PETITION: Continue to sell Grand Theft Auto 5 in Australia
- Thread starter SkullCap
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups.
Sure you can argue the definitions of censorship (yay semantics) but realize that many many words have multiple definitions, and that their are more kinds of censorship than just state.
Second - The petition to remove it was full of straight up lies and lack of evidence for anything else that may not have been a lie. The petition was not based on anything. No one who created it or signed it had any knowledge of the game. Target did no research at all. To validate that petition is to invalidate the purpose of petitions. It's a sad joke.
Sure you can argue the definitions of censorship (yay semantics) but realize that many many words have multiple definitions, and that their are more kinds of censorship than just state.
Second - The petition to remove it was full of straight up lies and lack of evidence for anything else that may not have been a lie. The petition was not based on anything. No one who created it or signed it had any knowledge of the game. Target did no research at all. To validate that petition is to invalidate the purpose of petitions. It's a sad joke.
And they tell you if you drive even remotely near one at any point, so it's not like I haven't seen it before. Different genre, but I like the fact that the Magic DotP games have a "don't show this again" option for their tips, because they're useful if you're a newbie, but not much after that. I wish they'd go one step further and give me an "I played the last one, tell me only what's new." Because occasionally they've changed a rule since I was last a player (regeneration) or add a new mechanic (cycling), but I knew most of the rules when I picked up the first DotP, and it hasn't changed in the intervening years. FFS, I still remember how banding works. I'm pretty sure understanding a combat with banding is an instant admission to MENSA.Loonyyy said:
Yeah, I admit, I notice it less in 4, but it's definitely there.
What baffles me the most is that this is constantly portrayed as a free speech issue in the US. I still think it should fall under the commerce sections of the US Constitution, since we're not talking about censoring art so much as the sale of it. But hey, the entire legal system seems to be against me, so what do I know?
I'm not really bothered by the notion that kids can't buy M-rated titles. It's already the de facto state, and making it a law doesn't open the floodgates to other things, despite the scare mongering. However, the FTC consistently lists video games as the best policed equivalent media in our country, so I question how effective it'd really be. I'm normally a "let the baby have their bottle" type, but it bugs me that we might spend more money and further tie up the legal system for something of negligible impact and no demonstrable benefit. I could see this costing a lot of money and leading to no positive effect.
Also, it'd be nice if Microsoft and Sony would take a stand on kids playing mature games on their service. I know there's mute and report options, but the services are kind of shitholes.
Woah woah woah, dude. #notallwhitepeople
Also, #whitesplaining.
Crap, you said privilege. I'm afraid your entire post is invalid.
About the Tamir Rice case, what bugs me the most is that the video contradicts virtually everything the officers claimed about the incident, and people are still defending them. Meanwhile, people are pissed off that something like six rioters in Keene suffered the indignity of having to plead to lesser charges.
I'm the same way. I'll probably just do without until the Wii U gets more I want. And I'm currently waiting for Sunset OVerdrive to hit PC, which I have no doubt it will, and then I'll have 0 reasons to buy an Xbone. I may end up with a PS4 so I can game with friends. I think the odds of them buying gaming PCs are slim.
I see what you mean. There's also the difficulty that even the hint of a connection will cause people to take umbrage.
I'm not particularly sure there's much value to most free speech in this country. But attacks on WBC tend to actually lead to other free speech consequences, such as various legislators who now want to expand those prohibitions on protesting soldier's funerals. I mean, I'm opposed to the slippery slope fallacy, but we've got folks in this country who are demonstrating that if we set precedent with these people, they'll want to go to the next level. And unlike Jack Thompson and co, they're people with real power.
Then again, this is a nation with actual laws on the books in multiple states that prevent atheists from holding office (despite this being unconstitutional), and so we've had some real challenges to the concept of of freedoms. And it's always the unpopular ones. The gays, the muslims, the atheists, the "socialists."
Then this definitely won't help, but weren't people even talking about wanting to fuck Miyam back when she was on Blossom? I mean, she was like fifteen when that show started.
Well, that definitely describes almost every character she's ever played.
And GGers are still supporting it. I don't know what percent, and honestly, I don't care. Like, the idea that this is about ethics is just absurd when so many people are out for a pound of Jim's supple, flesh. And they're still complaining. Jim Sterling is evidently Hitler to the Nazi party that is the SJW. Because "we" are totally going to gas millions of GG supporters and then march on the rest of Euro...The world.
I just really have a pet peeve about lies. It's got me in a bit of trouble with other conspiracy theorists, too. The thing is, though, the truthers and flat earthers and chemtrail morons and ancient astronaut folks have never threatend to kill or rape me, members of my family, or my friends. But these are totally false flags, or we're making them up, or it's not really Gamergate, because Gamrgate is a pure and righteous, unified movement and everyone is in lock step...Oh wait, the non-hierarchal nature has been touted as a feature, not a bug. Guess they want it both ways.
I do the same with Jim's reviews. Whether I agree with him or not, I find his reviews cover the points I need to know to get me going. I used to really like 1Up, too, because I got a god idea about whether or not I'd like the game, regardless of whether or not they liked it. I didn't have to agree with them, but I valued their reviews.
I probably shouldn't, but I run into the problem of that same pet peeve. Someone is completely misrepresenting me, and I just really dislike it. I blame the OCD in this sort of thing, because it really does fit the same criteria as other compulsions.
No, and being complicit because you're too ignorant isn't exactly helping, which is the issue I most commonly see.
I really love how hostile Milo "Matt Smith Lite" yiannopoulos was towards gamers right up until he found they had a common enemy.
"Oh, hey guys, sorry about calling you weirdos and indicating you were sexual deviants. I'm going to keep writing unethical stories because I don't really care about ethics in journalism, but I think we've got a good thing going."
And I suspect he'll go back to being anti-gamer once GG is over.
And the beautiful thing is, you only need one person to agree with you to totally overrule the other side.
I've been flamed before for daring to argue that as a member of the LGBT community I disagree with the stances of certain people within NYS. I didn't even go after the movement. The hypocrisy there is overwhelming. And, I mean, I don't expect the LGBT community, or any other group to have a unified stance. I don't expect all blacks or womens or Jews or left-handers or furries to agree, but the fact that they claim for example, that I'm a homophobe for disagreeing with members of NYS is just astounding.
I also will never get certain positions, such as Log Cabin Republicans, but that doesn't mean that they're not allowed those positions.
Do you have a link to that? I mean, I believe you and it should be common sense, but that would be something that I'd like to have access to for the future.
But only if you're a SJW. However we choose to define that today.
As a side note, I loved TB talking about this. The only impression I got from it is that he's a shite reviewer and can't be trusted because he basically admitted it. Thing is, I know reviewers who haven't bought a single CD or movie in the last 20 years whose reviews I still trust. One's my father, mind. And while he's my dad, if he routinely led me astray I'd stop looking to him for his opinions.
Routinely, I see a bunch of people listed as AGG simply for not believing GG's stories. I mean, I'm probably a bad example. I've argued with these people over the misinformation they're spreading, that they should know they're spreading right now, and so that probably does count as a contrary stance. But even then, I get accused of being biased, or having a grudge or animosity. Which, even if I did, I think might be fair after the aforementioned rape/death threats. But still, anyone who mentions Gamergate in anything but glowing praise appears to be AGG, and the best thing is how frequently we're all tarred with the same brush. Another case of "do as I say, not as I do."
I was actually told in regards to the petition to get Target to remove The Bible from its stores that if "SJWs aren't going to use logic, why should we?"
And the answer, I would think, is obvious. Because you claim "SJWs" are bad. You're supposed to be better than them. You're supposed to be against what they stand for. And your argument appears to be "two wrongs make a right." And what if the "SJWs" have the same logic? Then it's just a downward spiral of crap.
Which honestly, I think it is.
I think it also technically counts as a degree in business and management.Zachary Amaranth said:
I understand that it gets murky when we consider things like free association, and ideas like refusing to serve various groups, but I don't think that offensive video game, or gamer, is a protected class, and here it's not even worth considering violating the right of a business to sell what they want, which is exactly what making it a question about legal rights entails. And I'm less than thrilled seeing that co-opted when people still can't get behind preventing people from discriminating in employment and service against minority groups.
I'm in agreement. Still, I think it's important to remember that retailers are running under a lawful evil interpretation of the rules, and really don't care about benefiting gaming, but continuing unrestricted sales of a massively popular product. And that maybe securing profits for massive corporations in both retailers and publishers over anything, including maturing our hobby, isn't a positive. I'll be happy for my ultra-violent videogames to look less bleeding edge if it means that they're made for a mature audience, and that they're trying to avoid getting it into the hands of children.
There are reams I could say about the implementation of communication in games, I think it's one of the worst parts of our community. Why mic-spammers are allowed to prosper (Some games don't even allow selected muting, that's damn basic), and kidlets from /b/ are allowed to spew slur after slur, even though implementing basic blocking is simple. I think the Extra Credits video on it was a good place to start.
Also mansplaining. I'm horrible.
That's true, but what bugs me most, is that a little kid is dead, and that people are still defending the status quo. So Michael Brown or Eric Garner weren't perfect people, and so there's some victim blaming angle they can put in. Ok. What about a kid? Does he deserve it for his crime? Is he expected to be more knowledgeable, smart, or know that this would happen? Is his death, death by stupid?
That's the thing about the WBC. They fucked up by pissing off queer people and progressives, and people on the right and Christians, who support the troops. They almost united people, except that instead of uniting, people can hate the WBC for taking their hate of homosexuals to soldiers funerals, whilst quietly simmering with anti-gay prejudice.
Yeah. Recently there's been a lot of talk in my country about the recent changes to the school councilor system into a religious chaplaincy program, and it's links to religious groups with less than progressive opinions of different people. Secularism is in short supply of late. Almost makes me want to convert to Islam.
I never saw Blossom, but creepers gonna creep. Actually, she seems like a fairly nice person, who does a fair bit of thinking. I can't stand the BBT, but I'm kind of glad for it because it put her on people's radar. It's also nice seeing some different looking people on TV.
Not being in favour of GG is unethical. Even if you're calling out developer and publisher interference, and shitty corporate actions at the same time.
I can definitely get behind this. Also, even ad-hoc groups still have things which keep them together, and still have the ability to self-police. Part of the problem is that GG started out of something really nasty, and that's what people signed on to. Literally as a shield. Punks made it clear that Nazis weren't welcome, grungers made it clear that misogynistic rock-bros weren't welcome, feminists (eventually) made it clear that transphobia and homophobia wasn't welcome, and considering race was important(Except on Jezebel, because again, self-awareness). But if we strip away the nasty bits of GG, we end up with something completely different to what it started as. It's not something with a good core that has been co-opted, or has troubling elements, it started nastily. That's why I have trouble even with the less terrible members of GG, like say, TotalBiscuit, because even if he's not into the shitty stuff or doing it, he's standing by a bunch of people who were doing that and brought in the other angle as a defense.
It would be more honourable to abstain, even if Gamez Jurnalizm is your pet issue.
Plus, with games footage on YT, I'm after deconstruction and insight, because I can see how the combat works, and the graphics look.
I know the feeling. I often give up on replying and talking to people because I get sick of it, it just makes me angry, anxious, and a shittier person. The more I use the site, the more I end up making judicious use of the ignore and friends features. I've gotten so much extra content just by adding people who say interesting things, or say things well, and my annoyance has gone down as I've hidden people I've no interest in reading or interacting with. I am creating a bit of an echo chamber for myself by doing so, but if avoiding people who I'd argue with until I was banned, or who just aren't worth listening to results in that, I'll have to deal with it.
I really love how Breitbart is journalism with integrity. Milo is scum. He's a retrograde dinosaur, and dinosaurs will surely die. I do believe no-one will cry (Insert NOFX complaining about the music industry here, or even fucking Oprah waiting for the racists to die). Why's he "Matt Smith Lite" though?
It's hard writing for a conservative jizz-rag and being up with the kids. He's like a conservative punk, as Tim McIlrath put it, he's the kid on his first day at school who somehow ended up in the wrong damn class.
This person's ok with it, so everyone else is just practicing professional victimhood, whininess, we're post-racial, post-sexual, post oppression ugh.
I've been flagged more times than I can count for shit regarding mental illness by people who don't know shit. It's fucking irritating as hell. And it's nearly always people who don't have any experience with it, citing their pet shield about it. I got dinged for hoping a man who's bullying over three years contributed to a girl's anorexia, would get an eating disorder. Because it was "Trivialising" it. Whilst they simultaneously said that people should ignore the guy, and his actions.
Yep. It doesn't make it more disappointing that they don't understand it or care, considering their position. And I realise that sounds shitty, and ends up holding people who're ostracised and made minority opinions to a higher, different standard than everyone else, and that blows. But I'm not asking them to do anything strenuous or risky, or even involving effort in advocacy, I'm asking them to not support these people and give them excuses. I realise that's close to making standards for how they should behave, as white people are doing right now with how black people are reacting in Ferguson, but I don't think that they're making things better. At least the LCR actually aren't just a subset of the Republicans, and they're willing to disagree with them, and make their voice heard to influence the course of their party. At least from where I sit, they're kind of like what the Libertarian fringe has been trying to position themselves as, more consistent in the application of their beliefs.
No, that's perfectly ok. It was the Jenn Frank fiasco. I don't recall if it's all the stuff I'd read on it, but these were the pertinent things I found that I'd accessed when I googled it.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/01/how-to-attack-a-woman-who-works-in-video-games Jenn Frank's Op-ed on GG etc.
http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2014/09/05/youll-never-guess-what-misogynistic-gamebros-did-to-these-two-women-in-gaming-hint-drove-them-out/ WHTM's coverage of the entire thing
https://twitter.com/jennatar/status/507279806254174208 Jenn Frank's original COI note. And later, apparently, GG decided that those things were COIs, which they really aren't.
http://infinitelives.net/2014/09/01/regarding-the-conflict-of-interest-in-my-latest-piece/ Jenn's blog on it.
Of course, one could take the position that she's lying. Of course, the Guardian hasn't said that (As far as I'm aware), and I've really no reason to believe that's the case, so I'm taking her at her word.
He doesn't do anything for me. I recall there was a tactical FPS that Sterling had smashed, that he praised for it's realism and difficulty, which was basically shitty bots one-hitting you in shitty maps and trying to get through doors with shitty AI.
I don't think he's particular sexist, or unpleasant, so that's why I've referenced him as the more respectable end. However, I think choosing to support GG does show a certain disregard and contempt for these people, and the longer it goes on, the less I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt.
Oh, I'm sure you're anti-GG. I'm pretty sure I'm anti-GG. At least in the way that the labelling goes whenever they make threads (Like GB's latest contribution).
I still think it's a really important question, because a lot of what GG does is defending itself and it's existance, and trying to justify it. Are people AGG for opposing it's goals, whether some or all, or for opposing it as a movement, even if they identify with some or all of it's goals, or are people AGG for arguing with them or speaking out against them, or for being their targets, or for not being them, or for harassing them? Because collapsing those together to justify GG by saying that the opposition is worse is an all too frequent tactic. Of course, it doesn't fool anyone who's not already in, but it does keep people in.
That's hilarious.
Was that Meyers? I thought that was Sam Harris, or at least I've seen Harris do similar. Meyers tends to be a rather strident "Liberal", and not in the lip-service sense of TAA or TF00t, but he's rather more toxic.
I ended up watching pretty much everything put out by a few people on the fringe of it, "SisyphusRedeemed", a philosphy lecturer, who's got some full lectures I've been meaning to watch on a bunch of topics, and "TheoreticalBullshit", AKA Scott Clifton, who has suprising insight for a soap star. Neither of them have been particularly active of late, but they're well worth checking out.
I'll admit for a while I followed TAA, because at a certain point, being right about at least one thing and blustery and indignant made me feel good. Even when it got to time to say, explain evolution, and he showed he had no clue, and when he was interested in finding the weirdest feminists so he could paint feminism itself as something. And he even said that he doesn't believe in "Ad Hominem", because he thinks that a person informs their opinion (Good one TJ, that's not what Ad Hominem is). I'm disappointed that I stopped watching him more because I thought he was smug and irritating, and because after ranting about the YT celebrity game, the RWJ and Phillip deFranco types, he was doing the same shit, than because he wasn't particularly clever, and was frequently profoundly disgusting. Then I read about his whole "Drown in rape semen" bit, and I saw things in rather a different light. Since then he's had a few more tussles that don't make the picture better.
Yeah, I've been really trying to think of things that way recently. It's really easy to assume that everyone's arguing in poor faith, and that colours the way that you end up interacting with people. My tolerance for ignorance stops when people can't get what I'm saying right in my own quotes though, especially more than once. There are only so many times I can be told that I'm "shaming male sexuality" before I'm done(I don't know if you saw that thread, but it was the worst).
[/quote]
That's an unfair stereotype(I kid of course). Next thing you'll think that I want to throw a shrimp on the barbie. I'll give a Crikey for poor Steve Irwin, but I do think he'd be rather disappointed that I killed the spider instead of letting it go. I'll try harder Steve.
I'm not sure about precise, but these are issues that seem to be pervasive within nerd communities. It can be horribly awkward watching a bunch of white nerds interact with a black guy. Even if said black guy is also a nerd. Unfortunately, when we attempt to look at things like this critically, we get community outrage. See also: gamergate.TheKasp said:
The problem is, there are definitions so vague as to lose all meaning. At the point that a store deciding not to stock something to please its customer base (whether you think the petition is a lie or not) becomes censorship, then virtually everything is censorship. My local country station doesn't play Eminem? Censorship. My editor changes the format of my article? Censorship. The local store stops carrying the chips I like? Censorship.crypticracer said:
And now Chick Fil-a, WBC, and Duck Dynasty are all censorship, as well.
Yay not arguing semantics?
Okay, seriously, why is it okay when you do it? You literally misconstrued me just a few posts previous in order to lump me into some "other" category, and now you're upset at the notion that Loonyyyyyyy has done the same?GamingBlaze said:
Hey, look, a strawman.
You weren't on a side in the same way Bill O RLY is an independent. It's a farce nobody honestly believes.
Well, no. That's pretty much false. Unfortunately, it's a lie of convenience. TotallyYourShield came about because Gamergate has misrepresented critics as using women and minorities as a shield from criticism when the examples they give are less about using minorities as a shield and more about people saying things they don't like. So Gamergate started making false claims like critics saying there were no women or gays or blacks in gaming, and people responded to this. Congrats, you guys have demonstrated that if you misrepresent things heavily enough, you can get people to stand against their own interests.GamingBlaze said:
As I've said, I'm not dealing with GB. He can keep posting at me, I'm not going to post back, I'm not interested. He can take that as a surrender, or a flounce, or immature, or whatever. I regard it as letting him know he's on my ignore list, and I've decided I would get nothing out of talking to him, and that any posts directed at me or quotes are a waste of his time. He can consider this bolded part addressed to him. I'm not fucking around to get a quote in to abuse the ignore function.Alex1508 said:
I'm replying to you, because you've done a much better job at explaining my position.
#NYS is tokenism. It's using the fact that they can say that this person from a minority group supports them, so it can't discriminate against them. The members of #NYS aren't tokens because of anything they did, some of them are people, once we take out the sockpuppets, they're tokens because that's how they're used in discussion. That's how they're used by GG. I'm not saying that any individual under it is a token when they're talking, or that their words are what makes them token, however, their membership is used as a defense against criticism on the grounds that, as you put it "i have a black friend who says it's ok". And I have a gay friend who doesn't mind being called a ******, and I have another who'll cut off permanently anyone who even starts down that road. If I used the first to make my point and ignored the second because the first one agreed with me, I'd be exercising tokenism and bigotry.
My personal issue with #NYS is that they're members of GG, and that means I have the same problem with them as I have with GG. Their minority status has no bearing on whether they're more right supporting GG. Unfortunately, GG is rather amorphous, as are it's goals, so depending on where you're standing, there's JI folks who're pretending everything else never happened (TotalBiscuit), there's Conservatives using the drama to drive traffic, because the motivations of the crusade originally fit in with their membership, and it's an area where groups like Breitbart get to position themselves against the soft targets of an enthusiast press, which hides their own shortcomings. And there are bullies, racists, transphobes, homophobes, and people who don't want extended discussion of inclusion and diversity. Several of them made my list. There's more. I'm not going to twitter, and I'm not going to comb through GGers on here. Aligning oneself with GG often means aligning oneself with these messages, and the "movement" has done nothing to police their ranks or fix things, partly because a part of the discussion is hijacked by a witch-hunt for "SJW"s, which ends up being pretty exclusionary, and downright disgusting more often than not.
I understand that some of these people have plenty of motive for it. You don't get treated better by people if you complain about mistreatment, or point out that things aren't ok. You get treated worse. Some of these people don't have any idea about the issues they're talking about, because they either don't know, don't care, or just aren't interested. Not all minorities are interested in arguing for their rights or representation, some of them are fine with things the way they are. Some of them may simply have little personal experience with these issues, and may not care, or they may have had some interaction with it, but not attributed it to those issues. I disagree with them for aligning themself with the shit-fest.
And of course, AGG ends up being grouped, I already had a little talk with Zack about this, but who AGG is is important. Because even if AGG is opposition to GG, then there's a question of organisation, affiliation, and labelling. I haven't gone to ground posting hashtags in defense of any group of harassers, and there's no group, formal or informal, I'm identifying with (Not even the profoundly stupid anti-anti-GG). It's a little technique called a false dichotomy. There's actually a multitude of groups who could be under the heading of AGG, and the complaints about both sides being as bad would only really count as applied to them. I'd consider myself neutral, in that I haven't shifted from any position or changed any of my beliefs, or joined any formal or informal group. Of course, GB would consider me AGG, because I'm against GG (Which I am. I just haven't gotten in on the twitter bit, or any sort of association or labelling.). My thoughts and opinions remain those I'm expressing, or those I'm expressing agreement with, and not a label. That's why I've fallen out of habit of using terms like "skeptic" or "atheist" to describe myself, because my opinion can be explained better than that word. That goes extra for ideological labels, I've two main issues with the word feminist: 1.) I don't agree with a whole bunch of them, and I'm not nearly as knowledgable about that school of thought as I should be to claim membership (Pertinent to the question at hand, and 2.) I haven't done shit for women. Whereas I would describe myself as say, bisexual, or even potentially pansexual, because that better describes me than trying to explain that. It's easier for me to express my opinions regarding some issues independently. When you ascribe to a group, then that group will be used as a shorthand for your opinions based on the opinions and traits of the members of that group, and the easiest way to stop that from happening is to not label yourself with the group. Which is exactly the same trick GB has pulled, so it would be unfair to ascribe him all the beliefs of GG, so I'm not going to. I've got my opinion from several things he's said, and that's where I'm making my judgement.
Oh @Alex1508, and also this. Because of lies. Just look how many ostensibly progressive posters (And often non-GG posters) fell over themselves to describe the petition as "Nutjobs" "Crazies" or "Extremists", often whilst managing to label them as feminists (The petitioners claim to be the survivors of sexual violence, not feminists, which appears not once in their petition). They read a lie, and they had such little investment, or care to fact check it, that they believed it. (And then they also made incredibly insensitive comments about mental illness about people who may be suffering mental illness, because that's a common side effect of rape, abuse, the social circumstances of prostitution, and sexual violence in general)Zachary Amaranth said:
If you lie to people, you can convince them to support you, and that's been a big thing with this GG fiasco.
Also, it doesn't help that there really are some terrible progressives who do have a habit of thinking they speak for everyone, and they occassionally stick their head up and say something racist, or stupid. Say, Lena Dunham, the voice of a generation. More specifically, a white, middle class, priviliged, cisgendered female generation. Who writes orientalist fan-fiction, and who's New York is devoid of black people. Of course, her existance isn't making me decry any progressives, social commentators, or discussions about exclusivity, because that would be stupid.
Actually I am all for brick and mortar stores refusing to stock games based on their content.
There are two reasons for this.
First because I believe in the right of business owners to sell what they wish to sell. We hardly call grocery stores that don't stock cigarettes negative names because they're infringing on our rights to smoke, especially since they only recently in the last few years stopped stocking cigarettes at the counter. We simply accept that grocery stores are there primarily to sell food and if we want cigarettes we'll have to make another stop. Its the choice of the retailer what they wish to stock. Back when I was a kid, every check out counter had cigarettes right there for the buying, these days I'm lucky if a store stocks cigarettes at all, and I accept that as their right as the retailer to decide what they stock and how they stock it.
Secondly, if the brick and mortars stop stocking Rockstar's console games, Rockstar will have its lawyers find a way to get out of their exclusivity contracts with consoles and get back to a more balanced console/PC distribution with their titles, instead of literally stalling for almost two years on each new GTA iteration to make the jump from consoles to the PC...this benefits everyone, especially Rockstar, who gets more of their money for their product more quickly. Rather than having to find shitty excuses to re-release the same game on their console platforms while still under exclusivity agreement, simply to keep those titles fiscally relevant until they can get the titles to the PC where they can pull in another large payday.
Overall, I don't see the downside to this other than for people that perhaps only had access to these titles via a Target outlet in Australia and I do feel bad for them..but surely theres another store in your town that sells games.
Who buys games at Target anyways? Or KMart? Or Wal-Mart for that matter? If I ever go to those stores, its not for video games..its usually for relatively inexpensive cookware or towels I don't have to give a fuck about.
There are two reasons for this.
First because I believe in the right of business owners to sell what they wish to sell. We hardly call grocery stores that don't stock cigarettes negative names because they're infringing on our rights to smoke, especially since they only recently in the last few years stopped stocking cigarettes at the counter. We simply accept that grocery stores are there primarily to sell food and if we want cigarettes we'll have to make another stop. Its the choice of the retailer what they wish to stock. Back when I was a kid, every check out counter had cigarettes right there for the buying, these days I'm lucky if a store stocks cigarettes at all, and I accept that as their right as the retailer to decide what they stock and how they stock it.
Secondly, if the brick and mortars stop stocking Rockstar's console games, Rockstar will have its lawyers find a way to get out of their exclusivity contracts with consoles and get back to a more balanced console/PC distribution with their titles, instead of literally stalling for almost two years on each new GTA iteration to make the jump from consoles to the PC...this benefits everyone, especially Rockstar, who gets more of their money for their product more quickly. Rather than having to find shitty excuses to re-release the same game on their console platforms while still under exclusivity agreement, simply to keep those titles fiscally relevant until they can get the titles to the PC where they can pull in another large payday.
Overall, I don't see the downside to this other than for people that perhaps only had access to these titles via a Target outlet in Australia and I do feel bad for them..but surely theres another store in your town that sells games.
Who buys games at Target anyways? Or KMart? Or Wal-Mart for that matter? If I ever go to those stores, its not for video games..its usually for relatively inexpensive cookware or towels I don't have to give a fuck about.
I wish I knew that. Time to attach MBA to my business cards.Loonyyy said:
Indeed, though I can't help but think the overlap between "concerned about game sales" and "teenagers or younger playing M-rated titles" is pretty big. I don't have any numbers on that, as it's just a guess, but still.
I forget what they said on the topic, but didn't they actually work with Microsoft to brainstorm ideas or something after that episode? Doesn't seem to have worked, but Microsoft seems to have no fucks to give. I always love getting repeatedly paired off with people I set to "avoid."
The Social Justice Council will hear about this!
I saw on Rap Critic's Facebook people arguing over the fact that the kid should have used "common sense." It's really sad that a 12 year old black kid needs to employ more common sense than a grown-ass white person. But evil still, they pulled up right next to the kid and opened fire--a far cry from the claim that he reached for his gun after repeatedly being told to stop or whatever. It doesn't look like they even gave him a chance to be a threat.
And now we have legal precedent to defend soldiers against undersirable effects. Yay. Meanwhile, it's okay to be a homophobe as long as you're not THEM. Double yay.
No! That's just what they want, fool! Islam is already taking over Europe! By 2020, 21584793468% of Europe will be Muslims!
A tangent, but I really love the work the Santanists are doing over here. Challenging the Ten Commandments statue, putting up a depiction of an Angel being tossed into Hell, etc.
I don't know, the only stances I've seen from her repeatedly are on veganism, feminism, and Israel. She's a rabid zionist who thinks that abusing animals is worse than abusing Palestinians and she takes the same approach to feminism as homophobes take to gays--how am I suppose dto explain THAT to my kids? And considering she's ripped her shirt off and thrust her tits into the camera on TBBT, I think maybe she should start with her own presentation of women if she's going to complain.
It makes me wonder, though, if she's so concerned about explaining these things to her boys, how exactly she explained mommy getting her tatas out on a show that now averages 20 million viewers in prime time.
Sadly, I've seen that first hand. According to one poster, I have personally made Ubisoft immune to criticism. Even as I was criticising Ubisoft. I am totally for Ubisoft getting away with it, too!
...even though I've been vocally against their practices, don't support pre-orders or broken products, and don't buy any game that requires uPlay.
And then people point at positive things that are largely a byproduct and say "see? It's a good organisation!" Except even the KKK adopts highways. That doesn't make them good people, or their cause good. I've known terrible people who give to charity or donate time. It doesn't make them good people, it just means there's more to them than being terrible people.
It's still often fairly hard to get feminism, at least in this country, to care about women of colour. It's not just Jezebel. And that's worth calling out and fighting over.
My pet issue is batboy in games journalism. #istandwithbatboy
It's most of what I use in the first place.
I try not to use the "ignore" function, but there are certainly some people where I do, and probably more where I should. On the one hand, I don't like shutting out contrary points of view. On the other, Gamergate has left me disgusted with a lot of people who suddenly seem to have no problem saying and doing all sorts of outrageous crap in the name of "ethics in journalism." I think I've used the word "misrepresenting" here more in the last 3-4 months than I have in the rest of my time on the internet combined. And I've been told I stand for things like rape, child abuse, homophobia, and racism. I probably wouldn't even care except it's coming from the same people who insist that that's what "we" do.
One of the pictures that always comes up of Milo looks like he's Cosplaying the Eleventh Doctor, from the suit to the boo tie to the hair.
But yeah, the way GG latched onto Milo and Breitbart kind of demonstrates that this isn't about ethics. Conveniently, bot hparties appear to have a problem with women, though. I'm sure this is totally unrelated.
I know, right? Minorities matter, but only when they agree with me, so you're just making claims up, even if you're a member of said minority.
So you hoped that someone who harmed another would experience the same thing?
You monster. The SJC is so going to sanction you.
Honestly, I'm not sure I'd wish that on anyone, but I'm not going to call you out on it because I'm pretty sure I get where you're coming from. As someone with anxiety disorders and other issues, I sometimes wonder how people would handle such things themselves, since they mock or berate or downplay. I sort of wish they could experience it, but the thing is, I don't want them to.
On a similar note, I often wonder why black people don't flip more tables in this country. And not just black people, but race keeps coming up, and specifically blacks, of late. And when you have a bunch of white, middle class people insisting that there's no problem, I wonder how they'd react if they or their loved ones were treated this way.
And then I remember Pumpkin Fest, and I want to flip ALL The tables.
Though it still baffles me when they do things like fight same sex marriage.
Of course, the Guardian is ful of SJWs and can't be trusted, but I'm reading it ironically.
Unless you really need to know what resolutions are available in a game, I'm not sure why he'd do it for anyone. He's also been very big on corporate apologetics when the issues don't directly conflict with his own profits or hobbies. I mean, I've watched quite a bit of what he has to say. I tend to watch people I disagree with, to the point I think YouTube thinks I'm a Gamergater, a fundamentalist Christian, and probably some other stuff. My recs list on YouTube includes two TAA videos (three, if you include a Drunken Peasants vid), multiple Thunderf00t videos (all dealing with Anita), one more anti-Anita video, and three videos that claim to prove God in some way. It also has a couple things I might actually enjoy, but jeeeeeeeze I am flooded with people angry about things I support. RTU's been showing up there, too, but I was a subscriber until recently.
I honestly think TB went where the money was. I think Thunderf00t did, too. Granted, I think one of those guys is significantly less of a dick than the other, but still.
One trait of a cult is the rejection of outsiders and the alienation of people who still cling to the ways of outsiders. And I've noticed not only is basically "everyone who's not with us" considered against GG, but also when you go to sites with friends lists, you'll see the vocal GG folks tend not to have many/any people on their lists outside of other vocal GG folks.
This trend appears to be a one-way street.
Crap, you're right. It was Harris. yers has been fairly anti-Muslim, though, so I think that's why I conflated them.
I really enjoy TBS. I'm actually subscribed to him. About half of my subscriptions come from Steve Shives' recommendations, who himself deserves more attention. OF course, he recently released a video mocking Gamergate, so I'm pretty sure the attention he gets will be negative.
I gave him a try back when he was also Distressed Watcher on TGWTG. I'd had enough well before he told someone to drown in a pool of rape semen, though.
Probably for the best I missed it. Or at least don't recognise it.
So is this Aussie blackface?
Hey man, I'm #notyourshieldLoonyyy said:
Please don't.
I didn't even know who she was until her book came out and people were flipping out over it. She seems like an entitled shithead, but yeah, that doesn't mean everyone in her circles is bad.
Well, yeah, I was reading the actual stories, while you were apparently retconning. For example:GamingBlaze said:
So prove it. Which articles were they? I'm sure you can provide links. Except I'm actually sure you won't. I suspect that you'll once again drop the line of conversation when actually challenged.
Honey, your bias is showing in that post. your abuse of false equivalence, followed up with the usual "both sides are guilty, but one side is totes owning up to it" are classic Bill ORLY maneuvers, and only serve to prove my point.
However, I'll say this. I've watched you take me and others who are wholly against things like abuse and harassment and portray them as the opposite, lumping them into your "anti" category. Why is it "no side" when you do it, but not when others do it? And why does "bth sides suck" still defend one of the sides? And when you perpetuate false information to do so, yeah. You're lying for Gamergate, but both sides are bad and you're totes sick of it all. Yeah, both sides are bad, though you rail against one on false pretenses and defend the other on false pretenses. Meanwhile, y9u've previously categorised the "Anti" side as basically anyone who doesn't explicitly agree, making it even more farcical.
Yeah. I don't believe you, and it should be obvious to any honest person why.
Which ones said that gamers were exclusively straight white males? Most of them said the contrary. Even Leigh Alexander, who is the one quoted with the "hood rat" bit on Twitter, said the exact opposite. Also, what she said on twitter in no way deligeitimises her argument.GamingBlaze said:
Also, this kind of proves my point. Misrepresenting the "gamers are dead" articles is what helped create totallyyourshield to act as a defense against an imagined accusation.
Honesty, which appears to be as likely as me spontaneously developing a uterus.
I don't give a damn if you full on deep throat gamergate. Just don't be so bloody dishonest about it.
For one thing, you're making false statements that benefit gamergate and others that don't benefit everyone else (the concept of "anti" Gamergate is stupid, since most people simply don't believe your tinfoil hat conspiracies).
Even if you had to make them up. That totally looks "fair and balanced."