So you're cool with one arbitrary standard but not another?
Are you referring to me stating that I'd be less critical if they didn't carry certain classes of media in a broad sense? Like, classes that are created through regulatory authority and subject to administrative review? I suppose there's argument that there's some room for arbitrariness in the Australian rating process, but I studied it pretty thoroughly in law school and I'd honestly say it's one of the more comprehensive and transparent examples of the process (in the case of video games, its problem several years ago wasn't that the criteria weren't reasonable or unfairly applied, but simply that once applied there were significant examples of which there existed no regulatory authority to be classified).
Or are you arguing that deciding not to carry a class of media is equally as arbitrary as deciding to not carry a single example of it?
Edit: Actually, thinking back, the ACB did have some weirdness with inconsistently applying criteria in the case of video games several years ago, especially when it came to cases of violence against police or authority. So I guess it would be fair to say that if Target AU based their decisions on classifications they would be open to some criticism... but then again, it can make much more sense to rely on the decisions of a regulatory body for market segmentation purposes rather than implementing something ad hoc.
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 always view the newsposts as though each one started with the words, "Seriously though..." You know, how a person will make a joke about a situation, but then they say, "Seriously though," and talk about what they really think. That's how the comic/newspost relationship has always appeared to me.
MarcinMN on
"It's just as I've always said. We are being digested by an amoral universe."
"I always view the newsposts as though each one started with the words, "Seriously though..." You know, how a person will make a joke about a situation, but then they say, "Seriously though," and talk about what they really think. "
So you're cool with one arbitrary standard but not another?
Are you referring to me stating that I'd be less critical if they didn't carry certain classes of media in a broad sense? Like, classes that are created through regulatory authority and subject to administrative review? I suppose there's argument that there's some room for arbitrariness in the Australian rating process, but I studied it pretty thoroughly in law school and I'd honestly say it's one of the more comprehensive and transparent examples of the process (in the case of video games, its problem several years ago wasn't that the criteria weren't reasonable or unfairly applied, but simply that once applied there were significant examples of which there existed no regulatory authority to be classified).
Or are you arguing that deciding not to carry a class of media is equally as arbitrary as deciding to not carry a single example of it?
Edit: Actually, thinking back, the ACB did have some weirdness with inconsistently applying criteria in the case of video games several years ago, especially when it came to cases of violence against police or authority. So I guess it would be fair to say that if Target AU based their decisions on classifications they would be open to some criticism... but then again, it can make much more sense to rely on the decisions of a regulatory body for market segmentation purposes rather than implementing something ad hoc.
In the states at least those classes are made through entirely self regulation subject to no one's review but the regulation board itself. The government has zero say in to what is rated R or M or whatever.
And at the end of the day, any decision about what is and isn't acceptable is going to be arbitrary. Declaring any game with death is only acceptable for teenagers or older is every bit as arbitrary as deciding X game won't be sold in your store because you find it specifically offensive.
reading the strip i thought the nazi reference was mocking the common reaction suggesting feminazis or reactionary consumerism aren't bad inasmuch as they're acting out of a response for female and prostitute brutality
after reading the TXT, in opposition i only say, what kind of fascism can dictate that whatever outlet of goods needs to be sold in stores at the risk of being arrested for censorship? stores don't have to buckle at the knees, even to popular opinion or customer request, stores can have convictions and it's their right to stand behind them and for the people to judge them for those convictions. the same as you can judge art without being wrong in your opinion.
i loved GTA and beating the shit out of hookers so i could humiliate them by spending the money they'd been making. that doesn't make me feel engaged in the art. that makes me feel complicit, while not altogether a sensation outside of the experience of art (if anything uniquely visceral within the genre of video games, maybe akin to 'Funny Games' in movies). the nazis made art too. some of it is hailed. there has to be more gray with understanding where videostores that would choose not to sell those movies are coming from besides holding them complicit with naziism. that can be a part of a comprehensive opinion but it can't be the defining feature, otherwise there's a recursive perpetuation that is escaping art as such.
it's that sociopathy that is outraging the more rigid opinions demanding it to be taken down. not fair on their part, but it isn't right to scoff at victims of abuse in defense of your art. "#realityshows are killing our living rooms." [sic] -south park the other day
i realize there are binary sides to the debate. but art isn't typically that monochromatic, it can speak for itself but not typically defended to adequacy. companies similarly can't half-sell a game, but to perceive the way this is playing out in terms of sides that need to be chosen i think is a moot playground. i do resent the gamer defensiveness. it seems like such a childish reaction to what is typically multi-faceted trauma of the other side. i think the next gta should just have hookers you can't kill.
i mean shit we've all seen dead hookers a thousand times at this point. :shrug: why not make hookers invincible and they can fight you if you... shit yea, have them in league with cops... i mean shit we're a creative community, no? why do we have to get taken down a notch with bickering about the standard bs.
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.
Wait, are you seriously attempting to make the claim that one would need to wait until this group gets the game pulled from ALL stores before they speak up about it?
I never said Target and Kmart should be made to stock the game, nor have I said this group did anything illegal. On the contrary, they are well within the law. And yet, it's still censorship and it's still shitty.
+1
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
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.
Wait, are you seriously attempting to make the claim that one would need to wait until this group gets the game pulled from ALL stores before they speak up about it?
I never said Target and Kmart should be made to stock the game, nor have I said this group did anything illegal. On the contrary, they are well within the law. And yet, it's still censorship and it's still shitty.
This raises a curiousity in my mind, because of discussions I've had on these boards with other gamers.
My question is: If I refuse to buy a video game that I think will be fun otherwise, because I've heard it has sexualized violence against women, do you consider me a censor in that case?
"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.
Wait, are you seriously attempting to make the claim that one would need to wait until this group gets the game pulled from ALL stores before they speak up about it?
I never said Target and Kmart should be made to stock the game, nor have I said this group did anything illegal. On the contrary, they are well within the law. And yet, it's still censorship and it's still shitty.
I'm saying that stores deciding to pull a game based on consumer feedback isn't anymore censorship than a mod banning a user on this forum because of behavior.
Censorship isn't taking away your audience, or in this case one avenue to reach that audience, it's taking away the right to even say/do/make something.
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.
Wait, are you seriously attempting to make the claim that one would need to wait until this group gets the game pulled from ALL stores before they speak up about it?
I never said Target and Kmart should be made to stock the game, nor have I said this group did anything illegal. On the contrary, they are well within the law. And yet, it's still censorship and it's still shitty.
This raises a curiousity in my mind, because of discussions I've had on these boards with other gamers.
My question is: If I refuse to buy a video game that I think will be fun otherwise, because I've heard it has sexualized violence against women, do you consider me a censor in that case?
I do not know what he'd say, but I would say no. This is vastly different. When you refuse to buy the game yourself, your decision is only about you. You're not actively trying to prevent others from buying it, or rather, preventing them from being able to.
Even if you told your friends "I don't like this game because X or Y, and I think that's a problem" I still wouldn't think it's censorship. That's criticism. You're informing them. They'll still make the decision to buy it or not.
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.
Wait, are you seriously attempting to make the claim that one would need to wait until this group gets the game pulled from ALL stores before they speak up about it?
I never said Target and Kmart should be made to stock the game, nor have I said this group did anything illegal. On the contrary, they are well within the law. And yet, it's still censorship and it's still shitty.
This raises a curiousity in my mind, because of discussions I've had on these boards with other gamers.
My question is: If I refuse to buy a video game that I think will be fun otherwise, because I've heard it has sexualized violence against women, do you consider me a censor in that case?
I do not know what he'd say, but I would say no. This is vastly different. When you refuse to buy the game yourself, your decision is only about you. You're not actively trying to prevent others from buying it, or rather, preventing them from being able to.
Even if you told your friends "I don't like this game because X or Y, and I think that's a problem" I still wouldn't think it's censorship. That's criticism. You're informing them. They'll still make the decision to buy it or not.
But that's exactly what has happened here, but on a large scale.
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.
Wait, are you seriously attempting to make the claim that one would need to wait until this group gets the game pulled from ALL stores before they speak up about it?
I never said Target and Kmart should be made to stock the game, nor have I said this group did anything illegal. On the contrary, they are well within the law. And yet, it's still censorship and it's still shitty.
This raises a curiousity in my mind, because of discussions I've had on these boards with other gamers.
My question is: If I refuse to buy a video game that I think will be fun otherwise, because I've heard it has sexualized violence against women, do you consider me a censor in that case?
I do not know what he'd say, but I would say no. This is vastly different. When you refuse to buy the game yourself, your decision is only about you. You're not actively trying to prevent others from buying it, or rather, preventing them from being able to.
Even if you told your friends "I don't like this game because X or Y, and I think that's a problem" I still wouldn't think it's censorship. That's criticism. You're informing them. They'll still make the decision to buy it or not.
But that's exactly what has happened here, but on a large scale.
Yes.
Ms. Rockstar wants to sell a game to influential businessman Mr. Target. Mr. Target initially wanted the game, but after reading some online reviews, he changed his mind about buying. Ms. Rockstar was still able to sell the game to influential businesspeople Mr. Steam and Ms. Amazon and others without issue (or whatever venues sell the game in AU).
"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.
Wait, are you seriously attempting to make the claim that one would need to wait until this group gets the game pulled from ALL stores before they speak up about it?
I never said Target and Kmart should be made to stock the game, nor have I said this group did anything illegal. On the contrary, they are well within the law. And yet, it's still censorship and it's still shitty.
In the states at least those classes are made through entirely self regulation subject to no one's review but the regulation board itself. The government has zero say in to what is rated R or M or whatever.
And at the end of the day, any decision about what is and isn't acceptable is going to be arbitrary. Declaring any game with death is only acceptable for teenagers or older is every bit as arbitrary as deciding X game won't be sold in your store because you find it specifically offensive.
I'm not sure I entirely agree with this. If ratings and classifications were entirely arbitrary, then there really wouldn't be much point for them, media consumers wouldn't trust them, and the media industries surely wouldn't bother to implement them in the absence of government oversight. The media industries self-regulate their ratings in the US, of course, because as it stands there's little statutory authority for the government to do so, but ratings (however poorly done) are nonetheless implemented willingly because at the very least it assists in market segmentation.
You can deliberate whether the standards behind ratings/classifications are "arbitrary" from a moral sense (I wish you luck; if you can crack the nut of moral philosophy you're due for some awards) but the fact remains that a retailer relying on these classifications for market segmentation purposes still wouldn't be behaving arbitrarily themselves so long as the classifications do, in fact, genuinely assist in segmenting the market - the failure of a classification to make sense doesn't necessarily (although realistically would) preclude people from actually believing it. Conversely, delisting a single piece of media for specious reasons in the name of market segmentation raises the question of why similar products are not getting the same treatment, and the genuine question of whether what you're doing actually moves forward in achieving your stated goals.
delisting a single piece of media for specious reasons in the name of market segmentation raises the question of why similar products are not getting the same treatment
While you could run over or shoot women pedestrians in Watch_Dogs, Sleeping Dogs, and Far Cry 4, I don't know of any games where you can use and then harm women prostitutes or strippers besides the GTA and the Saints Row games. And Aussie Target doesn't carry Saints Row 4. Hitman Absolution is closest since you have the option to strangle strippers to death and hide their corpses in closets but that's only possible in two or three of the twenty levels.
One thing that's interesting to me is that the clade of folk that I'm seeing defending Target's decision are... to put it bluntly, the sort who I wouldn't be surprised to find out are not big fans of GTAV or more specifically its treatment of women in the game (which, lets just say straight out, GTAV's treatment of women is hideous and I'm not just talking about optional prostitute murder here, people)
So, it's an easy stance to take for them, morally and ethically, because they're like "Well, yeah, if Target doesn't want to sell a game that contains horrible misogynistic bullshit, I guess I can't get too outraged about that, and I'm not going to really consider it to have a meaningful chilling effect on artistic expression, because the consumer pressure that was put on Target to arrive at this decision is a political viewpoint I agree with."
And I wonder if that would continue to be true if the game in question wasn't so nakedly deplorable in content? If it wasn't such an easy moral judgment for those folk to write it off and say "Well it's misogynistic and the people pressuring Target not to sell it are asking Target not to contribute to a misogynistic media atmosphere"
Like, in the past few months we've seen an entirely different group of people with an interest in video games and gaming culture use petitioning and consumer pressure to attempt to convince advertisers, retailers, publishers, and developers of games and gaming products to alter their course and discontinue to do this or that because of that group's particular political beliefs and values. I've seen some of the very same folk in this thread who are speaking favorably of Target's decision and the consumer pressure put on Target to arrive at this decision, decry the tactics used by that entirely different group when they attempted to use petitioning and consumer pressure to sway companies their way. The difference was... you disagree with their beliefs? Fine, that's okay to disagree with their beliefs. I do too. But you found fault with their tactics when their beliefs were offensive to you.
Suddenly, when the cause is something you support, the tactics used are okay?
That's not sitting right with me, folks. It's really not. I'm not drawing a moral equivalence here. I'm not saying "You're just as bad as they are!"
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?
Consider: If some Christian Evangelical group in the US got their shit in a knot because of homosexuality in Dragon Age: Inquisition and pressured Target to stop selling it on those grounds, and Target acquiesced and other major retailers followed suit, would you be as considerate of that tactic and as argumentative with people who are decrying it?
delisting a single piece of media for specious reasons in the name of market segmentation raises the question of why similar products are not getting the same treatment
While you could run over or shoot women pedestrians in Watch_Dogs, Sleeping Dogs, and Far Cry 4, I don't know of any games where you can use and then harm women prostitutes or strippers besides the GTA and the Saints Row games. And Aussie Target doesn't carry Saints Row 4. Hitman Absolution is closest since you have the option to strangle strippers to death and hide their corpses in closets but that's only possible in two or three of the twenty levels.
Censorship are games like Syndicate not being able to be sold here at all or forcing Valve to remove any trace of violence from Left4Dead2 (the Aussie version is a farce to say the least). That is actual censorship.
Not quite on topic but Valve patched up the Australian version of L4D2 after the R18+ rating kicked in.
One thing that's interesting to me is that the clade of folk that I'm seeing defending Target's decision are... to put it bluntly, the sort who I wouldn't be surprised to find out are not big fans of GTAV or more specifically its treatment of women in the game (which, lets just say straight out, GTAV's treatment of women is hideous and I'm not just talking about optional prostitute murder here, people)
So, it's an easy stance to take for them, morally and ethically, because they're like "Well, yeah, if Target doesn't want to sell a game that contains horrible misogynistic bullshit, I guess I can't get too outraged about that, and I'm not going to really consider it to have a meaningful chilling effect on artistic expression, because the consumer pressure that was put on Target to arrive at this decision is a political viewpoint I agree with."
And I wonder if that would continue to be true if the game in question wasn't so nakedly deplorable in content? If it wasn't such an easy moral judgment for those folk to write it off and say "Well it's misogynistic and the people pressuring Target not to sell it are asking Target not to contribute to a misogynistic media atmosphere"
Like, in the past few months we've seen an entirely different group of people with an interest in video games and gaming culture use petitioning and consumer pressure to attempt to convince advertisers, retailers, publishers, and developers of games and gaming products to alter their course and discontinue to do this or that because of that group's particular political beliefs and values. I've seen some of the very same folk in this thread who are speaking favorably of Target's decision and the consumer pressure put on Target to arrive at this decision, decry the tactics used by that entirely different group when they attempted to use petitioning and consumer pressure to sway companies their way. The difference was... you disagree with their beliefs? Fine, that's okay to disagree with their beliefs. I do too. But you found fault with their tactics when their beliefs were offensive to you.
Suddenly, when the cause is something you support, the tactics used are okay?
That's not sitting right with me, folks. It's really not. I'm not drawing a moral equivalence here. I'm not saying "You're just as bad as they are!"
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?
Consider: If some Christian Evangelical group in the US got their shit in a knot because of homosexuality in Dragon Age: Inquisition and pressured Target to stop selling it on those grounds, and Target acquiesced and other major retailers followed suit, would you be as considerate of that tactic and as argumentative with people who are decrying it?
Because I seriously wonder.
I would. However, I'd speak with my wallet and let target know how I felt, as I have with GG stuff and Intel/adobe. I wouldn't vilify these companies, I'd strike back in the very same way. I wouldn't cry censorship or anything.
There's a difference between not agreeing with a movement and misrepresenting their actions. Hell, I bought GTA V for the second time this week. My problem isn't one of agreeing it should be pulled, my problem is with the characterization of what that action signifies.
In the states at least those classes are made through entirely self regulation subject to no one's review but the regulation board itself. The government has zero say in to what is rated R or M or whatever.
And at the end of the day, any decision about what is and isn't acceptable is going to be arbitrary. Declaring any game with death is only acceptable for teenagers or older is every bit as arbitrary as deciding X game won't be sold in your store because you find it specifically offensive.
I'm not sure I entirely agree with this. If ratings and classifications were entirely arbitrary, then there really wouldn't be much point for them, media consumers wouldn't trust them, and the media industries surely wouldn't bother to implement them in the absence of government oversight. The media industries self-regulate their ratings in the US, of course, because as it stands there's little statutory authority for the government to do so, but ratings (however poorly done) are nonetheless implemented willingly because at the very least it assists in market segmentation.
You can deliberate whether the standards behind ratings/classifications are "arbitrary" from a moral sense (I wish you luck; if you can crack the nut of moral philosophy you're due for some awards) but the fact remains that a retailer relying on these classifications for market segmentation purposes still wouldn't be behaving arbitrarily themselves so long as the classifications do, in fact, genuinely assist in segmenting the market - the failure of a classification to make sense doesn't necessarily (although realistically would) preclude people from actually believing it. Conversely, delisting a single piece of media for specious reasons in the name of market segmentation raises the question of why similar products are not getting the same treatment, and the genuine question of whether what you're doing actually moves forward in achieving your stated goals.
They stand because public's given culture they serve generally finds their ratings acceptable. Which is no less or more arbitrary then not selling a game because the public considers it unacceptable.
It's not as if one single person at Target decided ban GTA V because it's Tuesday and the game contains the color blue. A board got information from likely multiple departments after being petitioned by 40k people likely representing an even larger group offended by GTA's content. That is not an arbitrary decision any more than "Well we're not going to sell that because nipples."
One thing that's interesting to me is that the clade of folk that I'm seeing defending Target's decision are... to put it bluntly, the sort who I wouldn't be surprised to find out are not big fans of GTAV or more specifically its treatment of women in the game (which, lets just say straight out, GTAV's treatment of women is hideous and I'm not just talking about optional prostitute murder here, people)
So, it's an easy stance to take for them, morally and ethically, because they're like "Well, yeah, if Target doesn't want to sell a game that contains horrible misogynistic bullshit, I guess I can't get too outraged about that, and I'm not going to really consider it to have a meaningful chilling effect on artistic expression, because the consumer pressure that was put on Target to arrive at this decision is a political viewpoint I agree with."
And I wonder if that would continue to be true if the game in question wasn't so nakedly deplorable in content? If it wasn't such an easy moral judgment for those folk to write it off and say "Well it's misogynistic and the people pressuring Target not to sell it are asking Target not to contribute to a misogynistic media atmosphere"
Like, in the past few months we've seen an entirely different group of people with an interest in video games and gaming culture use petitioning and consumer pressure to attempt to convince advertisers, retailers, publishers, and developers of games and gaming products to alter their course and discontinue to do this or that because of that group's particular political beliefs and values. I've seen some of the very same folk in this thread who are speaking favorably of Target's decision and the consumer pressure put on Target to arrive at this decision, decry the tactics used by that entirely different group when they attempted to use petitioning and consumer pressure to sway companies their way. The difference was... you disagree with their beliefs? Fine, that's okay to disagree with their beliefs. I do too. But you found fault with their tactics when their beliefs were offensive to you.
Suddenly, when the cause is something you support, the tactics used are okay?
That's not sitting right with me, folks. It's really not. I'm not drawing a moral equivalence here. I'm not saying "You're just as bad as they are!"
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?
Consider: If some Christian Evangelical group in the US got their shit in a knot because of homosexuality in Dragon Age: Inquisition and pressured Target to stop selling it on those grounds, and Target acquiesced and other major retailers followed suit, would you be as considerate of that tactic and as argumentative with people who are decrying it?
Because I seriously wonder.
Well wonder no more, brosef. I can find Target's actions both stupid and not suppression.
+4
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
One thing that's interesting to me is that the clade of folk that I'm seeing defending Target's decision are... to put it bluntly, the sort who I wouldn't be surprised to find out are not big fans of GTAV or more specifically its treatment of women in the game (which, lets just say straight out, GTAV's treatment of women is hideous and I'm not just talking about optional prostitute murder here, people)
So, it's an easy stance to take for them, morally and ethically, because they're like "Well, yeah, if Target doesn't want to sell a game that contains horrible misogynistic bullshit, I guess I can't get too outraged about that, and I'm not going to really consider it to have a meaningful chilling effect on artistic expression, because the consumer pressure that was put on Target to arrive at this decision is a political viewpoint I agree with."
And I wonder if that would continue to be true if the game in question wasn't so nakedly deplorable in content? If it wasn't such an easy moral judgment for those folk to write it off and say "Well it's misogynistic and the people pressuring Target not to sell it are asking Target not to contribute to a misogynistic media atmosphere"
Like, in the past few months we've seen an entirely different group of people with an interest in video games and gaming culture use petitioning and consumer pressure to attempt to convince advertisers, retailers, publishers, and developers of games and gaming products to alter their course and discontinue to do this or that because of that group's particular political beliefs and values. I've seen some of the very same folk in this thread who are speaking favorably of Target's decision and the consumer pressure put on Target to arrive at this decision, decry the tactics used by that entirely different group when they attempted to use petitioning and consumer pressure to sway companies their way. The difference was... you disagree with their beliefs? Fine, that's okay to disagree with their beliefs. I do too. But you found fault with their tactics when their beliefs were offensive to you.
Suddenly, when the cause is something you support, the tactics used are okay?
That's not sitting right with me, folks. It's really not. I'm not drawing a moral equivalence here. I'm not saying "You're just as bad as they are!"
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?
Consider: If some Christian Evangelical group in the US got their shit in a knot because of homosexuality in Dragon Age: Inquisition and pressured Target to stop selling it on those grounds, and Target acquiesced and other major retailers followed suit, would you be as considerate of that tactic and as argumentative with people who are decrying it?
Because I seriously wonder.
If you're talking about the same group I think you're talking about, I never decried their right to email Intel to get it to pull advertising.
I decried their actual harassment and death threats aimed at real human beings.
Calling for a boycott is absolutely a valid political tactic that I have no problem with in itself. Even at the height of my anger at that group, I acknowledged openly that there was nothing morally wrong with the boycott aspect.
Mind you I was mad at Intel for a while because I thought they sided with the wrong crowd.
But then they restored the ads, so *shrug*.
Edit: And I know the answer would be different coming from other people, but in response to your hypothetical, I'd still say that group had a perfect right to do that if they wanted. Wouldn't stop me from buying the game. Wouldn't stop me from giving the game away to others as a gift. Wouldn't stop me from trying to put my own consumer pressure on Target. Might even make some new people aware of the game and increase sales because of the controversy. And you'd never get me to cry "censorship" over a boycott like a child looking for a lolly.
Cambiata on
"excuse my French
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
the whole nerd conflation of "social pressure" with "censorship" is just a privilege thing, right
like, nobody has ever told them that they can't do a certain thing or act a certain way before, so the first time it happens it seems to them like this massive violation of their rights, as opposed to just a basic condition of being a human in a society
In the states at least those classes are made through entirely self regulation subject to no one's review but the regulation board itself. The government has zero say in to what is rated R or M or whatever.
And at the end of the day, any decision about what is and isn't acceptable is going to be arbitrary. Declaring any game with death is only acceptable for teenagers or older is every bit as arbitrary as deciding X game won't be sold in your store because you find it specifically offensive.
I'm not sure I entirely agree with this. If ratings and classifications were entirely arbitrary, then there really wouldn't be much point for them, media consumers wouldn't trust them, and the media industries surely wouldn't bother to implement them in the absence of government oversight. The media industries self-regulate their ratings in the US, of course, because as it stands there's little statutory authority for the government to do so, but ratings (however poorly done) are nonetheless implemented willingly because at the very least it assists in market segmentation.
You can deliberate whether the standards behind ratings/classifications are "arbitrary" from a moral sense (I wish you luck; if you can crack the nut of moral philosophy you're due for some awards) but the fact remains that a retailer relying on these classifications for market segmentation purposes still wouldn't be behaving arbitrarily themselves so long as the classifications do, in fact, genuinely assist in segmenting the market - the failure of a classification to make sense doesn't necessarily (although realistically would) preclude people from actually believing it. Conversely, delisting a single piece of media for specious reasons in the name of market segmentation raises the question of why similar products are not getting the same treatment, and the genuine question of whether what you're doing actually moves forward in achieving your stated goals.
They stand because public's given culture they serve generally finds their ratings acceptable. Which is no less or more arbitrary then not selling a game because the public considers it unacceptable.
It's not as if one single person at Target decided ban GTA V because it's Tuesday and the game contains the color blue. A board got information from likely multiple departments after being petitioned by 40k people likely representing an even larger group offended by GTA's content. That is not an arbitrary decision any more than "Well we're not going to sell that because nipples."
Your original point was that deciding what to sell based on content strictly because you're attempting to segment the market is arbitrary no matter if the decision is applied broadly based on media classifications or specifically, but here you're arguing that Target doing the latter...isn't arbitrary?
Regardless, we're getting hung up on the words. My point has always been that the decision doesn't make sense given their stated reasoning of appealing to a market segment that doesn't like certain types of violence because they're not applying the rule to any other examples of it. If Target AU wants to go through their entire media catalog and make those distinctions, I'd likely still question whether Target is capable of meaningfully doing it but the rationale would at least be established. To follow your example, if Target did delist the game because they thought it contained a particular shade of blue that a market segment disliked, it wouldn't be arbitrary so long as that segment actually existed and GTA was one of many such products delisted, despite the fact that disliking blue doesn't make any sense. However, if numerous products containing that shade were still made available, suddenly things aren't looking so smart for Target.
I decried their actual harassment and death threats aimed at real human beings.
Well it's a good thing only a tiny fraction of people involved ever sent death threats, to either side. We should all be able to boycott what we want, obviously.
Personally I find it weird that GTA in particular has been targeted for misogyny claims. In most games the only enemies are faceless male mooks, but a game where you can kill anyone ever seems to me like a bad target for feminists. I guess some theoretical women "murder simulator" game would be a better target, but if that exists I haven't seen it..
It feels like the fucking 90s again, only instead of wrinkly conservatives attacking games it's college hippies with dyed hair. It's super weird, I've never been more politically conflicted.
So I wonder if this conversation would play out the same way if a Fundamental Christian group managed to raise enough of a stink to get a game pulled from Target/KMart due to themes of demons/witchcraft?
So I wonder if this conversation would play out the same way if a Fundamental Christian group managed to raise enough of a stink to get a game pulled from Target/KMart due to themes of demons/witchcraft?
It'd be worse reasoning if only because misogyny in video games is actually a thing whereas the satanic panic was the paranoid delusions of the fundamentalist right wing.
So I wonder if this conversation would play out the same way if a Fundamental Christian group managed to raise enough of a stink to get a game pulled from Target/KMart due to themes of demons/witchcraft?
If you take a list of three groups:
Feminists
Nazis
Fundamentalist Christians
And you group them all together just based on the idea that they all have issues with people consuming some kinds of media, I think you're missing something. The same goes even if you don't include Nazis.
So I wonder if this conversation would play out the same way if a Fundamental Christian group managed to raise enough of a stink to get a game pulled from Target/KMart due to themes of demons/witchcraft?
It'd be worse reasoning if only because misogyny in video games is actually a thing whereas the satanic panic was the paranoid delusions of the fundamentalist right wing.
Satanic and witchcraft-related themes in video games also exist.
So I wonder if this conversation would play out the same way if a Fundamental Christian group managed to raise enough of a stink to get a game pulled from Target/KMart due to themes of demons/witchcraft?
I couldn't even tell you. If that happened a few months from now there'd be a few getting angry, maybe the same people calling others privileged dudebros just recently. And then others are fully cemented in in their "right to comfort" opinion, that if art hurts somebody's feelings they'd be in support of censoring it.
So I wonder if this conversation would play out the same way if a Fundamental Christian group managed to raise enough of a stink to get a game pulled from Target/KMart due to themes of demons/witchcraft?
If you take a list of three groups:
Feminists
Nazis
Fundamentalist Christians
And you group them all together just based on the idea that they all have issues with people consuming some kinds of media, I think you're missing something. The same goes even if you don't include Nazis.
So I wonder if this conversation would play out the same way if a Fundamental Christian group managed to raise enough of a stink to get a game pulled from Target/KMart due to themes of demons/witchcraft?
It'd be worse reasoning if only because misogyny in video games is actually a thing whereas the satanic panic was the paranoid delusions of the fundamentalist right wing.
I consider virtual misogyny to be about as important as virtual demon summoning. Until a video game literally causes a previously mentally sound person to murder or beat someone I don't see a point in thinking otherwise. And considering you can kill everyone in GTA this is just way too confusing for me. I don't even like GTA.
Posts
Are you referring to me stating that I'd be less critical if they didn't carry certain classes of media in a broad sense? Like, classes that are created through regulatory authority and subject to administrative review? I suppose there's argument that there's some room for arbitrariness in the Australian rating process, but I studied it pretty thoroughly in law school and I'd honestly say it's one of the more comprehensive and transparent examples of the process (in the case of video games, its problem several years ago wasn't that the criteria weren't reasonable or unfairly applied, but simply that once applied there were significant examples of which there existed no regulatory authority to be classified).
Or are you arguing that deciding not to carry a class of media is equally as arbitrary as deciding to not carry a single example of it?
Edit: Actually, thinking back, the ACB did have some weirdness with inconsistently applying criteria in the case of video games several years ago, especially when it came to cases of violence against police or authority. So I guess it would be fair to say that if Target AU based their decisions on classifications they would be open to some criticism... but then again, it can make much more sense to rely on the decisions of a regulatory body for market segmentation purposes rather than implementing something ad hoc.
I always view the newsposts as though each one started with the words, "Seriously though..." You know, how a person will make a joke about a situation, but then they say, "Seriously though," and talk about what they really think. That's how the comic/newspost relationship has always appeared to me.
-Tycho Brahe
I really really like this.
In the states at least those classes are made through entirely self regulation subject to no one's review but the regulation board itself. The government has zero say in to what is rated R or M or whatever.
And at the end of the day, any decision about what is and isn't acceptable is going to be arbitrary. Declaring any game with death is only acceptable for teenagers or older is every bit as arbitrary as deciding X game won't be sold in your store because you find it specifically offensive.
after reading the TXT, in opposition i only say, what kind of fascism can dictate that whatever outlet of goods needs to be sold in stores at the risk of being arrested for censorship? stores don't have to buckle at the knees, even to popular opinion or customer request, stores can have convictions and it's their right to stand behind them and for the people to judge them for those convictions. the same as you can judge art without being wrong in your opinion.
i loved GTA and beating the shit out of hookers so i could humiliate them by spending the money they'd been making. that doesn't make me feel engaged in the art. that makes me feel complicit, while not altogether a sensation outside of the experience of art (if anything uniquely visceral within the genre of video games, maybe akin to 'Funny Games' in movies). the nazis made art too. some of it is hailed. there has to be more gray with understanding where videostores that would choose not to sell those movies are coming from besides holding them complicit with naziism. that can be a part of a comprehensive opinion but it can't be the defining feature, otherwise there's a recursive perpetuation that is escaping art as such.
it's that sociopathy that is outraging the more rigid opinions demanding it to be taken down. not fair on their part, but it isn't right to scoff at victims of abuse in defense of your art. "#realityshows are killing our living rooms." [sic] -south park the other day
i realize there are binary sides to the debate. but art isn't typically that monochromatic, it can speak for itself but not typically defended to adequacy. companies similarly can't half-sell a game, but to perceive the way this is playing out in terms of sides that need to be chosen i think is a moot playground. i do resent the gamer defensiveness. it seems like such a childish reaction to what is typically multi-faceted trauma of the other side. i think the next gta should just have hookers you can't kill.
i mean shit we've all seen dead hookers a thousand times at this point. :shrug: why not make hookers invincible and they can fight you if you... shit yea, have them in league with cops... i mean shit we're a creative community, no? why do we have to get taken down a notch with bickering about the standard bs.
Wait, are you seriously attempting to make the claim that one would need to wait until this group gets the game pulled from ALL stores before they speak up about it?
I never said Target and Kmart should be made to stock the game, nor have I said this group did anything illegal. On the contrary, they are well within the law. And yet, it's still censorship and it's still shitty.
Huh?
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
This raises a curiousity in my mind, because of discussions I've had on these boards with other gamers.
My question is: If I refuse to buy a video game that I think will be fun otherwise, because I've heard it has sexualized violence against women, do you consider me a censor in that case?
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
I'm saying that stores deciding to pull a game based on consumer feedback isn't anymore censorship than a mod banning a user on this forum because of behavior.
Censorship isn't taking away your audience, or in this case one avenue to reach that audience, it's taking away the right to even say/do/make something.
I do not know what he'd say, but I would say no. This is vastly different. When you refuse to buy the game yourself, your decision is only about you. You're not actively trying to prevent others from buying it, or rather, preventing them from being able to.
Even if you told your friends "I don't like this game because X or Y, and I think that's a problem" I still wouldn't think it's censorship. That's criticism. You're informing them. They'll still make the decision to buy it or not.
But that's exactly what has happened here, but on a large scale.
Yes.
Ms. Rockstar wants to sell a game to influential businessman Mr. Target. Mr. Target initially wanted the game, but after reading some online reviews, he changed his mind about buying. Ms. Rockstar was still able to sell the game to influential businesspeople Mr. Steam and Ms. Amazon and others without issue (or whatever venues sell the game in AU).
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
So where is the line drawn? At what point is saying "Hey, I and all these other people think this stuff is really offensive and don't think you should sell it" no longer shitty? Are you upset that any of these items were withdrawn? http://www.mtlblog.com/2014/01/the-10-most-controversial-urban-outfitters-products/?all=1
Or this one? http://www.buzzfeed.com/mbvd/urban-outfitters-features-vintage-red-stained-kent-state-swe
Or do you think those should still be sold, because censorship?
3DS FC: 0817-3759-2788
I'm not sure I entirely agree with this. If ratings and classifications were entirely arbitrary, then there really wouldn't be much point for them, media consumers wouldn't trust them, and the media industries surely wouldn't bother to implement them in the absence of government oversight. The media industries self-regulate their ratings in the US, of course, because as it stands there's little statutory authority for the government to do so, but ratings (however poorly done) are nonetheless implemented willingly because at the very least it assists in market segmentation.
You can deliberate whether the standards behind ratings/classifications are "arbitrary" from a moral sense (I wish you luck; if you can crack the nut of moral philosophy you're due for some awards) but the fact remains that a retailer relying on these classifications for market segmentation purposes still wouldn't be behaving arbitrarily themselves so long as the classifications do, in fact, genuinely assist in segmenting the market - the failure of a classification to make sense doesn't necessarily (although realistically would) preclude people from actually believing it. Conversely, delisting a single piece of media for specious reasons in the name of market segmentation raises the question of why similar products are not getting the same treatment, and the genuine question of whether what you're doing actually moves forward in achieving your stated goals.
While you could run over or shoot women pedestrians in Watch_Dogs, Sleeping Dogs, and Far Cry 4, I don't know of any games where you can use and then harm women prostitutes or strippers besides the GTA and the Saints Row games. And Aussie Target doesn't carry Saints Row 4. Hitman Absolution is closest since you have the option to strangle strippers to death and hide their corpses in closets but that's only possible in two or three of the twenty levels.
Don't imagine that you're welcome to come back.
So, it's an easy stance to take for them, morally and ethically, because they're like "Well, yeah, if Target doesn't want to sell a game that contains horrible misogynistic bullshit, I guess I can't get too outraged about that, and I'm not going to really consider it to have a meaningful chilling effect on artistic expression, because the consumer pressure that was put on Target to arrive at this decision is a political viewpoint I agree with."
And I wonder if that would continue to be true if the game in question wasn't so nakedly deplorable in content? If it wasn't such an easy moral judgment for those folk to write it off and say "Well it's misogynistic and the people pressuring Target not to sell it are asking Target not to contribute to a misogynistic media atmosphere"
Like, in the past few months we've seen an entirely different group of people with an interest in video games and gaming culture use petitioning and consumer pressure to attempt to convince advertisers, retailers, publishers, and developers of games and gaming products to alter their course and discontinue to do this or that because of that group's particular political beliefs and values. I've seen some of the very same folk in this thread who are speaking favorably of Target's decision and the consumer pressure put on Target to arrive at this decision, decry the tactics used by that entirely different group when they attempted to use petitioning and consumer pressure to sway companies their way. The difference was... you disagree with their beliefs? Fine, that's okay to disagree with their beliefs. I do too. But you found fault with their tactics when their beliefs were offensive to you.
Suddenly, when the cause is something you support, the tactics used are okay?
That's not sitting right with me, folks. It's really not. I'm not drawing a moral equivalence here. I'm not saying "You're just as bad as they are!"
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?
Consider: If some Christian Evangelical group in the US got their shit in a knot because of homosexuality in Dragon Age: Inquisition and pressured Target to stop selling it on those grounds, and Target acquiesced and other major retailers followed suit, would you be as considerate of that tactic and as argumentative with people who are decrying it?
Because I seriously wonder.
Saints Row 4 is listed but unavailable online (perhaps they'll restock it but it may also be available in store). GTAV has been entirely delisted.
Not quite on topic but Valve patched up the Australian version of L4D2 after the R18+ rating kicked in.
I would. However, I'd speak with my wallet and let target know how I felt, as I have with GG stuff and Intel/adobe. I wouldn't vilify these companies, I'd strike back in the very same way. I wouldn't cry censorship or anything.
There's a difference between not agreeing with a movement and misrepresenting their actions. Hell, I bought GTA V for the second time this week. My problem isn't one of agreeing it should be pulled, my problem is with the characterization of what that action signifies.
They stand because public's given culture they serve generally finds their ratings acceptable. Which is no less or more arbitrary then not selling a game because the public considers it unacceptable.
It's not as if one single person at Target decided ban GTA V because it's Tuesday and the game contains the color blue. A board got information from likely multiple departments after being petitioned by 40k people likely representing an even larger group offended by GTA's content. That is not an arbitrary decision any more than "Well we're not going to sell that because nipples."
Well wonder no more, brosef. I can find Target's actions both stupid and not suppression.
If you're talking about the same group I think you're talking about, I never decried their right to email Intel to get it to pull advertising.
I decried their actual harassment and death threats aimed at real human beings.
Calling for a boycott is absolutely a valid political tactic that I have no problem with in itself. Even at the height of my anger at that group, I acknowledged openly that there was nothing morally wrong with the boycott aspect.
Mind you I was mad at Intel for a while because I thought they sided with the wrong crowd.
But then they restored the ads, so *shrug*.
Edit: And I know the answer would be different coming from other people, but in response to your hypothetical, I'd still say that group had a perfect right to do that if they wanted. Wouldn't stop me from buying the game. Wouldn't stop me from giving the game away to others as a gift. Wouldn't stop me from trying to put my own consumer pressure on Target. Might even make some new people aware of the game and increase sales because of the controversy. And you'd never get me to cry "censorship" over a boycott like a child looking for a lolly.
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
like, nobody has ever told them that they can't do a certain thing or act a certain way before, so the first time it happens it seems to them like this massive violation of their rights, as opposed to just a basic condition of being a human in a society
Your original point was that deciding what to sell based on content strictly because you're attempting to segment the market is arbitrary no matter if the decision is applied broadly based on media classifications or specifically, but here you're arguing that Target doing the latter...isn't arbitrary?
Regardless, we're getting hung up on the words. My point has always been that the decision doesn't make sense given their stated reasoning of appealing to a market segment that doesn't like certain types of violence because they're not applying the rule to any other examples of it. If Target AU wants to go through their entire media catalog and make those distinctions, I'd likely still question whether Target is capable of meaningfully doing it but the rationale would at least be established. To follow your example, if Target did delist the game because they thought it contained a particular shade of blue that a market segment disliked, it wouldn't be arbitrary so long as that segment actually existed and GTA was one of many such products delisted, despite the fact that disliking blue doesn't make any sense. However, if numerous products containing that shade were still made available, suddenly things aren't looking so smart for Target.
We're looking at them from the other side, from where the games are.
Well it's a good thing only a tiny fraction of people involved ever sent death threats, to either side. We should all be able to boycott what we want, obviously.
Personally I find it weird that GTA in particular has been targeted for misogyny claims. In most games the only enemies are faceless male mooks, but a game where you can kill anyone ever seems to me like a bad target for feminists. I guess some theoretical women "murder simulator" game would be a better target, but if that exists I haven't seen it..
It feels like the fucking 90s again, only instead of wrinkly conservatives attacking games it's college hippies with dyed hair. It's super weird, I've never been more politically conflicted.
Feminists
Nazis
Fundamentalist Christians
And you group them all together just based on the idea that they all have issues with people consuming some kinds of media, I think you're missing something. The same goes even if you don't include Nazis.
Satanic and witchcraft-related themes in video games also exist.
I couldn't even tell you. If that happened a few months from now there'd be a few getting angry, maybe the same people calling others privileged dudebros just recently. And then others are fully cemented in in their "right to comfort" opinion, that if art hurts somebody's feelings they'd be in support of censoring it.
I'm not sure what your point is.
I consider virtual misogyny to be about as important as virtual demon summoning. Until a video game literally causes a previously mentally sound person to murder or beat someone I don't see a point in thinking otherwise. And considering you can kill everyone in GTA this is just way too confusing for me. I don't even like GTA.