when the chips fall on your side it can be difficult to mount a defense when that is not the case.
If it's all good by you, that's fine. Some folks (again, gonna use Quid as an example) have clarified that yeah, that's fine, those tactics are usable by anyone even if I don't agree with their motives or their ends.
But consider if that's the stance they're actually taking, because I don't know if that's really as true for some as they're making it out to be, and that includes you personally.
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 are literally forcing Target to sell the things they want.
That's, like, their whole business plan.
Again, nice try, but you're intentionally obfuscating meaning by omitting words.
Nobody forced Target to sell a game against their will.
Their will, as a corporate retailer, is to sell products and make money. Yes, people force retailers to sell things they want, if by "force" you're using the term to refer to market forces and force of demand. But retailers, Target included, are perfectly fine with that and exchange those goods for money. There's nothing against their will happening there, they're just responding to consumer demand as it exists.
When a retailer that is already distributing a product (or has shown clear intention to distribute an upcoming product for release) and is given cause to reverse course on that due to consumer pressure and activism, that's an entirely different thing to them opting to distribute the product in the first place because they wanted people's money.
Those two things are meaningfully different, and you know that. C'mon, dude.
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.
The ones people actually worry about.
I think not talking about censorship in these types of situations can lead to more worrying kinds.
I'm not making a slippery slope argument. I'm saying if you want to say "This is okay, and this is not, and this is why", that's fine, but elucidate that point, then. Quid, for example, has attempted to do so. Why you're okay with this, and not that, here, but not there, and so on.
I'm not interested in grabbing people by the buttonhole and going "Ahem, you're being a hypocrite, based on your previous statements..."
That's ancillary to my point. I'm trying to point out that it's important not to be blithe about this stuff. It's important not to just go "Yeah, this is okay, because I agree with the end result, regardless of the means"
The means matter, because they're just as likely to get used against the things you believe as for them, depending on the intent of those who are wielding the power and exerting the pressure, and if you have nothing to say when the chips fall on your side it can be difficult to mount a defense when that is not the case.
If it's all good by you, that's fine. Some folks (again, gonna use Quid as an example) have clarified that yeah, that's fine, those tactics are usable by anyone even if I don't agree with their motives or their ends.
But consider if that's the stance they're actually taking, because I don't know if that's really as true for some as they're making it out to be, and that includes you personally.
I would take no issue with anyone expressing their opinions in an effort to change corporate policy. I may take issue with their goals, but certainly not their means to obtain them as long as they were going about it in an honest fashion.
I've already said this. Hell, I've been in situations in the past few months where I've been defending GG on twitter when people start attacking similar tactics as this. And I'm very vocal about my opposition for that movement.
I don't disagree that this move by Target is stupid. I disagree with the extreme rhetoric people are spewing about the retailers and the consumer movement.
So, I mean, I'm not exactly sure where your personal doubt is coming from besides a cynical place. It doesn't seem to be from statements in the recent past being inconsistent.
Nobody forced target to stop selling a game against their will. The petition had zero power over Target. The sole reason Target stopped was fear over losing market share.
Nobody forced target to stop selling a game against their will. The petition had zero power over Target. The sole reason Target stopped was fear over losing market share.
The petitioning, like any sort of consumer pressure in that regard, created the potential for negative market impact to target by way of affecting public opinion (more specifically, media reporting on the petitioning and potential outrage, etc. etc.)
Target decided that, ultimately, it was in their best interests not to carry this game because the potential profits lost by the negative publicity and public opinion for doing so outweighed the profits of actually continuing to sell the game.
The activists caused them to come to that conclusion, unless you're implying that's not the case?
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
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.
The ones people actually worry about.
I think not talking about censorship in these types of situations can lead to more worrying kinds.
I'm not making a slippery slope argument. I'm saying if you want to say "This is okay, and this is not, and this is why", that's fine, but elucidate that point, then. Quid, for example, has attempted to do so. Why you're okay with this, and not that, here, but not there, and so on.
I'm not interested in grabbing people by the buttonhole and going "Ahem, you're being a hypocrite, based on your previous statements..."
That's ancillary to my point. I'm trying to point out that it's important not to be blithe about this stuff. It's important not to just go "Yeah, this is okay, because I agree with the end result, regardless of the means"
The means matter, because they're just as likely to get used against the things you believe as for them, depending on the intent of those who are wielding the power and exerting the pressure, and if you have nothing to say when the chips fall on your side it can be difficult to mount a defense when that is not the case.
If it's all good by you, that's fine. Some folks (again, gonna use Quid as an example) have clarified that yeah, that's fine, those tactics are usable by anyone even if I don't agree with their motives or their ends.
But consider if that's the stance they're actually taking, because I don't know if that's really as true for some as they're making it out to be, and that includes you personally.
I would take no issue with anyone expressing their opinions in an effort to change corporate policy. I may take issue with their goals, but certainly not their means to obtain them as long as they were going about it in an honest fashion.
I've already said this. Hell, I've been in situations in the past few months where I've been defending GG on twitter when people start attacking similar tactics as this. And I'm very vocal about my opposition for that movement.
I don't disagree that this move by Target is stupid. I disagree with the extreme rhetoric people are spewing about the retailers and the consumer movement.
So, I mean, I'm not exactly sure where your personal doubt is coming from besides a cynical place. It doesn't seem to be from statements in the recent past being inconsistent.
Part of what bothers me about the arguments against consumer action is that people are basically saying here that huge corporations like Rockstar need to be protected from the speech of individuals. That's why it feels to me like people arguing against such action are actually pro speech suppression (suppression, not censorship, because I absolutely deny that any of this is censorship).
Huge corporations already have a leg up on individuals in regards to platforms for their speech. The idea that individual consumers have, somehow, too much power because they're able to find means to speak out against those platforms is rather on the abhorrent side to me.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
+3
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Nobody forced target to stop selling a game against their will. The petition had zero power over Target. The sole reason Target stopped was fear over losing market share.
The petitioning, like any sort of consumer pressure in that regard, created the potential for negative market impact to target by way of affecting public opinion (more specifically, media reporting on the petitioning and potential outrage, etc. etc.)
Target decided that, ultimately, it was in their best interests not to carry this game because the potential profits lost by the negative publicity and public opinion for doing so outweighed the profits of actually continuing to sell the game.
The activists caused them to come to that conclusion, unless you're implying that's not the case?
So Target AU decided to stop selling a product based on the preferences of their marketing demographic.
Remind me again how this is different from every other decision Target AU has ever made regarding what they stock and sell?
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
Nobody forced target to stop selling a game against their will. The petition had zero power over Target. The sole reason Target stopped was fear over losing market share.
The petitioning, like any sort of consumer pressure in that regard, created the potential for negative market impact to target by way of affecting public opinion (more specifically, media reporting on the petitioning and potential outrage, etc. etc.)
Target decided that, ultimately, it was in their best interests not to carry this game because the potential profits lost by the negative publicity and public opinion for doing so outweighed the profits of actually continuing to sell the game.
The activists caused them to come to that conclusion, unless you're implying that's not the case?
Customers made their preferences known to target. Target complied. Unless you're going to imply the majority of petitioners don't shop at target.
Also, the major difference between this action and something I was against, Intel pulling ads from gamasutra, is that in this case the petitioners are Target's target market. Everyone is.
In the case of the gamasutra stuff, gamasutra is targeted at developers, not consumers. So consumers writing the ad companies for that site when they were never who the site, or as it would follow the ads, were targeted at, seemed dishonest to me.
Also, the major difference between this action and something I was against, Intel pulling ads from gamasutra, is that in this case the petitioners are Target's target market. Everyone is.
In the case of the gamasutra stuff, gamasutra is targeted at developers, not consumers. So consumers writing the ad companies for that site when they were never who the site, or as it would follow the ads, were targeted at, seemed dishonest to me.
It's fine to me, generally speaking. Who a company supports with their marketing matters to me at least.
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.
The ones people actually worry about.
I think not talking about censorship in these types of situations can lead to more worrying kinds.
I'm not making a slippery slope argument. I'm saying if you want to say "This is okay, and this is not, and this is why", that's fine, but elucidate that point, then. Quid, for example, has attempted to do so. Why you're okay with this, and not that, here, but not there, and so on.
I'm not interested in grabbing people by the buttonhole and going "Ahem, you're being a hypocrite, based on your previous statements..."
That's ancillary to my point. I'm trying to point out that it's important not to be blithe about this stuff. It's important not to just go "Yeah, this is okay, because I agree with the end result, regardless of the means"
The means matter, because they're just as likely to get used against the things you believe as for them, depending on the intent of those who are wielding the power and exerting the pressure, and if you have nothing to say when the chips fall on your side it can be difficult to mount a defense when that is not the case.
If it's all good by you, that's fine. Some folks (again, gonna use Quid as an example) have clarified that yeah, that's fine, those tactics are usable by anyone even if I don't agree with their motives or their ends.
But consider if that's the stance they're actually taking, because I don't know if that's really as true for some as they're making it out to be, and that includes you personally.
I would take no issue with anyone expressing their opinions in an effort to change corporate policy. I may take issue with their goals, but certainly not their means to obtain them as long as they were going about it in an honest fashion.
I've already said this. Hell, I've been in situations in the past few months where I've been defending GG on twitter when people start attacking similar tactics as this. And I'm very vocal about my opposition for that movement.
I don't disagree that this move by Target is stupid. I disagree with the extreme rhetoric people are spewing about the retailers and the consumer movement.
So, I mean, I'm not exactly sure where your personal doubt is coming from besides a cynical place. It doesn't seem to be from statements in the recent past being inconsistent.
Part of what bothers me about the arguments against consumer action is that people are basically saying here that huge corporations like Rockstar need to be protected from the speech of individuals. That's why it feels to me like people arguing against such action are actually pro speech suppression (suppression, not censorship, because I absolutely deny that any of this is censorship).
Huge corporations already have a leg up on individuals in regards to platforms for their speech. The idea that individual consumers have, somehow, too much power because they're able to find means to speak out against those platforms is rather on the abhorrent side to me.
So you're perfectly fine with consumer action against huge corporations that distribute products to retailers, as a general rule. This does not change based on their effectiveness as a form of suppression of expressive works (I'm going to avoid the loaded word "art" and instead use the neutral "expressive works"), since you deny that. This does not change based on whether or not you agree with their motives, since you deny that and maintain that you have always held that view, and I'll just take that on good faith. Ultimately, you feel those corporations are free to attempt to create those works if there is a market for them, and if people take action to make the market less and less available to those works, then just... so be it.
I don't think that's a bad perspective to hold, per se. I wouldn't even say I disagree with it, if that's the perspective you hold. But make sure that's the perspective you actually hold, and that you understand what it entails, and where it can lead. The worst case scenario of this kind of thing isn't government thugs kicking people's doors down and sweeping their bookshelves for forbidden works. It's not going to be burning piles of stuff they find objectionable, as this comic strip leading this discussion so histrionically tries to draw a comparison.
No, the reasonable worst outcome is creators of these expressive works being told "You can't put that in there or we won't be able to sell it", which for practical purposes is just as good as telling them they can't put it in there at all. That's where I start calling it censorship by any other name, even though that word apparently triggers some people and makes them think I'm suggesting jackbooted stormtroopers are imminent. Because... something something. I don't know. Anyway, I'll just let that whole element of the conversation go since apparently it's too sensitive to use that word.
Let's call it suppression then, since that's more neutral and doesn't conjure up unnecessary nonsense. It is suppression, and suppression unchallenged leads to further suppression along the same lines. Sometimes that's not a bad thing. Suppressing racism, for example, isn't necessarily a bad thing. Making environments hostile to people putting out racist screeds or attempting to distribute racist expressive works is not really a bad thing. I don't think that's a controversial opinion. Obviously, in the grand scheme of things, it's better to eliminate racism by combating the issues that lead to people being racist and developing racist viewpoints, and challenging the mechanisms by which racism is established and takes root in society. But sometimes a component of that is just saying "No, this is not okay" to people attempting to distribute racist expressive works under the auspices of "Well, I'm free to express myself"
I think we both agree that "tolerance" doesn't necessarily extend to tolerating the intolerant, yeah? I think we both agree that someone making a statement like "If you think GTAV is misogynistic, you're just being intolerant of the freedom of video games to be misogynistic and you should be more tolerant of its rampantly horrible portrayal of women!" is patently absurd, yeah?
Attempting to suppress something like the upcoming video game Hatred, for example, by way of boycotts and consumer pressure, isn't necessarily a bad thing. I think it's probably a good idea, to be frank.
But this artificial distinction you try to make, between suppression by way of consumer action and government cens-.... ahem, suppression by way of government action? The reason it's bogus is because consumer action is not intrinsically more virtuous than government action.
Therein lies my core problem, which I thought was kind of obvious but clearly I have to be the one to elucidate; Suppression by way of consumer action or other forms of activism (and, if successful, therefore corporate action) is considered no big deal, regardless of how comprehensive and potent it is capable of being, whereas suppression by way of government edict (formally called by that troublesome word) is seen as this horrendous, monstrous dystopian nightmare scenario.
As a result, people who use that troublesome word are dismissed as if they're talking about the latter out of hand (when, demonstrably, it's not the case and basically never is), and the former just sort of... happens, without people really thinking too much about it or asking too many questions or being concerned at all.
Also, the major difference between this action and something I was against, Intel pulling ads from gamasutra, is that in this case the petitioners are Target's target market. Everyone is.
In the case of the gamasutra stuff, gamasutra is targeted at developers, not consumers. So consumers writing the ad companies for that site when they were never who the site, or as it would follow the ads, were targeted at, seemed dishonest to me.
It's fine to me, generally speaking. Who a company supports with their marketing matters to me at least.
It didn't really bother me too much. Not in a "these are bad immoral methods" but more a "this seems like an odd way to achieve your goals of ethics". But if that's the kind of thing pony is referring to then yes, I am guilty of criticizing actions like that that seem illogical to a movement's stated goals.
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.
The ones people actually worry about.
I think not talking about censorship in these types of situations can lead to more worrying kinds.
I'm not making a slippery slope argument. I'm saying if you want to say "This is okay, and this is not, and this is why", that's fine, but elucidate that point, then. Quid, for example, has attempted to do so. Why you're okay with this, and not that, here, but not there, and so on.
I'm not interested in grabbing people by the buttonhole and going "Ahem, you're being a hypocrite, based on your previous statements..."
That's ancillary to my point. I'm trying to point out that it's important not to be blithe about this stuff. It's important not to just go "Yeah, this is okay, because I agree with the end result, regardless of the means"
The means matter, because they're just as likely to get used against the things you believe as for them, depending on the intent of those who are wielding the power and exerting the pressure, and if you have nothing to say when the chips fall on your side it can be difficult to mount a defense when that is not the case.
If it's all good by you, that's fine. Some folks (again, gonna use Quid as an example) have clarified that yeah, that's fine, those tactics are usable by anyone even if I don't agree with their motives or their ends.
But consider if that's the stance they're actually taking, because I don't know if that's really as true for some as they're making it out to be, and that includes you personally.
I would take no issue with anyone expressing their opinions in an effort to change corporate policy. I may take issue with their goals, but certainly not their means to obtain them as long as they were going about it in an honest fashion.
I've already said this. Hell, I've been in situations in the past few months where I've been defending GG on twitter when people start attacking similar tactics as this. And I'm very vocal about my opposition for that movement.
I don't disagree that this move by Target is stupid. I disagree with the extreme rhetoric people are spewing about the retailers and the consumer movement.
So, I mean, I'm not exactly sure where your personal doubt is coming from besides a cynical place. It doesn't seem to be from statements in the recent past being inconsistent.
Part of what bothers me about the arguments against consumer action is that people are basically saying here that huge corporations like Rockstar need to be protected from the speech of individuals. That's why it feels to me like people arguing against such action are actually pro speech suppression (suppression, not censorship, because I absolutely deny that any of this is censorship).
Huge corporations already have a leg up on individuals in regards to platforms for their speech. The idea that individual consumers have, somehow, too much power because they're able to find means to speak out against those platforms is rather on the abhorrent side to me.
So you're perfectly fine with consumer action against huge corporations that distribute products to retailers, as a general rule. This does not change based on their effectiveness as a form of suppression of expressive works (I'm going to avoid the loaded word "art" and instead use the neutral "expressive works"), since you deny that. This does not change based on whether or not you agree with their motives, since you deny that and maintain that you have always held that view, and I'll just take that on good faith. Ultimately, you feel those corporations are free to attempt to create those works if there is a market for them, and if people take action to make the market less and less available to those works, then just... so be it.
I don't think that's a bad perspective to hold, per se. I wouldn't even say I disagree with it, if that's the perspective you hold. But make sure that's the perspective you actually hold, and that you understand what it entails, and where it can lead. The worst case scenario of this kind of thing isn't government thugs kicking people's doors down and sweeping their bookshelves for forbidden works. It's not going to be burning piles of stuff they find objectionable, as this comic strip leading this discussion so histrionically tries to draw a comparison.
No, the reasonable worst outcome is creators of these expressive works being told "You can't put that in there or we won't be able to sell it", which for practical purposes is just as good as telling them they can't put it in there at all. That's where I start calling it censorship by any other name, even though that word apparently triggers some people and makes them think I'm suggesting jackbooted stormtroopers are imminent. Because... something something. I don't know. Anyway, I'll just let that whole element of the conversation go since apparently it's too sensitive to use that word.
Let's call it suppression then, since that's more neutral and doesn't conjure up unnecessary nonsense. It is suppression, and suppression unchallenged leads to further suppression along the same lines. Sometimes that's not a bad thing. Suppressing racism, for example, isn't necessarily a bad thing. Making environments hostile to people putting out racist screeds or attempting to distribute racist expressive works is not really a bad thing. I don't think that's a controversial opinion. Obviously, in the grand scheme of things, it's better to eliminate racism by combating the issues that lead to people being racist and developing racist viewpoints, and challenging the mechanisms by which racism is established and takes root in society. But sometimes a component of that is just saying "No, this is not okay" to people attempting to distribute racist expressive works under the auspices of "Well, I'm free to express myself"
I think we both agree that "tolerance" doesn't necessarily extend to tolerating the intolerant, yeah? I think we both agree that someone making a statement like "If you think GTAV is misogynistic, you're just being intolerant of the freedom of video games to be misogynistic and you should be more tolerant of its rampantly horrible portrayal of women!" is patently absurd, yeah?
Attempting to suppress something like the upcoming video game Hatred, for example, by way of boycotts and consumer pressure, isn't necessarily a bad thing. I think it's probably a good idea, to be frank.
But this artificial distinction you try to make, between suppression by way of consumer action and government cens-.... ahem, suppression by way of government action? The reason it's bogus is because consumer action is not intrinsically more virtuous than government action.
Therein lies my core problem, which I thought was kind of obvious but clearly I have to be the one to elucidate; Suppression by way of consumer action or other forms of activism (and, if successful, therefore corporate action) is considered no big deal, regardless of how comprehensive and potent it is capable of being, whereas suppression by way of government edict (formally called by that troublesome word) is seen as this horrendous, monstrous dystopian nightmare scenario.
As a result, people who use that troublesome word are dismissed as if they're talking about the latter out of hand (when, demonstrably, it's not the case and basically never is), and the former just sort of... happens, without people really thinking too much about it or asking too many questions or being concerned at all.
Are you okay with that?
Yes. And you know why? Two reasons:
It's easier to change rules that are imposed by cultural norms than it is to strip a government of oversight.
Cultural norms need to be represented in media in order for there to be cultural norms. Without that we end up with no culture at all, with everything just being advertised and sold to the lowest common denominator.
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.
The ones people actually worry about.
I think not talking about censorship in these types of situations can lead to more worrying kinds.
I'm not making a slippery slope argument. I'm saying if you want to say "This is okay, and this is not, and this is why", that's fine, but elucidate that point, then. Quid, for example, has attempted to do so. Why you're okay with this, and not that, here, but not there, and so on.
I'm not interested in grabbing people by the buttonhole and going "Ahem, you're being a hypocrite, based on your previous statements..."
That's ancillary to my point. I'm trying to point out that it's important not to be blithe about this stuff. It's important not to just go "Yeah, this is okay, because I agree with the end result, regardless of the means"
The means matter, because they're just as likely to get used against the things you believe as for them, depending on the intent of those who are wielding the power and exerting the pressure, and if you have nothing to say when the chips fall on your side it can be difficult to mount a defense when that is not the case.
If it's all good by you, that's fine. Some folks (again, gonna use Quid as an example) have clarified that yeah, that's fine, those tactics are usable by anyone even if I don't agree with their motives or their ends.
But consider if that's the stance they're actually taking, because I don't know if that's really as true for some as they're making it out to be, and that includes you personally.
I would take no issue with anyone expressing their opinions in an effort to change corporate policy. I may take issue with their goals, but certainly not their means to obtain them as long as they were going about it in an honest fashion.
I've already said this. Hell, I've been in situations in the past few months where I've been defending GG on twitter when people start attacking similar tactics as this. And I'm very vocal about my opposition for that movement.
I don't disagree that this move by Target is stupid. I disagree with the extreme rhetoric people are spewing about the retailers and the consumer movement.
So, I mean, I'm not exactly sure where your personal doubt is coming from besides a cynical place. It doesn't seem to be from statements in the recent past being inconsistent.
Part of what bothers me about the arguments against consumer action is that people are basically saying here that huge corporations like Rockstar need to be protected from the speech of individuals. That's why it feels to me like people arguing against such action are actually pro speech suppression (suppression, not censorship, because I absolutely deny that any of this is censorship).
Huge corporations already have a leg up on individuals in regards to platforms for their speech. The idea that individual consumers have, somehow, too much power because they're able to find means to speak out against those platforms is rather on the abhorrent side to me.
So you're perfectly fine with consumer action against huge corporations that distribute products to retailers, as a general rule. This does not change based on their effectiveness as a form of suppression of expressive works (I'm going to avoid the loaded word "art" and instead use the neutral "expressive works"), since you deny that. This does not change based on whether or not you agree with their motives, since you deny that and maintain that you have always held that view, and I'll just take that on good faith. Ultimately, you feel those corporations are free to attempt to create those works if there is a market for them, and if people take action to make the market less and less available to those works, then just... so be it.
I don't think that's a bad perspective to hold, per se. I wouldn't even say I disagree with it, if that's the perspective you hold. But make sure that's the perspective you actually hold, and that you understand what it entails, and where it can lead. The worst case scenario of this kind of thing isn't government thugs kicking people's doors down and sweeping their bookshelves for forbidden works. It's not going to be burning piles of stuff they find objectionable, as this comic strip leading this discussion so histrionically tries to draw a comparison.
No, the reasonable worst outcome is creators of these expressive works being told "You can't put that in there or we won't be able to sell it", which for practical purposes is just as good as telling them they can't put it in there at all. That's where I start calling it censorship by any other name, even though that word apparently triggers some people and makes them think I'm suggesting jackbooted stormtroopers are imminent. Because... something something. I don't know. Anyway, I'll just let that whole element of the conversation go since apparently it's too sensitive to use that word.
Let's call it suppression then, since that's more neutral and doesn't conjure up unnecessary nonsense. It is suppression, and suppression unchallenged leads to further suppression along the same lines. Sometimes that's not a bad thing. Suppressing racism, for example, isn't necessarily a bad thing. Making environments hostile to people putting out racist screeds or attempting to distribute racist expressive works is not really a bad thing. I don't think that's a controversial opinion. Obviously, in the grand scheme of things, it's better to eliminate racism by combating the issues that lead to people being racist and developing racist viewpoints, and challenging the mechanisms by which racism is established and takes root in society. But sometimes a component of that is just saying "No, this is not okay" to people attempting to distribute racist expressive works under the auspices of "Well, I'm free to express myself"
I think we both agree that "tolerance" doesn't necessarily extend to tolerating the intolerant, yeah? I think we both agree that someone making a statement like "If you think GTAV is misogynistic, you're just being intolerant of the freedom of video games to be misogynistic and you should be more tolerant of its rampantly horrible portrayal of women!" is patently absurd, yeah?
Attempting to suppress something like the upcoming video game Hatred, for example, by way of boycotts and consumer pressure, isn't necessarily a bad thing. I think it's probably a good idea, to be frank.
But this artificial distinction you try to make, between suppression by way of consumer action and government cens-.... ahem, suppression by way of government action? The reason it's bogus is because consumer action is not intrinsically more virtuous than government action.
Therein lies my core problem, which I thought was kind of obvious but clearly I have to be the one to elucidate; Suppression by way of consumer action or other forms of activism (and, if successful, therefore corporate action) is considered no big deal, regardless of how comprehensive and potent it is capable of being, whereas suppression by way of government edict (formally called by that troublesome word) is seen as this horrendous, monstrous dystopian nightmare scenario.
As a result, people who use that troublesome word are dismissed as if they're talking about the latter out of hand (when, demonstrably, it's not the case and basically never is), and the former just sort of... happens, without people really thinking too much about it or asking too many questions or being concerned at all.
Are you okay with that?
Yes. And you know why? Two reasons:
It's easier to change rules that are imposed by cultural norms than it is to strip a government of oversight.
Cultural norms need to be represented in media in order for there to be cultural norms. Without that we end up with no culture at all, with everything just being advertised and sold to the lowest common denominator.
I wasn't asking if you were okay with consumer activism. I am, you are. We both are. That's not the question.
The question I asked was not if you found consumer activism more palatable than government action and preferable to it. You do, I do.
I am asking if you're okay with the way people blithely dismiss any and all concerns about consumer activism and what we're suppressing and why out of hand because well
it's not technically censorship, m i rite?
That feels like a dodge, to me, and a dishonest one at that.
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.
The ones people actually worry about.
I think not talking about censorship in these types of situations can lead to more worrying kinds.
I'm not making a slippery slope argument. I'm saying if you want to say "This is okay, and this is not, and this is why", that's fine, but elucidate that point, then. Quid, for example, has attempted to do so. Why you're okay with this, and not that, here, but not there, and so on.
I'm not interested in grabbing people by the buttonhole and going "Ahem, you're being a hypocrite, based on your previous statements..."
That's ancillary to my point. I'm trying to point out that it's important not to be blithe about this stuff. It's important not to just go "Yeah, this is okay, because I agree with the end result, regardless of the means"
The means matter, because they're just as likely to get used against the things you believe as for them, depending on the intent of those who are wielding the power and exerting the pressure, and if you have nothing to say when the chips fall on your side it can be difficult to mount a defense when that is not the case.
If it's all good by you, that's fine. Some folks (again, gonna use Quid as an example) have clarified that yeah, that's fine, those tactics are usable by anyone even if I don't agree with their motives or their ends.
But consider if that's the stance they're actually taking, because I don't know if that's really as true for some as they're making it out to be, and that includes you personally.
I would take no issue with anyone expressing their opinions in an effort to change corporate policy. I may take issue with their goals, but certainly not their means to obtain them as long as they were going about it in an honest fashion.
I've already said this. Hell, I've been in situations in the past few months where I've been defending GG on twitter when people start attacking similar tactics as this. And I'm very vocal about my opposition for that movement.
I don't disagree that this move by Target is stupid. I disagree with the extreme rhetoric people are spewing about the retailers and the consumer movement.
So, I mean, I'm not exactly sure where your personal doubt is coming from besides a cynical place. It doesn't seem to be from statements in the recent past being inconsistent.
Part of what bothers me about the arguments against consumer action is that people are basically saying here that huge corporations like Rockstar need to be protected from the speech of individuals. That's why it feels to me like people arguing against such action are actually pro speech suppression (suppression, not censorship, because I absolutely deny that any of this is censorship).
Huge corporations already have a leg up on individuals in regards to platforms for their speech. The idea that individual consumers have, somehow, too much power because they're able to find means to speak out against those platforms is rather on the abhorrent side to me.
So you're perfectly fine with consumer action against huge corporations that distribute products to retailers, as a general rule. This does not change based on their effectiveness as a form of suppression of expressive works (I'm going to avoid the loaded word "art" and instead use the neutral "expressive works"), since you deny that. This does not change based on whether or not you agree with their motives, since you deny that and maintain that you have always held that view, and I'll just take that on good faith. Ultimately, you feel those corporations are free to attempt to create those works if there is a market for them, and if people take action to make the market less and less available to those works, then just... so be it.
I don't think that's a bad perspective to hold, per se. I wouldn't even say I disagree with it, if that's the perspective you hold. But make sure that's the perspective you actually hold, and that you understand what it entails, and where it can lead. The worst case scenario of this kind of thing isn't government thugs kicking people's doors down and sweeping their bookshelves for forbidden works. It's not going to be burning piles of stuff they find objectionable, as this comic strip leading this discussion so histrionically tries to draw a comparison.
No, the reasonable worst outcome is creators of these expressive works being told "You can't put that in there or we won't be able to sell it", which for practical purposes is just as good as telling them they can't put it in there at all. That's where I start calling it censorship by any other name, even though that word apparently triggers some people and makes them think I'm suggesting jackbooted stormtroopers are imminent. Because... something something. I don't know. Anyway, I'll just let that whole element of the conversation go since apparently it's too sensitive to use that word.
Let's call it suppression then, since that's more neutral and doesn't conjure up unnecessary nonsense. It is suppression, and suppression unchallenged leads to further suppression along the same lines. Sometimes that's not a bad thing. Suppressing racism, for example, isn't necessarily a bad thing. Making environments hostile to people putting out racist screeds or attempting to distribute racist expressive works is not really a bad thing. I don't think that's a controversial opinion. Obviously, in the grand scheme of things, it's better to eliminate racism by combating the issues that lead to people being racist and developing racist viewpoints, and challenging the mechanisms by which racism is established and takes root in society. But sometimes a component of that is just saying "No, this is not okay" to people attempting to distribute racist expressive works under the auspices of "Well, I'm free to express myself"
I think we both agree that "tolerance" doesn't necessarily extend to tolerating the intolerant, yeah? I think we both agree that someone making a statement like "If you think GTAV is misogynistic, you're just being intolerant of the freedom of video games to be misogynistic and you should be more tolerant of its rampantly horrible portrayal of women!" is patently absurd, yeah?
Attempting to suppress something like the upcoming video game Hatred, for example, by way of boycotts and consumer pressure, isn't necessarily a bad thing. I think it's probably a good idea, to be frank.
But this artificial distinction you try to make, between suppression by way of consumer action and government cens-.... ahem, suppression by way of government action? The reason it's bogus is because consumer action is not intrinsically more virtuous than government action.
Therein lies my core problem, which I thought was kind of obvious but clearly I have to be the one to elucidate; Suppression by way of consumer action or other forms of activism (and, if successful, therefore corporate action) is considered no big deal, regardless of how comprehensive and potent it is capable of being, whereas suppression by way of government edict (formally called by that troublesome word) is seen as this horrendous, monstrous dystopian nightmare scenario.
As a result, people who use that troublesome word are dismissed as if they're talking about the latter out of hand (when, demonstrably, it's not the case and basically never is), and the former just sort of... happens, without people really thinking too much about it or asking too many questions or being concerned at all.
Are you okay with that?
Yes. And you know why? Two reasons:
It's easier to change rules that are imposed by cultural norms than it is to strip a government of oversight.
Cultural norms need to be represented in media in order for there to be cultural norms. Without that we end up with no culture at all, with everything just being advertised and sold to the lowest common denominator.
I wasn't asking if you were okay with consumer activism. I am, you are. We both are. That's not the question.
The question I asked was not if you found consumer activism more palatable than government action and preferable to it. You do, I do.
I am asking if you're okay with the way people blithely dismiss any and all concerns about consumer activism and what we're suppressing and why out of hand because well
it's not technically censorship, m i rite?
That feels like a dodge, to me, and a dishonest one at that.
Sorry, but yes. I am OK with dismissing concerns about consumer activism. If you disagree with a movement, become part of an opposing one instead of throwing out concerns without taking action.
That's the thing, with consumer activism we have a level playing field for opposing movements. So no, it wasn't a dodge.
I'm really starting to get pissed at your constant accusations of dishonesty.
No I don't.
+5
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Uh yeah, no Pony. We're not playing semantics here. If anyone is being dishonest, it's you.
The power of an individual to protest is absolutely in no way equal to the power of the government to suppress.
The whole reason people have a knee-jerk reaction to censorship, the reason the founding fathers thought it important enough to make it the first amendment, is that government can be extremely powerful in controlling and denying individual speech if it is allowed to.
An individual, even 40,000 individuals signing a petition, are just not going to have that kind of power.
Now maybe a corporation that makes video games or a corporation that sells video games are getting closer to that kind of power, but those entities still don't compare.
I do find this statement of yours rather amusing:
No, the reasonable worst outcome is creators of these expressive works being told "You can't put that in there or we won't be able to sell it", which for practical purposes is just as good as telling them they can't put it in there at all.
You didn't notice that this is the way all products have worked since time immemorial? No one being interested in buying your product is equal to suppression? What if your art just isn't any good, are you still being suppressed? This is a laughable position, and the twisting and turning you're doing in order to find other people in the wrong is kind of baffling to me right now.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
I am asking if you're okay with the way people blithely dismiss any and all concerns about consumer activism and what we're suppressing and why out of hand because well
it's not technically censorship, m i rite?
That feels like a dodge, to me, and a dishonest one at that.
It's worth noting (sans commentary) that the ACLU acknowledges the existence of governmental censorship, corporate censorship, and private censorship, their examples being the Hollywood Blacklist, and a lone little old lady trying to get a book removed from a local library, while also acknowledging the importance of personal property rights (my right to sell whatever I want in my store, or control the content on my website).
I'm not a big fan of inaction or just talking about what you believe. So criticism of a consumer movement the isn't accompanied by just as vocal and spirited action seems pathetic and worthless to me. And even with those actions constantly complaining about your opposition making perfectly valid moves also seems immature and useless.
I can't respect people standing on the sidelines in cases like these if they strongly believe in one side or the other. Apathy hurts culture. Vocal apathy is madness.
If I see a consumer movement I disagree with targeting a company and I'm in that company's market I write them with my opinion and encourage others to do the same. I don't complain that the move is invalid, especially if I don't follow through with action.
But this artificial distinction you try to make, between suppression by way of consumer action and government cens-.... ahem, suppression by way of government action? The reason it's bogus is because consumer action is not intrinsically more virtuous than government action.
Therein lies my core problem, which I thought was kind of obvious but clearly I have to be the one to elucidate; Suppression by way of consumer action or other forms of activism (and, if successful, therefore corporate action) is considered no big deal, regardless of how comprehensive and potent it is capable of being, whereas suppression by way of government edict (formally called by that troublesome word) is seen as this horrendous, monstrous dystopian nightmare scenario.
As a result, people who use that troublesome word are dismissed as if they're talking about the latter out of hand (when, demonstrably, it's not the case and basically never is), and the former just sort of... happens, without people really thinking too much about it or asking too many questions or being concerned at all.
Are you okay with that?
Consumer action is more virtuous than government action for one extremely important reason: the government can legally back up its censorship with state force including fines, imprisonment, and even in extreme cases like North Korea, death. A consumer action can only threaten profits. If a company is willing to eat the potential profit loss to make a stand, it can do that without fear of the government coming in, shutting them down, and hauling the entire company away to jail. Government action is censorship because of what backs it up. Consumer action is a fundamentally different beast, a far less toothy one.
Stores have a right to determine what they will and won't sell. Consumers have a right to try and influence what stores sell using their consumer power. If other consumers want to counterbalance such efforts they can attempt to exert their power in the opposite direction -- for example, one group attempts to boycott Chik-Fil-A and another group vows to show up and buy an extra chicken sandwich to make up the losses. The appropriate response to the petition would have been to make Target-AU a counter offer -- "Please continue to sell this game and we will make up for any losses you sustain. Signed, fans of GTAV." Then Target-AU could make a choice which group it wanted to please most and make a decision based on that -- or make a decision based on the feelings and mood of the CEO whoever that is. Target-AU doesn't owe anyone any explanations for their buying policy.
What seems to be getting some gamers hot under the collar is the fact that Target-AU chose do what the other guys wanted them to do and not what the gamers wanted them to do. It always stinks to lose out like that, but it's not any kind of censorship or "suppression". Target-AU had to make a choice between making the petition-signers happy and making gamers happy, and they went with the group that's closer to their main customer demographic. Just as Chik-Fil-A had to choose who to make happy, because they weren't going to make both groups happy. No way no how. If Target-AU had sided with gamers (and let's face it, why the heck would they?) the other side would have accused them of supporting violence against women and would have thought they were fully as bad as the gamers think they are for "cen-pression" of "art." People on one side think Chik-Fil-A is an organization that supports bigotry; people on the other side admire them for sticking up for Biblical virtues and "family values." Someone is going to lose. That's all. The same instinct that causes Jerry to scream CENSORSHIP!! when it's nothing of the kind causes certain kinds of Christians to scream that they're being OPPRESSED! by gay marriage when they aren't. That basic instinct is: "There was a fight and my side lost and I'm pissed because DAMMIT WE'RE THE GOOD GUYS!" The emotions get involved and hold the thinking brain hostage and stupid flatly incorrect stuff gets spouted (Jerry's not being censored, Christians aren't being oppressed) because people don't like to lose.
But really, the whole notion that people refusing to sell your stuff in their stores is censorship is crazy. Yes, if everyone refuses to sell your stuff, you're going to have to get creative and find another distribution method (or seek another means of making a livlihood.) Maybe you'll succeed in getting your stuff out there and maybe you won't; historically, a lot of good and even great artists died penniless because they couldn't get anyone to sell their stuff. No one is entitled to a market. How could it be otherwise? Does it make any sense for either governments OR consumers to have the power to tell a store what kinds of goods it must carry? Are we supposed to start passing laws saying that since art is sacred, all stores must sell everything that is labeled "art", no matter how much they dislike it or how unlikely it is to turn a profit, just because all art is entitled to a marketplace? Just think for a second what that would result in and you'll see why it's a crazy notion. Or should we say stores are allowed to make decisions about what entertainment products they carry UNLESS there's a consumer protest, in which case the presence of the protest means they're NOT allowed to take it off the shelves because that would be "censorship"?
Not finding anyone willing to sell your stuff, for whatever reason, is by far the most common fate for artists. "We won't sell that item because everyone would hate us and stop shopping at our store" is a completely legitimate reason to stop selling an item. If the item in question is a piece of art that's so iffy or edgy or weird or obscene that the artist can't find any place at all willing to sell it -- well, them's the breaks! It's not censorship any more than your garage band not being able to get any local store to carry their homemade CDs because the lyrics are horribly offensive is censorship. You just failed to make an art product anyone wanted to sell. Make some different art and try again. Welcome to the artistic life!
What amazes me is the doublethink where people are honestly telling themselves they're not censoring GTA V. Because everyone knows censorship is bad and these silly moral busybodies think they aren't prey to the mistakes of the past.
What amazes me is the doublethink where people are honestly telling themselves they're not censoring GTA V. Because everyone knows censorship is bad and these silly moral busybodies think they aren't prey to the mistakes of the past.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
Moral busybodies? You know, there are times where society having at least some baseline for what is morally acceptable to encourage is a good thing. Like the mistreatment of others for any reason.
What amazes me is the doublethink where people are honestly telling themselves they're not censoring GTA V. Because everyone knows censorship is bad and these silly moral busybodies think they aren't prey to the mistakes of the past.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
What amazes me is people's incredibly weak grasp of the concept of censorship.
Again, consumer action nearly forced abortion clinics to close in Mississippi.
But thats fine, people can just join an opposing movement.
Because, at least not censorship. The government is not denying rights. So, fine?
Dishonest legislation and physical threats/attacks caused that. Clinics were not shut down because of a letter writing campaign or lack of interest.
Everything I read was that it was because locals made it know that they would not support hospitals who gave the abortion clinics the green light, and abortion clinics needed these.
Regardless, I'm arguing against this weird, almost libertarian belief of "just let the free market work", as if the free market or public can never trample over the rights of individuals.
Again, not saying this is one of those times. I support Target AU's choice.
Again, consumer action nearly forced abortion clinics to close in Mississippi.
But thats fine, people can just join an opposing movement.
Because, at least not censorship. The government is not denying rights. So, fine?
Dishonest legislation and physical threats/attacks caused that. Clinics were not shut down because of a letter writing campaign or lack of interest.
Everything I read was that it was because locals made it know that they would not support hospitals who gave the abortion clinics the green light, and abortion clinics needed these.
Regardless, I'm arguing against this weird, almost libertarian belief of "just let the free market work", as if the free market or public can never trample over the rights of individuals.
Again, not saying this is one of those times. I support Target AU's choice.
Then what you read about it was wrong. What happened was that laws were passed in attempts to circumvent access. Nothing at all related to people simply refusing to support the clinics. Incidentally, that's something you'll find pretty much everyone agreeing the government suppressing people's rights is absolutely a bad thing.
And no one has said the free market can't trample people's rights. Please don't insult people by arguing against ideas no one has proposed.
Again, consumer action nearly forced abortion clinics to close in Mississippi.
But thats fine, people can just join an opposing movement.
Because, at least not censorship. The government is not denying rights. So, fine?
Dishonest legislation and physical threats/attacks caused that. Clinics were not shut down because of a letter writing campaign or lack of interest.
Everything I read was that it was because locals made it know that they would not support hospitals who gave the abortion clinics the green light, and abortion clinics needed these.
Regardless, I'm arguing against this weird, almost libertarian belief of "just let the free market work", as if the free market or public can never trample over the rights of individuals.
Again, not saying this is one of those times. I support Target AU's choice.
It's not a libertarian belief.
It's a belief that people have a voice to influence the free market when it comes to clulture instead of outright government regulation.
It's the exact opposite viewpoint of atlas shrugged. We believe the " takers" have the right and duty to control the "producers" through our influence. Libritatians don't.
I would be outright opposed to a group who was trying to get GTA V and games of its like banned from being made. That's the difference between this and Jack Thompson.
Death of Rats on
No I don't.
+2
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
What amazes me is the doublethink where people are honestly telling themselves they're not censoring GTA V. Because everyone knows censorship is bad and these silly moral busybodies think they aren't prey to the mistakes of the past.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
You are saying this as a guy who took fervent part in a letter writing campaign to get a journalist fired because she wrote something that hurt your feelings.
Cambiata on
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
What amazes me is the doublethink where people are honestly telling themselves they're not censoring GTA V. Because everyone knows censorship is bad and these silly moral busybodies think they aren't prey to the mistakes of the past.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
You are saying this as a guy who took fervent part in a letter writing campaign to get a journalist fired because she wrote something that hurt your feelings.
@Pony if you were referring to people in this thread who are calling this censorship who also took part in the gamergate letter writing campaigns being hypocritical, then I'm 100% behind you. Neither were censorship and taking part in one while calling the other unacceptable censorship is a perfect example of hypocrisy and dishonesty.
I am asking if you're okay with the way people blithely dismiss any and all concerns about consumer activism and what we're suppressing and why out of hand because well
To which many people responded "yes, I am". "Any and all" includes, to me, trampling on individual rights.
Individuals can force the free market to trample on individual rights. Are we okay with this?
I am asking if you're okay with the way people blithely dismiss any and all concerns about consumer activism and what we're suppressing and why out of hand because well
To which many people responded "yes, I am". "Any and all" includes, to me, trampling on individual rights.
Individuals can force the free market to trample on individual rights. Are we okay with this?
No one actually did this. The closest I see is Rats saying they're fine with dismissing concerns in general. Though I don't take that as dismissing any and all concerns for all eternity no matter what form they take.
I am asking if you're okay with the way people blithely dismiss any and all concerns about consumer activism and what we're suppressing and why out of hand because well
To which many people responded "yes, I am". "Any and all" includes, to me, trampling on individual rights.
Individuals can force the free market to trample on individual rights. Are we okay with this?
I am asking if you're okay with the way people blithely dismiss any and all concerns about consumer activism and what we're suppressing and why out of hand because well
To which many people responded "yes, I am". "Any and all" includes, to me, trampling on individual rights.
Individuals can force the free market to trample on individual rights. Are we okay with this?
No one actually did this. The closest I see is Rats saying they're fine with dismissing concerns in general. Though I don't take that as dismissing any and all concerns for all eternity no matter what form they take.
I'm reading that very differently than you than. I didn't see a "in general" anywhere in there. Just a yes.
I am asking if you're okay with the way people blithely dismiss any and all concerns about consumer activism and what we're suppressing and why out of hand because well
To which many people responded "yes, I am". "Any and all" includes, to me, trampling on individual rights.
Individuals can force the free market to trample on individual rights. Are we okay with this?
I'm uncomfortable with corporations taking any kind of moral stance. A lot of people object to GTA 5 for reasons, but what if instead of GTA 5 it was various works of popular culture? Wal Mart for example does not sell many classic books, or only sells heavily stripped down versions of them. Versions that strip the moral dimensions and controversy from classic stories. Would you be happy if in the future there were only one or two retailers, and they decided between them to stop selling any books that made reference to important historical events? What if I told you that was already the case, and that if it wasn't for a few online retailers like Amazon who have not yet taken such a stance you would have virtually no ability to access a history book or even anything nearing an accurate account of more than a dozen different major historical events?
If you believe that you can influence how people act for the better by restricting their access to knowledge, interactive media, or depictions of events, then censorship seems like a good idea. But if you admit that people do good and bad things for other reasons unrelated to their level of knowledge or experience then that is not the case. However, if you were to believe that intelligence, or knowledge and virtue go hand in hand then it is morally wrong to restrict access to any information.
Additionally, one should consider that to depict a thing is not to encourage it. If there is any relationship between depictions of violence occurring, and actual acts of violence occurring I would say it's an inverse relationship. Even a work of fiction that glorifies violence could serve a good societal purpose by allowing us to examine it, and the reasons why violence is glorified. If people don't understand things as a community how can they possibly deal with them?
If we are looking at a single action of a single corporation then sure, who cares? But is that really where this will end? If there is enough demand to justify selling a book a game or any depiction of anything, I want it to be sold, that includes material that is designed to be inflammatory or incite violence. Including such works as the Turner Diaries. There are already wide scale, fairly successful efforts to restrict access to all kinds of media, but since it's private corporations choosing to do it in a roundabout way it's all good apparently.
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.
It's more likely that you misread or are misremembering what those people were trying to say
Probably conflated discussion of the Gamasutra/Intel thing with people decrying harassment campaigns, or something
I am asking if you're okay with the way people blithely dismiss any and all concerns about consumer activism and what we're suppressing and why out of hand because well
To which many people responded "yes, I am". "Any and all" includes, to me, trampling on individual rights.
Individuals can force the free market to trample on individual rights. Are we okay with this?
I am OK with movements using their voice to influence corporations with the goal of trampleing on people's rights. I am not OK with the GOAL of trampling on people's rights. I would fight any such movement, not demonize their methods of enacting their goal.
I don't care about legitimate methods, I care about the goals.
Posts
I think not talking about censorship in these types of situations can lead to more worrying kinds.
I'm not making a slippery slope argument. I'm saying if you want to say "This is okay, and this is not, and this is why", that's fine, but elucidate that point, then. Quid, for example, has attempted to do so. Why you're okay with this, and not that, here, but not there, and so on.
I'm not interested in grabbing people by the buttonhole and going "Ahem, you're being a hypocrite, based on your previous statements..."
That's ancillary to my point. I'm trying to point out that it's important not to be blithe about this stuff. It's important not to just go "Yeah, this is okay, because I agree with the end result, regardless of the means"
The means matter, because they're just as likely to get used against the things you believe as for them, depending on the intent of those who are wielding the power and exerting the pressure, and if you have nothing to say when the chips fall on your side it can be difficult to mount a defense when that is not the case.
If it's all good by you, that's fine. Some folks (again, gonna use Quid as an example) have clarified that yeah, that's fine, those tactics are usable by anyone even if I don't agree with their motives or their ends.
But consider if that's the stance they're actually taking, because I don't know if that's really as true for some as they're making it out to be, and that includes you personally.
This is probably the disconnect then.
The vast, vast majority of people do.
Again, nice try, but you're intentionally obfuscating meaning by omitting words.
Nobody forced Target to sell a game against their will.
Their will, as a corporate retailer, is to sell products and make money. Yes, people force retailers to sell things they want, if by "force" you're using the term to refer to market forces and force of demand. But retailers, Target included, are perfectly fine with that and exchange those goods for money. There's nothing against their will happening there, they're just responding to consumer demand as it exists.
When a retailer that is already distributing a product (or has shown clear intention to distribute an upcoming product for release) and is given cause to reverse course on that due to consumer pressure and activism, that's an entirely different thing to them opting to distribute the product in the first place because they wanted people's money.
Those two things are meaningfully different, and you know that. C'mon, dude.
I would take no issue with anyone expressing their opinions in an effort to change corporate policy. I may take issue with their goals, but certainly not their means to obtain them as long as they were going about it in an honest fashion.
I've already said this. Hell, I've been in situations in the past few months where I've been defending GG on twitter when people start attacking similar tactics as this. And I'm very vocal about my opposition for that movement.
I don't disagree that this move by Target is stupid. I disagree with the extreme rhetoric people are spewing about the retailers and the consumer movement.
So, I mean, I'm not exactly sure where your personal doubt is coming from besides a cynical place. It doesn't seem to be from statements in the recent past being inconsistent.
Seems to be.
I don't know where that stems from but, there it is.
Evelyn Beatrice Hall?
The petitioning, like any sort of consumer pressure in that regard, created the potential for negative market impact to target by way of affecting public opinion (more specifically, media reporting on the petitioning and potential outrage, etc. etc.)
Target decided that, ultimately, it was in their best interests not to carry this game because the potential profits lost by the negative publicity and public opinion for doing so outweighed the profits of actually continuing to sell the game.
The activists caused them to come to that conclusion, unless you're implying that's not the case?
Part of what bothers me about the arguments against consumer action is that people are basically saying here that huge corporations like Rockstar need to be protected from the speech of individuals. That's why it feels to me like people arguing against such action are actually pro speech suppression (suppression, not censorship, because I absolutely deny that any of this is censorship).
Huge corporations already have a leg up on individuals in regards to platforms for their speech. The idea that individual consumers have, somehow, too much power because they're able to find means to speak out against those platforms is rather on the abhorrent side to me.
So Target AU decided to stop selling a product based on the preferences of their marketing demographic.
Remind me again how this is different from every other decision Target AU has ever made regarding what they stock and sell?
Customers made their preferences known to target. Target complied. Unless you're going to imply the majority of petitioners don't shop at target.
In the case of the gamasutra stuff, gamasutra is targeted at developers, not consumers. So consumers writing the ad companies for that site when they were never who the site, or as it would follow the ads, were targeted at, seemed dishonest to me.
It's fine to me, generally speaking. Who a company supports with their marketing matters to me at least.
So you're perfectly fine with consumer action against huge corporations that distribute products to retailers, as a general rule. This does not change based on their effectiveness as a form of suppression of expressive works (I'm going to avoid the loaded word "art" and instead use the neutral "expressive works"), since you deny that. This does not change based on whether or not you agree with their motives, since you deny that and maintain that you have always held that view, and I'll just take that on good faith. Ultimately, you feel those corporations are free to attempt to create those works if there is a market for them, and if people take action to make the market less and less available to those works, then just... so be it.
I don't think that's a bad perspective to hold, per se. I wouldn't even say I disagree with it, if that's the perspective you hold. But make sure that's the perspective you actually hold, and that you understand what it entails, and where it can lead. The worst case scenario of this kind of thing isn't government thugs kicking people's doors down and sweeping their bookshelves for forbidden works. It's not going to be burning piles of stuff they find objectionable, as this comic strip leading this discussion so histrionically tries to draw a comparison.
No, the reasonable worst outcome is creators of these expressive works being told "You can't put that in there or we won't be able to sell it", which for practical purposes is just as good as telling them they can't put it in there at all. That's where I start calling it censorship by any other name, even though that word apparently triggers some people and makes them think I'm suggesting jackbooted stormtroopers are imminent. Because... something something. I don't know. Anyway, I'll just let that whole element of the conversation go since apparently it's too sensitive to use that word.
Let's call it suppression then, since that's more neutral and doesn't conjure up unnecessary nonsense. It is suppression, and suppression unchallenged leads to further suppression along the same lines. Sometimes that's not a bad thing. Suppressing racism, for example, isn't necessarily a bad thing. Making environments hostile to people putting out racist screeds or attempting to distribute racist expressive works is not really a bad thing. I don't think that's a controversial opinion. Obviously, in the grand scheme of things, it's better to eliminate racism by combating the issues that lead to people being racist and developing racist viewpoints, and challenging the mechanisms by which racism is established and takes root in society. But sometimes a component of that is just saying "No, this is not okay" to people attempting to distribute racist expressive works under the auspices of "Well, I'm free to express myself"
I think we both agree that "tolerance" doesn't necessarily extend to tolerating the intolerant, yeah? I think we both agree that someone making a statement like "If you think GTAV is misogynistic, you're just being intolerant of the freedom of video games to be misogynistic and you should be more tolerant of its rampantly horrible portrayal of women!" is patently absurd, yeah?
Attempting to suppress something like the upcoming video game Hatred, for example, by way of boycotts and consumer pressure, isn't necessarily a bad thing. I think it's probably a good idea, to be frank.
But this artificial distinction you try to make, between suppression by way of consumer action and government cens-.... ahem, suppression by way of government action? The reason it's bogus is because consumer action is not intrinsically more virtuous than government action.
Therein lies my core problem, which I thought was kind of obvious but clearly I have to be the one to elucidate; Suppression by way of consumer action or other forms of activism (and, if successful, therefore corporate action) is considered no big deal, regardless of how comprehensive and potent it is capable of being, whereas suppression by way of government edict (formally called by that troublesome word) is seen as this horrendous, monstrous dystopian nightmare scenario.
As a result, people who use that troublesome word are dismissed as if they're talking about the latter out of hand (when, demonstrably, it's not the case and basically never is), and the former just sort of... happens, without people really thinking too much about it or asking too many questions or being concerned at all.
Are you okay with that?
It didn't really bother me too much. Not in a "these are bad immoral methods" but more a "this seems like an odd way to achieve your goals of ethics". But if that's the kind of thing pony is referring to then yes, I am guilty of criticizing actions like that that seem illogical to a movement's stated goals.
Yes. And you know why? Two reasons:
It's easier to change rules that are imposed by cultural norms than it is to strip a government of oversight.
Cultural norms need to be represented in media in order for there to be cultural norms. Without that we end up with no culture at all, with everything just being advertised and sold to the lowest common denominator.
I wasn't asking if you were okay with consumer activism. I am, you are. We both are. That's not the question.
The question I asked was not if you found consumer activism more palatable than government action and preferable to it. You do, I do.
I am asking if you're okay with the way people blithely dismiss any and all concerns about consumer activism and what we're suppressing and why out of hand because well
it's not technically censorship, m i rite?
That feels like a dodge, to me, and a dishonest one at that.
Sorry, but yes. I am OK with dismissing concerns about consumer activism. If you disagree with a movement, become part of an opposing one instead of throwing out concerns without taking action.
That's the thing, with consumer activism we have a level playing field for opposing movements. So no, it wasn't a dodge.
I'm really starting to get pissed at your constant accusations of dishonesty.
The power of an individual to protest is absolutely in no way equal to the power of the government to suppress.
The whole reason people have a knee-jerk reaction to censorship, the reason the founding fathers thought it important enough to make it the first amendment, is that government can be extremely powerful in controlling and denying individual speech if it is allowed to.
An individual, even 40,000 individuals signing a petition, are just not going to have that kind of power.
Now maybe a corporation that makes video games or a corporation that sells video games are getting closer to that kind of power, but those entities still don't compare.
I do find this statement of yours rather amusing:
You didn't notice that this is the way all products have worked since time immemorial? No one being interested in buying your product is equal to suppression? What if your art just isn't any good, are you still being suppressed? This is a laughable position, and the twisting and turning you're doing in order to find other people in the wrong is kind of baffling to me right now.
But thats fine, people can just join an opposing movement.
Because, at least not censorship. The government is not denying rights. So, fine?
It's worth noting (sans commentary) that the ACLU acknowledges the existence of governmental censorship, corporate censorship, and private censorship, their examples being the Hollywood Blacklist, and a lone little old lady trying to get a book removed from a local library, while also acknowledging the importance of personal property rights (my right to sell whatever I want in my store, or control the content on my website).
PSN: CitizenXero
NNID: TheFennec
Dishonest legislation and physical threats/attacks caused that. Clinics were not shut down because of a letter writing campaign or lack of interest.
I'm not a big fan of inaction or just talking about what you believe. So criticism of a consumer movement the isn't accompanied by just as vocal and spirited action seems pathetic and worthless to me. And even with those actions constantly complaining about your opposition making perfectly valid moves also seems immature and useless.
I can't respect people standing on the sidelines in cases like these if they strongly believe in one side or the other. Apathy hurts culture. Vocal apathy is madness.
If I see a consumer movement I disagree with targeting a company and I'm in that company's market I write them with my opinion and encourage others to do the same. I don't complain that the move is invalid, especially if I don't follow through with action.
Consumer action is more virtuous than government action for one extremely important reason: the government can legally back up its censorship with state force including fines, imprisonment, and even in extreme cases like North Korea, death. A consumer action can only threaten profits. If a company is willing to eat the potential profit loss to make a stand, it can do that without fear of the government coming in, shutting them down, and hauling the entire company away to jail. Government action is censorship because of what backs it up. Consumer action is a fundamentally different beast, a far less toothy one.
Stores have a right to determine what they will and won't sell. Consumers have a right to try and influence what stores sell using their consumer power. If other consumers want to counterbalance such efforts they can attempt to exert their power in the opposite direction -- for example, one group attempts to boycott Chik-Fil-A and another group vows to show up and buy an extra chicken sandwich to make up the losses. The appropriate response to the petition would have been to make Target-AU a counter offer -- "Please continue to sell this game and we will make up for any losses you sustain. Signed, fans of GTAV." Then Target-AU could make a choice which group it wanted to please most and make a decision based on that -- or make a decision based on the feelings and mood of the CEO whoever that is. Target-AU doesn't owe anyone any explanations for their buying policy.
What seems to be getting some gamers hot under the collar is the fact that Target-AU chose do what the other guys wanted them to do and not what the gamers wanted them to do. It always stinks to lose out like that, but it's not any kind of censorship or "suppression". Target-AU had to make a choice between making the petition-signers happy and making gamers happy, and they went with the group that's closer to their main customer demographic. Just as Chik-Fil-A had to choose who to make happy, because they weren't going to make both groups happy. No way no how. If Target-AU had sided with gamers (and let's face it, why the heck would they?) the other side would have accused them of supporting violence against women and would have thought they were fully as bad as the gamers think they are for "cen-pression" of "art." People on one side think Chik-Fil-A is an organization that supports bigotry; people on the other side admire them for sticking up for Biblical virtues and "family values." Someone is going to lose. That's all. The same instinct that causes Jerry to scream CENSORSHIP!! when it's nothing of the kind causes certain kinds of Christians to scream that they're being OPPRESSED! by gay marriage when they aren't. That basic instinct is: "There was a fight and my side lost and I'm pissed because DAMMIT WE'RE THE GOOD GUYS!" The emotions get involved and hold the thinking brain hostage and stupid flatly incorrect stuff gets spouted (Jerry's not being censored, Christians aren't being oppressed) because people don't like to lose.
But really, the whole notion that people refusing to sell your stuff in their stores is censorship is crazy. Yes, if everyone refuses to sell your stuff, you're going to have to get creative and find another distribution method (or seek another means of making a livlihood.) Maybe you'll succeed in getting your stuff out there and maybe you won't; historically, a lot of good and even great artists died penniless because they couldn't get anyone to sell their stuff. No one is entitled to a market. How could it be otherwise? Does it make any sense for either governments OR consumers to have the power to tell a store what kinds of goods it must carry? Are we supposed to start passing laws saying that since art is sacred, all stores must sell everything that is labeled "art", no matter how much they dislike it or how unlikely it is to turn a profit, just because all art is entitled to a marketplace? Just think for a second what that would result in and you'll see why it's a crazy notion. Or should we say stores are allowed to make decisions about what entertainment products they carry UNLESS there's a consumer protest, in which case the presence of the protest means they're NOT allowed to take it off the shelves because that would be "censorship"?
Not finding anyone willing to sell your stuff, for whatever reason, is by far the most common fate for artists. "We won't sell that item because everyone would hate us and stop shopping at our store" is a completely legitimate reason to stop selling an item. If the item in question is a piece of art that's so iffy or edgy or weird or obscene that the artist can't find any place at all willing to sell it -- well, them's the breaks! It's not censorship any more than your garage band not being able to get any local store to carry their homemade CDs because the lyrics are horribly offensive is censorship. You just failed to make an art product anyone wanted to sell. Make some different art and try again. Welcome to the artistic life!
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
Moral busybodies? You know, there are times where society having at least some baseline for what is morally acceptable to encourage is a good thing. Like the mistreatment of others for any reason.
What amazes me is people's incredibly weak grasp of the concept of censorship.
Everything I read was that it was because locals made it know that they would not support hospitals who gave the abortion clinics the green light, and abortion clinics needed these.
Regardless, I'm arguing against this weird, almost libertarian belief of "just let the free market work", as if the free market or public can never trample over the rights of individuals.
Again, not saying this is one of those times. I support Target AU's choice.
Then what you read about it was wrong. What happened was that laws were passed in attempts to circumvent access. Nothing at all related to people simply refusing to support the clinics. Incidentally, that's something you'll find pretty much everyone agreeing the government suppressing people's rights is absolutely a bad thing.
And no one has said the free market can't trample people's rights. Please don't insult people by arguing against ideas no one has proposed.
It's not a libertarian belief.
It's a belief that people have a voice to influence the free market when it comes to clulture instead of outright government regulation.
It's the exact opposite viewpoint of atlas shrugged. We believe the " takers" have the right and duty to control the "producers" through our influence. Libritatians don't.
I would be outright opposed to a group who was trying to get GTA V and games of its like banned from being made. That's the difference between this and Jack Thompson.
You are saying this as a guy who took fervent part in a letter writing campaign to get a journalist fired because she wrote something that hurt your feelings.
@Pony if you were referring to people in this thread who are calling this censorship who also took part in the gamergate letter writing campaigns being hypocritical, then I'm 100% behind you. Neither were censorship and taking part in one while calling the other unacceptable censorship is a perfect example of hypocrisy and dishonesty.
Pony asked:
To which many people responded "yes, I am". "Any and all" includes, to me, trampling on individual rights.
Individuals can force the free market to trample on individual rights. Are we okay with this?
No one actually did this. The closest I see is Rats saying they're fine with dismissing concerns in general. Though I don't take that as dismissing any and all concerns for all eternity no matter what form they take.
What individual rights are being trampled on?
3DS FC: 0817-3759-2788
I'm reading that very differently than you than. I didn't see a "in general" anywhere in there. Just a yes.
In this case, none.
If you believe that you can influence how people act for the better by restricting their access to knowledge, interactive media, or depictions of events, then censorship seems like a good idea. But if you admit that people do good and bad things for other reasons unrelated to their level of knowledge or experience then that is not the case. However, if you were to believe that intelligence, or knowledge and virtue go hand in hand then it is morally wrong to restrict access to any information.
Additionally, one should consider that to depict a thing is not to encourage it. If there is any relationship between depictions of violence occurring, and actual acts of violence occurring I would say it's an inverse relationship. Even a work of fiction that glorifies violence could serve a good societal purpose by allowing us to examine it, and the reasons why violence is glorified. If people don't understand things as a community how can they possibly deal with them?
If we are looking at a single action of a single corporation then sure, who cares? But is that really where this will end? If there is enough demand to justify selling a book a game or any depiction of anything, I want it to be sold, that includes material that is designed to be inflammatory or incite violence. Including such works as the Turner Diaries. There are already wide scale, fairly successful efforts to restrict access to all kinds of media, but since it's private corporations choosing to do it in a roundabout way it's all good apparently.
Then I would wager you are profoundly unfamiliar with corporations.
It's more likely that you misread or are misremembering what those people were trying to say
Probably conflated discussion of the Gamasutra/Intel thing with people decrying harassment campaigns, or something
I am OK with movements using their voice to influence corporations with the goal of trampleing on people's rights. I am not OK with the GOAL of trampling on people's rights. I would fight any such movement, not demonize their methods of enacting their goal.
I don't care about legitimate methods, I care about the goals.