"...because if you don't give everyone a platform then you're doing censorship."
This is inaccurate I'm afraid. You're equating an intentional suppression of content that one finds objectionable with...doing nothing.
"Doing nothing" is exactly what Target is doing. "Doing something" would be stocking a game. They are failing to stock a game, thus doing nothing.
Once a grocery store I like stopped stocking a type of cheese called Huntsman that is my favorite.
I started buying the cheese from another store instead.
Suppression!
Did your store stop stocking the cheese because of supply issues, or lack of sales, or a product recall? Or did they stop stocking the cheese because people who are lactose intolerant don't want the cheese at the store?
Target AU even stated that they're going to continue selling other R18+ content of all types, just not GTAV. So now I guess an alternate analogy would be the grocery store dabbling in cheese tasting and subsequently deciding that pretty much all cheeses are good enough to stock, except one.
Sucks to be the only one of thousands of cheeses to not make the cut, but hey, Target applied its standards fairly after all.
Target is not a government body, it is not a research organization or a university. They are a business. The only place "fairness" comes into play in a business is in their hiring and HR practices. Has Target AU started firing people for playing the game? No? Then your argument is ridiculous and you are a goose.
I'm not sure you even know what argument I was making, but I'll clarify for both our sakes.
Your argument was that Target is not suppressing anything because hey, they're a private entity and legally can decide for themselves if a product is worth providing.
My argument was a roundabout way of saying "Yes, but what if their rationale behind not stocking a particular product is qualitatively selective, and to such a point that it's rationally absurd?". That is because I believe that their decision is based on questionable reasoning.
I mean, I'm glad you're defending a company's right to hardly make any sense in their decision making and opening themselves to all sorts of criticism based on their willingness to (poorly) judge content of media products, and I will certainly agree that it is their right. But honestly, if the best thing you can say about a decision was that it was certainly legal to do it, then why are we even bothering talking about it at all?
This forum is owned by Penny-Arcade. They rent the servers, they produce the forum software, they run support, and they make the rules.
I think anyone would say that it'd be censorship to make it so the Penny-Arcade forums had to allow anyone to post here. That they're not allowed to make decisions about who has access to these forums, and what kind of speech they allow. They put rules in place, and breaking those rules will swiftly get you booted from this place. Once your booted, I'm sure if you made the argument that the moderation staff is "censoring" you there'd be no ends to the amount of ridicule you'd quickly and rightfully receive.
It's the same with Target. They have every right to decide what products they will and will not sell. This is a version of their free speech, to be able to make a statement with their inventory of "this is the kind of products we want to represent us". If they choose not to sell something, that's their right. And arguing that by doing so they're censoring someone's free speech is just as ridiculous as any banned posters doing so about the forums.
Because hey, if we want to mandate that any business has to allow everything to be hosted/stocked on/in their servers/stores, then so be it. But until I see Gabe and Tycho giving me an upload button where I can post my own comics on the front page, without even the possibility of removal for content, making the argument that Target should do the same is ridiculously hypocritical.
Target does not want to stock it because people do not wish for Target to and, were Target to continue selling it, may shop somewhere else. This may or may not be the case. Even obviously so, but it's irrelevant. There's no actual moral stance being taken by Target. It is literally business as usual.
The ultimate objective of the group getting the game pulled is for the game to be pulled from ALL stores, thus causing it to be unavailable to the general public. So yes, this is an blatant act of censorship. Nothing about the verb "censor" insinuates that only governments are capable of performing it.
"...because if you don't give everyone a platform then you're doing censorship."
This is inaccurate I'm afraid. You're equating an intentional suppression of content that one finds objectionable with...doing nothing.
"Doing nothing" is exactly what Target is doing. "Doing something" would be stocking a game. They are failing to stock a game, thus doing nothing.
Once a grocery store I like stopped stocking a type of cheese called Huntsman that is my favorite.
I started buying the cheese from another store instead.
Suppression!
Did your store stop stocking the cheese because of supply issues, or lack of sales, or a product recall? Or did they stop stocking the cheese because people who are lactose intolerant don't want the cheese at the store?
Target AU even stated that they're going to continue selling other R18+ content of all types, just not GTAV. So now I guess an alternate analogy would be the grocery store dabbling in cheese tasting and subsequently deciding that pretty much all cheeses are good enough to stock, except one.
Sucks to be the only one of thousands of cheeses to not make the cut, but hey, Target applied its standards fairly after all.
Target is not a government body, it is not a research organization or a university. They are a business. The only place "fairness" comes into play in a business is in their hiring and HR practices. Has Target AU started firing people for playing the game? No? Then your argument is ridiculous and you are a goose.
I'm not sure you even know what argument I was making, but I'll clarify for both our sakes.
Your argument was that Target is not suppressing anything because hey, they're a private entity and legally can decide for themselves if a product is worth providing.
My argument was a roundabout way of saying "Yes, but what if their rationale behind not stocking a particular product is qualitatively selective, and to such a point that it's rationally absurd?". That is because I believe that their decision is based on questionable reasoning.
I mean, I'm glad you're defending a company's right to hardly make any sense in their decision making and opening themselves to all sorts of criticism based on their willingness to (poorly) judge content of media products, and I will certainly agree that it is their right. But honestly, if the best thing you can say about a decision was that it was certainly legal to do it, then why are we even bothering talking about it at all?
The argument I'm making is that diluting the meaning of the word "censorship" is a really awful and bad thing to do, and leads to situations like Death of Rats is referring to, where people are banned from these forums and start crying censorship about it.
Censorship is actually a bad thing that I want pointed out when it happens. Want a recent example of gaming censorship? EA was unable to sell Dragon Age in India because of their obscenity laws. That's censorship.
But who cares about that when a store isn't carrying a game I like. That store is bad and evil for mildly inconveniencing me!
"excuse my French
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
The ultimate objective of the group getting the game pulled is for the game to be pulled from ALL stores, thus causing it to be unavailable to the general public. So yes, this is an blatant act of censorship. Nothing about the verb "censor" insinuates that only governments are capable of performing it.
No, this is an act of free speech and a business's right to make decisions of what they're putting on their shelves.
That group if they were to get to their ultimate goal? That's an act of censorship. But I don't know if Microsoft and Sony would be willing to pull the digital version of one of the biggest games on their respective systems.
Stores like Target refuse to stock porn and yet I don't see people acting like that's some kind of horrible, irrational decision.
I think the issue is that Target was perfectly happy to stock GTA V until they caved into some pretty silly demands based on arguable premises. That it might have made sense from a business standpoint (also debateable) doesn't make their decision Or their statements any less nonsense.
If this is actually an act of censorship, I don't think that the censors are Target here. They're not the ones who want everyone to not have access to GTA V. They are simply doing the logical business move, motivated possibly by a petition. As has been said before:
That group if they were to get to their ultimate goal? That's an act of censorship. But I don't know if Microsoft and Sony would be willing to pull the digital version of one of the biggest games on their respective systems.
Stores like Target refuse to stock porn and yet I don't see people acting like that's some kind of horrible, irrational decision.
I think the issue is that Target was perfectly happy to stock GTA V until they caved into some pretty silly demands based on arguable premises. That it might have made sense from a business standpoint (also debateable) doesn't make their decision Or their statements any less nonsense.
They find porn to be a product that repels their target demographic, and this group petition convinced them that GTA V is a similar sort of product. They're being logically consistent even if you don't agree with the soundness.
I still don't see why being able to kill sex worker NPCs was the straw that broke the camel's back. I haven't played GTA5, but I'm assuming that there are minority, female, and fat NPCs that the player is able to kill. A player who is prejudiced against these groups could run around exclusively targeting those kinds of NPCs if they wanted.
+1
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
The especially odd thing about this is, how many of us who read this comic ever buy a game from Target? All my game purchases from the last 5 years have been online, whether digital versions or hardcopy (for those sweet physical pre-order bonuses).
So that means that the thing people are arguing is bad about Target is that it has reduced the marketing footprint of Rockstar. That's what people are defending. Marketing.
"excuse my French
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
The especially odd thing about this is, how many of us who read this comic ever buy a game from Target? All my game purchases from the last 5 years have been online, whether digital versions or hardcopy (for those sweet physical pre-order bonuses).
So that means that the thing people are arguing is bad about Target is that it has reduced the marketing footprint of Rockstar. That's what people are defending. Marketing.
Personally I still buy my games in physical format for consoles when I can, especially if they don't have any form of DRM or online restriction (like my WiiU games for example).
So if the petition caused Target to stop stocking the game and then ALL stores would follow suit, it'd annoy me to have to get it online or whatever. The whole issue would start feeling censor-y when I'd lose access to buying the physical copy of the game. For the moment, though, I can just buy it at another store.
Also, this is all hypothetical, I'm not Australian.
Tycho is supposed to be good at words! It's his ONE JOB. That's why his news post is literally killing me. (Spoiler: I'm not literally being killed. I'm misusing the word literally because my brain has been exploded by Tycho's terrible attempt to re-define the word 'censorship'.)
The etymological root of censorship is "censor", a Roman State official, who was responsible (among other things) for maintaining public morality.
While the cut-rate dictionary he's using to look up 'censorship' may not mention official state sanctioned suppression, it's actually there in the definition.
"NOUN
The practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts"
Who does he imagine is the 'official'? A K-Mart employee? Who does he imagine is 'suppressing' information? Hint: If you can buy something at Wal-Mart but not K-Mart it's NOT ACTUALLY SUPPRESSED, it just isn't available at K-Mart.
As Tycho notes in the end of his depressingly inaccurate rant on language, the only affect from K-Mart/Target AU not selling GTA V is you have to buy it from another store.
Jesus Christ, when you can easily purchase something from a number of stores/outlets/online locations, it is not 'officially suppressed'.
You can't buy pornography at Target AU; is that censorship? You can't buy novels at Olive Garden; is that censorship?
I bet there are TONS of games you can't buy at Target (Space Invaders? The original NES Mario?) but, spoiler, none of it is censorship; it's just a free-market driven decision by the store to not sell something that it's customer base would be uncomfortable or uninterested in.
If people in Australia are uncomfortable with GTA V (for whatever reason, even if they are wrong) a store that caters to the broadest possible demographic may not wish to sell it. Guess what? They don't sell bondage gear at my local Target. Shocking, right?
Actual censorship right now? Dragon Age: Inquisition banned by India, not available *anywhere* in the country. That's censorship. Making someone walk across the street, or order it from the convenience of their own home, absolutely not censorship. Geeze Tycho, get it together.
TL;DR: Tycho, stop using words wrong. It's disappointing & depressing. You're better than this and you know it.
Let's get something clear here. Fictional Target Employee On the Right makes a comparison to Nazis. Jerry does not. Fictional Characters in Penny Arcade Strips, including such Fictional Characters as Gabe and Tycho, are routinely portrayed as stupid psychos who say stupid things to make an exaggerated point. The point that Jerry made (as far as I perceive) is that what 40,000 petitioners, and Target AU, did was silly. Not wrong or harmful, as he points out himself how ineffectual it is. I agree. I think Target is being a silly goose for pulling a product that surely still has demand (there's a lot more than 40,000 people in Australia), and the petitioners are silly geese for not wanting a game sold that they have no intention to buy. Maybe they are worried that their kids will buy it, but given its rating they would have to be present to buy the game for their kids so maybe they should keep a tighter control over their families.
But notice what I did not say. I did not say Target or the petitioners are doing something legally or even morally objectionable. I did not try to take them to court or get 39,999 other people to sign a petition to stop them from doing it. They are doing something I think they should not do, but something they have every right to do whether I like it or not.
As a side note, since when does entering a certain profession put you into a minority? Aren't minorities generally something you don't choose?
EDIT: Forgot this other side note: I don't know what Target is like in Australia, but my impression of Target in America is that it's mainly for middle-class soccer moms and suburbanites. And Skylanders. So maybe they did just decide it didn't fit their target (har har) audience. In which case I'd think a crusade was a bit uncalled for.
RatherDashing on
+1
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
The especially odd thing about this is, how many of us who read this comic ever buy a game from Target? All my game purchases from the last 5 years have been online, whether digital versions or hardcopy (for those sweet physical pre-order bonuses).
So that means that the thing people are arguing is bad about Target is that it has reduced the marketing footprint of Rockstar. That's what people are defending. Marketing.
Personally I still buy my games in physical format for consoles when I can, especially if they don't have any form of DRM or online restriction (like my WiiU games for example).
So if the petition caused Target to stop stocking the game and then ALL stores would follow suit, it'd annoy me to have to get it online or whatever. The whole issue would start feeling censor-y when I'd lose access to buying the physical copy of the game. For the moment, though, I can just buy it at another store.
Also, this is all hypothetical, I'm not Australian.
You can buy physical copies of games online, as referenced in the post you are quoting.
"excuse my French
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
Remember the context of the anger; until 2011, M (or the Aussie equivalent) games were *banned* in Australia. Period. End of Story.
Its easy for us in the US to go "man, that fight's long over, stop freaking out about it." It's a completely different thing in Australia. They don't have some bogeyman they have to conjure up in order to worry about censorship; it was happening there for a long time up until very recently.
It's worth noting that censoring does not only come from state bodies. I know Wikipedia isn't the Final Arbiter of All Things, but their article defines censorship as such:
"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.
Governments, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship. When an individual such as an author or other creator engages in censorship of their own works or speech, it is called self-censorship. Censorship may be direct or it may be indirect, in which case it is called soft censorship. It occurs in a variety of different media, including speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of claimed reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children or other vulnerable groups, to promote or restrict political or religious views, and to prevent slander and libel."
To claim that what Target did is censorship is silly.
But if that group that made the petition is actively trying to prevent people to access a media or art, then this could be defined as censorship.
I doubt the petitioners were going to buy GTA V anyway. And I don't know if they just want Kmart or Target to not stock the game.
But if their goal is to make GTA V unavailable in Australia, then it IS an attempt at censorship.
Of course it won't work, we all know this, and yeah, Target not stocking the game isn't censorship, that's a business move. They're free to stock or not stock a game. They're not a public platform for videogames or anything, they're a store.
The INTENT of the petition group, however, could be defined as censorship, as it's an attempt to suppress a media.
Again, I'm not saying it necessarily is, I don't have all the information handy, I'm not 100% sure on what they're trying to do: not have big retail stores stock GTA V, or not have GTA V at all in Australia. Those are two different things.
EDIT: Cambiata, I know it's still available. I was suggesting an hypothetical scenario where it was not available to buy. But yeah, it's still possible to order the game online right now, and I don't think it'll get to that point that it can't be had.
Stores like Target refuse to stock porn and yet I don't see people acting like that's some kind of horrible, irrational decision.
I think the issue is that Target was perfectly happy to stock GTA V until they caved into some pretty silly demands based on arguable premises. That it might have made sense from a business standpoint (also debateable) doesn't make their decision Or their statements any less nonsense.
They find porn to be a product that repels their target demographic, and this group petition convinced them that GTA V is a similar sort of product. They're being logically consistent even if you don't agree with the soundness.
Pornography is a class of media - a confoundingly difficult class to define, but a class nonetheless. That said, it's easy enough to not carry pornography (especially as long as porn producers are happy to identify as such and certain pieces of media aren't being labeled pornography by others), and I would never argue that a store not offering any pornography is being irrational. Similarly, I would certainly be less critical if Target AU just came out here and said "You know, media with an R18+ rating really isn't our business". It may or may not be a solid business decision, but it lets them be selective without appearing like they're merrily traipsing into the minefield of judging the merit of each piece of media individually (and incidentally basing their judgments on provided information that can charitably be called misleading).
But to put it into other terms, Target has decided here that a specific example of a class of product (media with a rating of R18+) won't be carried. The analogy would be if Target were actually happy to offer pornography, but Asian Ass Blasters 7 is not a product that represents them or their customers. The immediate questions is going to be "Based on what criteria?", and of course so the conversation begins...
They find porn to be a product that repels their target demographic, and this group petition convinced them that GTA V is a similar sort of product. They're being logically consistent even if you don't agree with the soundness.
Hmm... maybe it's consistent if you fully accept their public statements; that they are "listening to their customers". To me, that reads like a very safe excuse for simply not wanting to endure a shitstorm. Their real customers who actually walk into a store with money hardly enter into it. I hope that doesn't come of as crackpot'ish - "YOU CAN'T BELIEVE THEIR WORDS, MAN" - because we know how large companies like this tend to act and talk when covering their asses.
That they did originally stock the game shows that Target believed it was in line with their target demographic. And I bet it was; I'm betting plenty of people bought it prior to this decision. This is also the fifth title released in the series, not including the releases between main entries, so I'd be somewhat surprised if Target was just oblivious to its reputation given all the publicity it has received since GTA3. I'd also be curious if they stocked any previous GTA games (and that's an honest curiosity). Because if they did, then their position certainly isn't consistent and they clearly ceded to a focused outcry that had gained some public visibility. I don't think Target actually believes GTA V repels their customers. They just wanted to avoid being potentially dragged through the mud over a title that has already seen the majority of its sales. This action is expedient for them.
Now, this is just my view from a distance; far removed from the internal workings of Target or anybody else involved. I'm suspect of the petition and their response, but that's just me. It will be really telling how they handle this on the next inevitable GTA release, assuming it still contains all the same violence and hooker-murderin' (likely since controversy has never stopped Rockstar from making whatever they want). I'd place money they'll stock it and pump their money's worth until somebody else comes up with another 40,000 signatures.
I'm a PA reader for 10+ years and I'm still terrible at predicting which comics will blow up the forums. An obviously hyperbolic comic about Target pulling a game from its shelves would not have been my first guess.
Tycho once equated artistic criticism as censorship using the backwards rationale that the critic is suggesting the artist censor themselves. I hope the irony is not not lost that those that purport this philosophy are suggesting the critic in-turn censor their criticism.
I think Australia's video game regulation is a problem but PA's stance that art is inherently irreproachable is problematic. Rejecting things we don't agree with is also part of self-expression. Equating our society with nazism because we have the choice to accommodate something or not is ludicrous.
Stores like Target refuse to stock porn and yet I don't see people acting like that's some kind of horrible, irrational decision.
I think the issue is that Target was perfectly happy to stock GTA V until they caved into some pretty silly demands based on arguable premises. That it might have made sense from a business standpoint (also debateable) doesn't make their decision Or their statements any less nonsense.
They find porn to be a product that repels their target demographic, and this group petition convinced them that GTA V is a similar sort of product. They're being logically consistent even if you don't agree with the soundness.
Pornography is a class of media - a confoundingly difficult class to define, but a class nonetheless. That said, it's easy enough to not carry pornography (especially as long as porn producers are happy to identify as such and certain pieces of media aren't being labeled pornography by others), and I would never argue that a store not offering any pornography is being irrational. Similarly, I would certainly be less critical if Target AU just came out here and said "You know, media with an R18+ rating really isn't our business". It may or may not be a solid business decision, but it lets them be selective without appearing like they're merrily traipsing into the minefield of judging the merit of each piece of media individually (and incidentally basing their judgments on provided information that can charitably be called misleading).
But to put it into other terms, Target has decided here that a specific example of a class of product (media with a rating of R18+) won't be carried. The analogy would be if Target were actually happy to offer pornography, but Asian Ass Blasters 7 is not a product that represents them or their customers. The immediate questions is going to be "Based on what criteria?", and of course so the conversation begins...
So you're cool with one arbitrary standard but not another?
0
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
EDIT: Cambiata, I know it's still available. I was suggesting an hypothetical scenario where it was not available to buy. But yeah, it's still possible to order the game online right now, and I don't think it'll get to that point that it can't be had.
All the worst online arguments are about "but what if, hypothetically, this much worse thing were happening" and I hate that.
When that worse thing is happening, we will discuss the worse thing. The games community is already way, way too ready to label anything that is mildly annoying into something worse than Nazism. It's tiresome.
"excuse my French
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
EDIT: Cambiata, I know it's still available. I was suggesting an hypothetical scenario where it was not available to buy. But yeah, it's still possible to order the game online right now, and I don't think it'll get to that point that it can't be had.
All the worst online arguments are about "but what if, hypothetically, this much worse thing were happening" and I hate that.
When that worse thing is happening, we will discuss the worse thing. The games community is already way, way too ready to label anything that is mildly annoying into something worse than Nazism. It's tiresome.
Yeah, but I wasn't suggesting this much worse thing was happening or was going to happen. I was suggesting that this much worse thing might have been what is *attempted* by the group protesting GTA V. I did not accuse Target of doing anything beyond what they figured was the best marketing move.
And there has been censorship in videogames in Australia for a while, until recently. It's not all that alien to talk about a group whose intent might be this "much worse thing".
+1
Monkey Ball WarriorA collection of mediocre hatsSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
Tycho once equated artistic criticism as censorship using the backwards rationale that the critic is suggesting the artist censor themselves. I hope the irony is not not lost that those that purport this philosophy are suggesting the critic in-turn censor their criticism.
I think Australia's video game regulation is a problem but PA's stance that art is inherently irreproachable is problematic. Rejecting things we don't agree with is also part of self-expression. Equating our society with nazism because we have the choice to accommodate something or not is ludicrous.
I don't think he is saying that art is inherently irreproachable. I think he is just saying that art is a form of speech, and therefore so are video games. And the bar for justifiably suppressing free speech is extremely high. Boobs and blood are not even close to enough justification.
As xkcd mentioned recently, disagreeing with, criticizing, or even rejecting speech is not the same thing as censoring it.
"I resent the entire notion of a body as an ante and then raise you a generalized dissatisfaction with physicality itself" -- Tycho
Tycho once equated artistic criticism as censorship using the backwards rationale that the critic is suggesting the artist censor themselves. I hope the irony is not not lost that those that purport this philosophy are suggesting the critic in-turn censor their criticism.
I think Australia's video game regulation is a problem but PA's stance that art is inherently irreproachable is problematic. Rejecting things we don't agree with is also part of self-expression. Equating our society with nazism because we have the choice to accommodate something or not is ludicrous.
I don't think he is saying that art is inherently irreproachable. I think he is just saying that art is a form of speech, and therefore so are video games. And the bar for justifiably suppressing free speech is extremely high. Boobs and blood are not even close to enough justification.
As xkcd mentioned recently, disagreeing with, criticizing, or even rejecting speech is not the same thing as censoring it.
PA tends to go off the rails when they delve too deeply into political or controversial topics.
It's ironic that Jerry makes the following comment in the new post: "But there’s nothing there. Poke this framework once and it flies around the room, farting, like a balloon," since I feel the same way about the points they are trying to make in the comic.
That's because they're not trying to make any point in the comic. It's just a silly conversation that, as you point out, goes off the rails. They do that all the time. They write some conversation or dialogue they think is funny, and the gaming news is simply the setting or the jumping off point for the comic.
Further proof of that is that they used retail workers instead of having Gabe and Tycho discuss the subject.
Sorry, not buying this apologist viewpoint. The comic plus the news post make it very clear that Jerry (and maybe Mike) are trying to make a point. As Jerry has said many times, words have power and import. Unfortunately their point this time is vastly oversimplified and uses flawed logic. Sometimes the PA comic is just silliness for silliness' sake, but not this time.
foodle on
+7
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Tycho once equated artistic criticism as censorship using the backwards rationale that the critic is suggesting the artist censor themselves. I hope the irony is not not lost that those that purport this philosophy are suggesting the critic in-turn censor their criticism.
I think Australia's video game regulation is a problem but PA's stance that art is inherently irreproachable is problematic. Rejecting things we don't agree with is also part of self-expression. Equating our society with nazism because we have the choice to accommodate something or not is ludicrous.
I don't think he is saying that art is inherently irreproachable. I think he is just saying that art is a form of speech, and therefore so are video games. And the bar for justifiably suppressing free speech is extremely high. Boobs and blood are not even close to enough justification.
As xkcd mentioned recently, disagreeing with, criticizing, or even rejecting speech is not the same thing as censoring it.
Man the first paragraph and the second paragraph you wrote here are like, completely at odds.
Criticizing boobs in a video game is not "suppressing free speech." The comic you posted will explain to you why it's not suppressive, it's criticism.
The comic you posted will also point out that no one owes you a platform for your boob art, so Target refusing to sell it at their stores is also not suppression of free speech.
"excuse my French
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
Tycho once equated artistic criticism as censorship using the backwards rationale that the critic is suggesting the artist censor themselves. I hope the irony is not not lost that those that purport this philosophy are suggesting the critic in-turn censor their criticism.
I think Australia's video game regulation is a problem but PA's stance that art is inherently irreproachable is problematic. Rejecting things we don't agree with is also part of self-expression. Equating our society with nazism because we have the choice to accommodate something or not is ludicrous.
I don't think he is saying that art is inherently irreproachable. I think he is just saying that art is a form of speech, and therefore so are video games. And the bar for justifiably suppressing free speech is extremely high. Boobs and blood are not even close to enough justification.
As xkcd mentioned recently, disagreeing with, criticizing, or even rejecting speech is not the same thing as censoring it.
Penny Arcade has historically acted in a way that leads me to believe this is false: They've had several blowups in reaction to criticism to their comics, plus their reaction on the Mass Effect ending hullabaloo, and of course the 'critics suggesting the artists should censor themselves comment (which I'm too lazy to search for atm).
I'm a PA reader for 10+ years and I'm still terrible at predicting which comics will blow up the forums. An obviously hyperbolic comic about Target pulling a game from its shelves would not have been my first guess.
Dunno why. I mean, if it was an Association of doing stuff "For the Children (tm)", making Target Aus stop selling GTA, there would be no issue with the comic. What's the difference anyway? What makes this wave of "moral outrage" more valid than the previous ones?
PA tends to go off the rails when they delve too deeply into political or controversial topics.
It's ironic that Jerry makes the following comment in the new post: "But there’s nothing there. Poke this framework once and it flies around the room, farting, like a balloon," since I feel the same way about the points they are trying to make in the comic.
That's because they're not trying to make any point in the comic. It's just a silly conversation that, as you point out, goes off the rails. They do that all the time. They write some conversation or dialogue they think is funny, and the gaming news is simply the setting or the jumping off point for the comic.
Further proof of that is that they used retail workers instead of having Gabe and Tycho discuss the subject.
Sorry, not buying this apologist viewpoint. The comic plus the news post make it very clear that Jerry (and maybe Mike) are trying to make a point. As Jerry has said many times, words have power and import. Unfortunately their point this time is vastly oversimplified and uses flawed logic. Sometimes the PA comic is just silliness for silliness' sake, but not this time.
I disagree. I find that the comic is very obviously just silliness for silliness' sake. The news post expresses a different, more nuanced idea that has been argued in here, for and against, that some will agree or disagree with (I can't fully endorse Jerry's definition of censorship or his view of art as untouchable), but in the comic, the analogy between this act and Nazi book burning is seen and presented as ridiculous. If anything, it shows that while Jerry believes this petition is attempting a form of censorship, it's really not the big deal you'd think it is.
EDIT: Matrias, I think the first Twisp and Catsby comic seemed to mock the idea that art was irreproachable.
I know Mike and Jerry have taken issue with some of the criticisms their work has received. And their handling of those incidents has varied in tact. But I don't think I've ever read them say that theirs or anybody else's art is beyond reproach. If I'm wrong, I would like to be directed to a statement that confirms it.
Jerry has said that the solution to art you dislike is to "make more art"; fill that void you perceive, make something you would like to see. Make art that will compete against that which you find troublesome. It does no good to tear something else down or cover it up from other peoples' eyes.
Maybe that solution isn't as satisfying because it doesn't get rid of the million things that you find irritating or offensive. I mean, I get it. But c'est la vie.
Posts
I'm not sure you even know what argument I was making, but I'll clarify for both our sakes.
Your argument was that Target is not suppressing anything because hey, they're a private entity and legally can decide for themselves if a product is worth providing.
My argument was a roundabout way of saying "Yes, but what if their rationale behind not stocking a particular product is qualitatively selective, and to such a point that it's rationally absurd?". That is because I believe that their decision is based on questionable reasoning.
I mean, I'm glad you're defending a company's right to hardly make any sense in their decision making and opening themselves to all sorts of criticism based on their willingness to (poorly) judge content of media products, and I will certainly agree that it is their right. But honestly, if the best thing you can say about a decision was that it was certainly legal to do it, then why are we even bothering talking about it at all?
This forum is owned by Penny-Arcade. They rent the servers, they produce the forum software, they run support, and they make the rules.
I think anyone would say that it'd be censorship to make it so the Penny-Arcade forums had to allow anyone to post here. That they're not allowed to make decisions about who has access to these forums, and what kind of speech they allow. They put rules in place, and breaking those rules will swiftly get you booted from this place. Once your booted, I'm sure if you made the argument that the moderation staff is "censoring" you there'd be no ends to the amount of ridicule you'd quickly and rightfully receive.
It's the same with Target. They have every right to decide what products they will and will not sell. This is a version of their free speech, to be able to make a statement with their inventory of "this is the kind of products we want to represent us". If they choose not to sell something, that's their right. And arguing that by doing so they're censoring someone's free speech is just as ridiculous as any banned posters doing so about the forums.
Because hey, if we want to mandate that any business has to allow everything to be hosted/stocked on/in their servers/stores, then so be it. But until I see Gabe and Tycho giving me an upload button where I can post my own comics on the front page, without even the possibility of removal for content, making the argument that Target should do the same is ridiculously hypocritical.
The argument I'm making is that diluting the meaning of the word "censorship" is a really awful and bad thing to do, and leads to situations like Death of Rats is referring to, where people are banned from these forums and start crying censorship about it.
Censorship is actually a bad thing that I want pointed out when it happens. Want a recent example of gaming censorship? EA was unable to sell Dragon Age in India because of their obscenity laws. That's censorship.
But who cares about that when a store isn't carrying a game I like. That store is bad and evil for mildly inconveniencing me!
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
No, this is an act of free speech and a business's right to make decisions of what they're putting on their shelves.
That group if they were to get to their ultimate goal? That's an act of censorship. But I don't know if Microsoft and Sony would be willing to pull the digital version of one of the biggest games on their respective systems.
I think the issue is that Target was perfectly happy to stock GTA V until they caved into some pretty silly demands based on arguable premises. That it might have made sense from a business standpoint (also debateable) doesn't make their decision Or their statements any less nonsense.
You don't get to compare ONE STORE in ONE REGION pulling ONE GAME to fucking nazi book burnings you fucking WASTES OF AIR. AUGH.
Don't worry. Nobody did.
EDIT: I guess Mark did, but that guy's weird.
So that means that the thing people are arguing is bad about Target is that it has reduced the marketing footprint of Rockstar. That's what people are defending. Marketing.
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
Personally I still buy my games in physical format for consoles when I can, especially if they don't have any form of DRM or online restriction (like my WiiU games for example).
So if the petition caused Target to stop stocking the game and then ALL stores would follow suit, it'd annoy me to have to get it online or whatever. The whole issue would start feeling censor-y when I'd lose access to buying the physical copy of the game. For the moment, though, I can just buy it at another store.
Also, this is all hypothetical, I'm not Australian.
The etymological root of censorship is "censor", a Roman State official, who was responsible (among other things) for maintaining public morality.
While the cut-rate dictionary he's using to look up 'censorship' may not mention official state sanctioned suppression, it's actually there in the definition.
"NOUN
The practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts"
Who does he imagine is the 'official'? A K-Mart employee? Who does he imagine is 'suppressing' information? Hint: If you can buy something at Wal-Mart but not K-Mart it's NOT ACTUALLY SUPPRESSED, it just isn't available at K-Mart.
As Tycho notes in the end of his depressingly inaccurate rant on language, the only affect from K-Mart/Target AU not selling GTA V is you have to buy it from another store.
Jesus Christ, when you can easily purchase something from a number of stores/outlets/online locations, it is not 'officially suppressed'.
You can't buy pornography at Target AU; is that censorship? You can't buy novels at Olive Garden; is that censorship?
I bet there are TONS of games you can't buy at Target (Space Invaders? The original NES Mario?) but, spoiler, none of it is censorship; it's just a free-market driven decision by the store to not sell something that it's customer base would be uncomfortable or uninterested in.
If people in Australia are uncomfortable with GTA V (for whatever reason, even if they are wrong) a store that caters to the broadest possible demographic may not wish to sell it. Guess what? They don't sell bondage gear at my local Target. Shocking, right?
Actual censorship right now? Dragon Age: Inquisition banned by India, not available *anywhere* in the country. That's censorship. Making someone walk across the street, or order it from the convenience of their own home, absolutely not censorship. Geeze Tycho, get it together.
TL;DR: Tycho, stop using words wrong. It's disappointing & depressing. You're better than this and you know it.
But notice what I did not say. I did not say Target or the petitioners are doing something legally or even morally objectionable. I did not try to take them to court or get 39,999 other people to sign a petition to stop them from doing it. They are doing something I think they should not do, but something they have every right to do whether I like it or not.
As a side note, since when does entering a certain profession put you into a minority? Aren't minorities generally something you don't choose?
EDIT: Forgot this other side note: I don't know what Target is like in Australia, but my impression of Target in America is that it's mainly for middle-class soccer moms and suburbanites. And Skylanders. So maybe they did just decide it didn't fit their target (har har) audience. In which case I'd think a crusade was a bit uncalled for.
You can buy physical copies of games online, as referenced in the post you are quoting.
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
Its easy for us in the US to go "man, that fight's long over, stop freaking out about it." It's a completely different thing in Australia. They don't have some bogeyman they have to conjure up in order to worry about censorship; it was happening there for a long time up until very recently.
"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.
Governments, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship. When an individual such as an author or other creator engages in censorship of their own works or speech, it is called self-censorship. Censorship may be direct or it may be indirect, in which case it is called soft censorship. It occurs in a variety of different media, including speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of claimed reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children or other vulnerable groups, to promote or restrict political or religious views, and to prevent slander and libel."
To claim that what Target did is censorship is silly.
But if that group that made the petition is actively trying to prevent people to access a media or art, then this could be defined as censorship.
I doubt the petitioners were going to buy GTA V anyway. And I don't know if they just want Kmart or Target to not stock the game.
But if their goal is to make GTA V unavailable in Australia, then it IS an attempt at censorship.
Of course it won't work, we all know this, and yeah, Target not stocking the game isn't censorship, that's a business move. They're free to stock or not stock a game. They're not a public platform for videogames or anything, they're a store.
The INTENT of the petition group, however, could be defined as censorship, as it's an attempt to suppress a media.
Again, I'm not saying it necessarily is, I don't have all the information handy, I'm not 100% sure on what they're trying to do: not have big retail stores stock GTA V, or not have GTA V at all in Australia. Those are two different things.
EDIT: Cambiata, I know it's still available. I was suggesting an hypothetical scenario where it was not available to buy. But yeah, it's still possible to order the game online right now, and I don't think it'll get to that point that it can't be had.
Pornography is a class of media - a confoundingly difficult class to define, but a class nonetheless. That said, it's easy enough to not carry pornography (especially as long as porn producers are happy to identify as such and certain pieces of media aren't being labeled pornography by others), and I would never argue that a store not offering any pornography is being irrational. Similarly, I would certainly be less critical if Target AU just came out here and said "You know, media with an R18+ rating really isn't our business". It may or may not be a solid business decision, but it lets them be selective without appearing like they're merrily traipsing into the minefield of judging the merit of each piece of media individually (and incidentally basing their judgments on provided information that can charitably be called misleading).
But to put it into other terms, Target has decided here that a specific example of a class of product (media with a rating of R18+) won't be carried. The analogy would be if Target were actually happy to offer pornography, but Asian Ass Blasters 7 is not a product that represents them or their customers. The immediate questions is going to be "Based on what criteria?", and of course so the conversation begins...
Hmm... maybe it's consistent if you fully accept their public statements; that they are "listening to their customers". To me, that reads like a very safe excuse for simply not wanting to endure a shitstorm. Their real customers who actually walk into a store with money hardly enter into it. I hope that doesn't come of as crackpot'ish - "YOU CAN'T BELIEVE THEIR WORDS, MAN" - because we know how large companies like this tend to act and talk when covering their asses.
That they did originally stock the game shows that Target believed it was in line with their target demographic. And I bet it was; I'm betting plenty of people bought it prior to this decision. This is also the fifth title released in the series, not including the releases between main entries, so I'd be somewhat surprised if Target was just oblivious to its reputation given all the publicity it has received since GTA3. I'd also be curious if they stocked any previous GTA games (and that's an honest curiosity). Because if they did, then their position certainly isn't consistent and they clearly ceded to a focused outcry that had gained some public visibility. I don't think Target actually believes GTA V repels their customers. They just wanted to avoid being potentially dragged through the mud over a title that has already seen the majority of its sales. This action is expedient for them.
Now, this is just my view from a distance; far removed from the internal workings of Target or anybody else involved. I'm suspect of the petition and their response, but that's just me. It will be really telling how they handle this on the next inevitable GTA release, assuming it still contains all the same violence and hooker-murderin' (likely since controversy has never stopped Rockstar from making whatever they want). I'd place money they'll stock it and pump their money's worth until somebody else comes up with another 40,000 signatures.
I think Australia's video game regulation is a problem but PA's stance that art is inherently irreproachable is problematic. Rejecting things we don't agree with is also part of self-expression. Equating our society with nazism because we have the choice to accommodate something or not is ludicrous.
So you're cool with one arbitrary standard but not another?
All the worst online arguments are about "but what if, hypothetically, this much worse thing were happening" and I hate that.
When that worse thing is happening, we will discuss the worse thing. The games community is already way, way too ready to label anything that is mildly annoying into something worse than Nazism. It's tiresome.
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
Yeah, but I wasn't suggesting this much worse thing was happening or was going to happen. I was suggesting that this much worse thing might have been what is *attempted* by the group protesting GTA V. I did not accuse Target of doing anything beyond what they figured was the best marketing move.
And there has been censorship in videogames in Australia for a while, until recently. It's not all that alien to talk about a group whose intent might be this "much worse thing".
I don't think he is saying that art is inherently irreproachable. I think he is just saying that art is a form of speech, and therefore so are video games. And the bar for justifiably suppressing free speech is extremely high. Boobs and blood are not even close to enough justification.
As xkcd mentioned recently, disagreeing with, criticizing, or even rejecting speech is not the same thing as censoring it.
Fortunately no one is being suppressed.
Sorry, not buying this apologist viewpoint. The comic plus the news post make it very clear that Jerry (and maybe Mike) are trying to make a point. As Jerry has said many times, words have power and import. Unfortunately their point this time is vastly oversimplified and uses flawed logic. Sometimes the PA comic is just silliness for silliness' sake, but not this time.
Man the first paragraph and the second paragraph you wrote here are like, completely at odds.
Criticizing boobs in a video game is not "suppressing free speech." The comic you posted will explain to you why it's not suppressive, it's criticism.
The comic you posted will also point out that no one owes you a platform for your boob art, so Target refusing to sell it at their stores is also not suppression of free speech.
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
Penny Arcade has historically acted in a way that leads me to believe this is false: They've had several blowups in reaction to criticism to their comics, plus their reaction on the Mass Effect ending hullabaloo, and of course the 'critics suggesting the artists should censor themselves comment (which I'm too lazy to search for atm).
Dunno why. I mean, if it was an Association of doing stuff "For the Children (tm)", making Target Aus stop selling GTA, there would be no issue with the comic. What's the difference anyway? What makes this wave of "moral outrage" more valid than the previous ones?
I disagree. I find that the comic is very obviously just silliness for silliness' sake. The news post expresses a different, more nuanced idea that has been argued in here, for and against, that some will agree or disagree with (I can't fully endorse Jerry's definition of censorship or his view of art as untouchable), but in the comic, the analogy between this act and Nazi book burning is seen and presented as ridiculous. If anything, it shows that while Jerry believes this petition is attempting a form of censorship, it's really not the big deal you'd think it is.
EDIT: Matrias, I think the first Twisp and Catsby comic seemed to mock the idea that art was irreproachable.
Jerry has said that the solution to art you dislike is to "make more art"; fill that void you perceive, make something you would like to see. Make art that will compete against that which you find troublesome. It does no good to tear something else down or cover it up from other peoples' eyes.
Maybe that solution isn't as satisfying because it doesn't get rid of the million things that you find irritating or offensive. I mean, I get it. But c'est la vie.