PETITION: Continue to sell Grand Theft Auto 5 in Australia

[Alma Mare]

Fucking disgusted at all the people who claim this isn't censorship.

 

[Zhukov]

Fucking disgusted at all the people who claim this isn't censorship.

Fucking amused by all the people who claim this is censorship.

 

[Zhukov]

I can't wait for the petition demanding McDonald's start selling pizzas.

Maybe I should start a petition every time my favorite clothing retailer doesn't stock the size of garments that I wear?

it's blatant censorship no matter how many different ways you look at it.

Then you didn't look at it enough ways, because it isn't censorship.
It's no more "censorship" than McDonald's censoring pizzas.

it is censorship when people start saying Big Macs are mysoginistic with no real proof and that convinces Mc Donalds to stop selling burgers to avoid bad press

Ohhhh, so now that's what makes it censorship!

You folks are rapidly relegating "censorship" to the same box as "trigger warning".

you are pressuring people to change a piece of entertainment because you dont like what it shows, it is censorship, it fullfills the exact same goal

Except GTA has not been changed. It still exists in all of its gangster fantasy, weaksauce parody, prostitute murdering glory. Rockstar's glorious artistic vision has not been compromised or altered.

It can still be legally bought, sold, owned and played in Australia. It's not even hard to obtain. I can make my way to the nearest shopping centre, walk into a game or electronics store and freely exchange money for a copy of GTA5 which I can then play to my heart's content.

This is a company deciding (perhaps erroneously mind you) that it is their best interests to no longer stock a particular product.

...

Hey, since we're about it, if "pressuring people to change a piece of entertainment because you dont like what it shows" is censorship in your eyes, what do you think of "pressuring a news outlet to change its editorial content because you don't like what they say"? Censorship or not?

(Apologies for double post. Forgot to actually press 'post' on this one.)

 

[Zhukov]

Fucking disgusted at all the people who claim this isn't censorship.

Fucking amused by all the people who claim this is censorship.

Of course, why be obliviously ignorant when you can be smuggly ignorant?

Because being smug, ignorantly or otherwise, is significantly more enjoyable?

 

[Rahkshi500]

They are able to sell it. They've decided not to. No matter how large a store gets, it will never be able to serve every demographic.

However slippery slope the "what if they do it again" argument might be, I agree with you in principle. I do not approve of people leveraging their consumer power to make products disappear from shelves, rather than simply not buying them, or petitioning for more of the products they do want. That said, what was your opinion of the recent effort to blacklist/cut off sponsorship from certain websites? Approve or disapprove? Were you equally irate then?

I admit that what I said was a slippery slope argument, though I still kinda stand by it somewhat in some certain situations. I was arguing it more from a hypothetical scenario, rather than thinking that it will actually happen. That being said, though, regarding your question about cutting off sponsorship from certain websites; I do not know of the context or full story of it or what happened, so I'm afraid that I can't answer that question. My apologies.

 

[Something Amyss]

"Here's her announcement to start harassing more retailers around the country and shes even started contacting people over seas, this won't stop in Australia."

Petitions now equal harassment apparently. I thought that was the kind of accusation the Bad Guys made? Also, if this person believes petitions are a form of harassment, what does that make their own petition?

It is, and the Good Guys totally wouldn't do that so this petition is obviously a SJW trap designed to make the Good Guys look bad!

Where's the sudden outbreak of outrage about The Warehouse pulling ALL R18 content from its stores in New Zealand?

Did women make it happen?

Using your example, even if those pork ribs are no longer in your supermarket's deli section, there's still going to be a group of people who would want pork ribs. That's the essence of a niche market. If it starts happening everywhere to where even a nich market is impossible to form, then there is a problem here.

Wait, are you seriously trying to make this argument to parallel with one of the best selling media products around?

 

[EternallyBored]

They are able to sell it. They've decided not to. No matter how large a store gets, it will never be able to serve every demographic.

However slippery slope the "what if they do it again" argument might be, I agree with you in principle. I do not approve of people leveraging their consumer power to make products disappear from shelves, rather than simply not buying them, or petitioning for more of the products they do want. That said, what was your opinion of the recent effort to blacklist/cut off sponsorship from certain websites? Approve or disapprove? Were you equally irate then?

I admit that what I said was a slippery slope argument, though I still kinda stand by it somewhat in some certain situations. I was arguing it more from a hypothetical scenario, rather than thinking that it will actually happen. That being said, though, regarding your question about cutting off sponsorship from certain websites; I do not know of the context or full story of it or what happened, so I'm afraid that I can't answer that question. I'm sorry.

Slippery slope is funny in that it isn't always an outright fallacy to use a slippery slope argument, it's just very hard to use a slippery slop argument without it turning into a fallacy because you have to provide evidence that it applies in a particular case, and you can still end up being wrong if that slope turns out to not be very slippery at all and the perceived damage is undone just as easily as it was done.

In this case I would say it is unwise to use a slippery slope argument just yet because there is nothing to indicate that this will escalate beyond just GTA5 and this one store chain. Looking into this company it seems that they have pulled stunts like this in the past, only to quickly go right back to status quo as soon as they've milked all the attention out of it they can. That may not always be the case, and for a store like this, they likely don't care too much about a single minor product that generates very little of their profit. If more specialist stores follow suit, or the Australian government gets involved (they are kind of infamous for being tough on violent video games more so than most other anglo countries), then you've got a good start to using a slippery slope argument.

As for the rest, BloatedGuppy is referring to a segment of the GamerGate supporters that organized a mass repeated e-mail campaign in order to pressure advertisers to stop airing their advertisements on websites that were being blacklisted and boycotted by the movement. The goal being to force the blacklisted sites to either go under or fire the writers or managers that gamer gate supporters did not want to see working there any more. Guppy is using the question in an effort to point out how he sees what the petitioners here did is similar to what gamergate supporters there did, and the perceived hypocrisy in supporting one whilst decrying the other.

 

[Something Amyss]

you are pressuring people to change a piece of entertainment because you dont like what it shows, it is censorship, it fullfills the exact same goal

Except you can still access the game, which hasn't been changed, even in Australia.

Saying this is the goal of censorship is like saying the intent of burning crosses on lawns is to kill the ozone layer. Surely it's possible to have a single thread without these histrionics and theatrics.

 

[Caiphus]

Because being smug, ignorantly or otherwise, is significantly more enjoyable?

Smug is an anagram of gums, and it would be really difficult to live without gums I think.

 

[Rahkshi500]

Wait, are you seriously trying to make this argument to parallel with one of the best selling media products around?

I was using it in response to Guppy's parallel example, and was saying it only from a grounds of a pure hypothetical scenario, so no, not really being all that serious.

Slippery slope is funny in that it isn't always an outright fallacy to use a slippery slope argument, it's just very hard to use a slippery slop argument without it turning into a fallacy because you have to provide evidence that it applies in a particular case, and you can still end up being wrong if that slope turns out to not be very slippery at all and the perceived damage is undone just as easily as it was done.

In this case I would say it is unwise to use a slippery slope argument just yet because there is nothing to indicate that this will escalate beyond just GTA5 and this one store chain. Looking into this company it seems that they have pulled stunts like this in the past, only to quickly go right back to status quo as soon as they've milked all the attention out of it they can. That may not always be the case, and for a store like this, they likely don't care too much about a single minor product that generates very little of their profit. If more specialist stores follow suit, or the Australian government gets involved (they are kind of infamous for being tough on violent video games more so than most other anglo countries), then you've got a good start to using a slippery slope argument.

As for the rest, BloatedGuppy is referring to a segment of the GamerGate supporters that organized a mass repeated e-mail campaign in order to pressure advertisers to stop airing their advertisements on websites that were being blacklisted and boycotted by the movement. The goal being to force the blacklisted sites to either go under or fire the writers or managers that gamer gate supporters did not want to see working there any more. Guppy is using the question in an effort to point out how he sees what the petitioners here did is similar to what gamergate supporters there did, and the perceived hypocrisy in supporting one whilst decrying the other.

That is true, which is why I was using it purely in a hypothetical made-up scenario, because I don't think this is really happening with regards to Target Australia. I was saying it more from a position of devil's advocacy than actually believing it.

Also, thank you for sharing that with me. To answer Guppy's question then if he comes back and sees this, I would not really approve of these petitions either, and if it really went that far to try to get people fired from their jobs, then I would be irate at the petitioners.

 

[Signa]

They are able to sell it. They've decided not to. No matter how large a store gets, it will never be able to serve every demographic.

However slippery slope the "what if they do it again" argument might be, I agree with you in principle. I do not approve of people leveraging their consumer power to make products disappear from shelves, rather than simply not buying them, or petitioning for more of the products they do want. That said, what was your opinion of the recent effort to blacklist/cut off sponsorship from certain websites? Approve or disapprove? Were you equally irate then?

I admit that what I said was a slippery slope argument, though I still kinda stand by it somewhat in some certain situations. I was arguing it more from a hypothetical scenario, rather than thinking that it will actually happen. That being said, though, regarding your question about cutting off sponsorship from certain websites; I do not know of the context or full story of it or what happened, so I'm afraid that I can't answer that question. I'm sorry.

Slippery slope is funny in that it isn't always an outright fallacy to use a slippery slope argument, it's just very hard to use a slippery slop argument without it turning into a fallacy because you have to provide evidence that it applies in a particular case, and you can still end up being wrong if that slope turns out to not be very slippery at all and the perceived damage is undone just as easily as it was done.

In this case I would say it is unwise to use a slippery slope argument just yet because there is nothing to indicate that this will escalate beyond just GTA5 and this one store chain. Looking into this company it seems that they have pulled stunts like this in the past, only to quickly go right back to status quo as soon as they've milked all the attention out of it they can. That may not always be the case, and for a store like this, they likely don't care too much about a single minor product that generates very little of their profit. If more specialist stores follow suit, or the Australian government gets involved (they are kind of infamous for being tough on violent video games more so than most other anglo countries), then you've got a good start to using a slippery slope argument.

As for the rest, BloatedGuppy is referring to a segment of the GamerGate supporters that organized a mass repeated e-mail campaign in order to pressure advertisers to stop airing their advertisements on websites that were being blacklisted and boycotted by the movement. The goal being to force the blacklisted sites to either go under or fire the writers or managers that gamer gate supporters did not want to see working there any more. Guppy is using the question in an effort to point out how he sees what the petitioners here did is similar to what gamergate supporters there did, and the perceived hypocrisy in supporting one whilst decrying the other.

I for one try to only use the slippery slope argument when the offending event crosses a preconceived line, and there are no lines up ahead that are apparent. My favorite slippery slope arguement is the anti-gay marriage arguments, where the question is asked "if we let gays marry, what's next? People marrying animals?" No you fucking dipshit, the line still is at human marrying humans!

The lines to be crossed get pretty blurry when dealing with politics, laws, personal freedoms and what's "offensive." That's why it's better to take an all-or-nothing approach when dealing with "offensive" things, because you can be damn sure that if something gets banned or censored, that there will be something else that skirts the line of what the first thing crossed, or even flat-out cross it if the context is right for this game but not the other.

That's why I'm pissed about a game I don't care about sold by a company I don't shop at in a country I don't live in; if GTA crosses the line and gets removed, where is the line now? Without that line, anyone can just say that a game shouldn't be sold, and Target may as well as follow suit, because apparently they can be pushed over just that easily. Without that line, eliminating all games that are above E rating is possible, because all it takes is just making shit up about it until it gets removed.

 

[Something Amyss]

Smug is an anagram of gums, and it would be really difficult to live without gums I think.

I never thought of you as an ableist. I demand you apologise to the gumless.

(Before someone takes me too serious and tries to use this against me, I am taking the piss)

 

[Something Amyss]

That's why I'm pissed about a game I don't care about sold by a company I don't shop at in a country I don't live in; if GTA crosses the line and gets removed, where is the line now? Without that line, anyone can just say that a game shouldn't be sold, and Target may as well as follow suit, because apparently they can be pushed over just that easily. Without that line, eliminating all games that are above E rating is possible, because all it takes is just making shit up about it until it gets removed.

Target could stop stocking games all together. That doesn't mean there's a slippery slope going on, nor are your accusations any less baseless because they hypothetically could. Your claims are getting more and more grandiose and less attached to reality. I would think this would be unnecessary if any facts at all were on your side.

 

[IceForce]

That's why I'm pissed about a game I don't care about sold by a company I don't shop at in a country I don't live in; if GTA crosses the line and gets removed, where is the line now? Without that line, anyone can just say that a game shouldn't be sold, and Target may as well as follow suit, because apparently they can be pushed over just that easily. Without that line, eliminating all games that are above E rating is possible, because all it takes is just making shit up about it until it gets removed.

So if Target Australia suddenly stopped selling yellow t-shirts, you'd be just as irate?
Because you never know, they might not stop at yellow. Red t-shirts might be next, then green ones, then blue ones, and soon all t-shirts will be banned from sale.
And then other stores will follow suit. And then other countries.

Where will it end??

Why won't someone please think of the yellow t-shirts!?

 

[Signa]

That's why I'm pissed about a game I don't care about sold by a company I don't shop at in a country I don't live in; if GTA crosses the line and gets removed, where is the line now? Without that line, anyone can just say that a game shouldn't be sold, and Target may as well as follow suit, because apparently they can be pushed over just that easily. Without that line, eliminating all games that are above E rating is possible, because all it takes is just making shit up about it until it gets removed.

Target could stop stocking games all together. That doesn't mean there's a slippery slope going on, nor are your accusations any less baseless because they hypothetically could. Your claims are getting more and more grandiose and less attached to reality. I would think this would be unnecessary if any facts at all were on your side.

I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of the purple elephants sneezing in my ears.

That's why I'm pissed about a game I don't care about sold by a company I don't shop at in a country I don't live in; if GTA crosses the line and gets removed, where is the line now? Without that line, anyone can just say that a game shouldn't be sold, and Target may as well as follow suit, because apparently they can be pushed over just that easily. Without that line, eliminating all games that are above E rating is possible, because all it takes is just making shit up about it until it gets removed.

So if Target Australia suddenly stopped selling yellow t-shirts, you'd be just as irate?
Because you never know, they might not stop at yellow. Red t-shirts might be next, then green ones, then blue ones, and soon all t-shirts will be banned from sale.
And then other stores will follow suit. And then other countries.

Where will it end??

Why won't someone please think of the yellow t-shirts!?

I'll be happy if they sell ketchup and mustard tees to make up for the loss.

 

[GabeZhul]

*sigh*
Guys, just to make one thing clear: The whole Australian Target ordeal is not outrageous because it is censorship, it is outrageous because it is stupid on astronomical proportions.

There was a petition based on lies and completely hyperbolic bullshit that got immediately accepted by the store (whether they actually took the five minutes to research GTA V in the almighty Google, praised be its name) because they wanted to preserve their image and didn't want to have a PR disaster on their hands right before the holidays. This is not their fault. This is our hysteric-prone culture's fault that forces them to take measures like that because it is a given that there will be an outrage if they did nothing and there would be an outrage if they did something as well. They chose the lesser of two evils, but in the end the blood is on the hands of the utter morons who did the petition...

Which brings me to the next big issue, the petition itself. Are we sure this is not just an elaborate and damaging prank? Hell, I could totally see some bored channer, or redditor or tumblerite or wherever the "hip" kids are hanging out these days throwing this together just to see if they can make people sign is for shits and giggles while underestimating of just how stupid people can be. The infamous "ban H2O" petition prank by Penn & Teller, anyone? So, until it is definitely proven otherwise, I won't even consider that this was done by feminists or any other ideological group, much less as a deliberate attempt at censorship, period.

 

[Ariseishirou]

Well, it's nice to know that the crowd that hates the SJWs for whinging and whining and crying completely unapplicable buzzwords and making mountains out of molehills does exactly the same thing if something happens that they don't like.

 

[Loonyyy]

That's why I'm pissed about a game I don't care about sold by a company I don't shop at in a country I don't live in; if GTA crosses the line and gets removed, where is the line now? Without that line, anyone can just say that a game shouldn't be sold, and Target may as well as follow suit, because apparently they can be pushed over just that easily. Without that line, eliminating all games that are above E rating is possible, because all it takes is just making shit up about it until it gets removed.

So if Target Australia suddenly stopped selling yellow t-shirts, you'd be just as irate?
Because you never know, they might not stop at yellow. Red t-shirts might be next, then green ones, then blue ones, and soon all t-shirts will be banned from sale.
And then other stores will follow suit. And then other countries.

Where will it end??

Why won't someone please think of the yellow t-shirts!?

They already have. They stopped selling my favourite red shirt just after I ruined mine by spilling salicylic acid on it, and my favourite pajama pants after they ripped when I caught them on the door.

They've censored my favourite pants and shirt.

As an aside: If you're not a Target customer, signing the petition is ridiculous. And if you're not an Australian, stop being offended for me. I'm not your motherfucking shield. Australia has for a long time tolerated censorship. A lot of it. We only just got the R18 for games, and some titles still can be refused classification. We run concentration camps and wanted to censor the entire fucking internet access of the country. The game is still available. And Australian men aren't at risk of the supposed violence epidemic against men that was routinely claimed in the other thread.

Fuck it, let's go through this stupid thing:

A game made for adults is being taken off the shelves by Target following a petition started by a bunch of misinformed feminists who inaccurately alleged that the game encourages violence against women. I fear the other retailers will follow this trend, soon this game won't be sold anywhere in Australia.

Firstly, that's a poor simplification of the petition. If you're going to whinge about misinformation, don't do it in the same run on sentence that misinforms people.

The R18+ rating is there for a reason! Like many games, Grand Theft Auto does allow you to kill, hurt, bash and shoot people of all genders and it has as much a place on store shelves in Australia as any similar game.

I don't specifically have a problem with this sentence, but it's really stupid. It's entirely counter productive. Also, if you think trans people and intersex people are reprsented, you're mistaken. Oh no, the misinformation, -g-i-r-l-s- feminists don't play games!

The game is made for adults and cannot legally be sold to children.

Certainly. However, there is a longstanding tradition of people buying these games for their children. Neither of these petitions are good ways of dealing with this, but it's something that really needs cleaning up.

Australia is not a nation that condones censorship, nor should it be.

Yes, it is. This is factually in error. It's a lie.

THIS GAME HAS BEEN OUT FOR OVER A YEAR...

So complaining about censorship is pretty fucking stupid, since speech has been said, and I've got the fucking game already. The thing's already been sold, and the review board isn't targetting the game, Target is.

A few studies have shown that there is no correlation between media content (games, movies, books etc) and real-life crime.

Do science right or not at all. Gamers being scientifically illiterate is no suprise, but that's a dishonest way of framing the question (Crime isn't the only outcome here, and specifically in this case, the complaints are about more than crime). A few studies means nothing. And less if you can't cite them. And less if those are individual pilot studies of poor reliability and less if there are no reviews or meta analysis of the studies.

A great coment from a supporter:

The petition that started this was initiated by very misinformed people. They claim the game 'encourages' you to commit sexually violent or generally violent acts against women. As someone who has played the game in question extensively (Almost 200 hours), I can confirm that this is a false claim.

As a player, I can confirm that this is a true claim, and that the difference comes from willingly pulling the wool over ones own eyes and refusing to consider a difference of opinion with a knee jerk (Similar to how any scientific criticism of games or studies get sandbagged with ignorance, unless they're positive [That's also not how science works])

The game NEVER encourages this. They also completely ignore the fact that there's much more violence against men than women,

Dishonest. I've spent a page in the first user made thread on this, I'm not reproducing it here.

but it's definitely not on a level that should have the video game removed from stores. Plus the game has an R18+ rating for a reason.

This is true, but there are plenty of materials that other people find objectionable. The attempts at framing this as something other than "I disagree" or "I am not offended" are pathetic.

BANNING Grand Theft Auto V from the shelves of Target isn't going to affect domestic violence, and it's simplistic to suggest it will.

That's a nice claim. Without evidence. Actually, I was recently pondering this. There's a strong correlation between major sporting events and domestic violence incidents, and there's evidence that violent, and competitive games can increase aggression (Temporarily. I'm not saying that games make people more violent long term). I think it's plausible that these actions could cause domestic violence incidents. I'm not saying this in favour of a ban, because sporting events, and the sale of alcohol still happen, even with the issues with the first, and the well documented effect alcohol can have on violence.

But if Target removes the game, what has been achieved? There are plenty of other places to buy it.

So it achieves nothing, but might result in the game being banned everywhere. Alarmist nonsense. That said, there are plenty of other places to buy it. Buy it there. Target has lost the money it could make by removing the game. That's their loss. Patronise somewhere else (And most Australians wouldn't go to Target for games because their prices usually suck, and when they're better by a fluke, dedicated game shops will usually price match).

For parents worried about the effect the game might have on their kids, there's a simple solution - don't buy it.

The question of how the game effects society, which we have to share with the sick fucks (Like me) who bought the game, is not answered by this.

Parents shouldn't buy the game, but also, Target shouldn't have their ridiculous ads where it's marketted like a toy. There's a full page in the other thread. Target fucked that up.

The game is rated R18+ anyway, so by the time anyone gets their hands on it, they should be old enough to make sensible decisions about how they live their lives.

I would trust an 18 year old Australian kid far less than a 14 or 15 year old.

Of course, kids younger than that will play the game, but it's up to parents to deal with that and be aware of what their children are up to.

In general I'd agree, but if the consequences were bad enough (And I'm not convinced they are, don't get me wrong), there'd be reason to ban it because the risk is too high.

Expecting everyone else to bend to their will so parents don't have to do their jobs is unreasonable.

We always have to do that. It's called society.

The petition says GTA makes a game of bashing, killing and horrific violence against women, which is correct? but there's also plenty of violence against men in the game too.

Ignores the complaint about the type of violence, specifically, using prostitutes for a cheap sexual thrill with an in game use, and killing them to save their money, and because it's sick fun.

There's plenty of violence against men. So fucking what? Do you have a problem with it or not? Because it has no fucking bearing on the argument that was presented. If you've got a problem, complain, if you don't, stick a fucking cork in it.

Are the people protesting against the game suggesting domestic violence against men will rise as a result too? If not, why not?

Why the focus on domestic violence?

Also, the casual nature with which you treat people who've been abused is contemptible. As a male who's been abused, I'm not a fan of ignoring female victims of abuse just because being a sexist asshole is easy. And I'm not in any way going to be used as an argument by you, when you ignore the claim.

MISINFORMATION.

And will the theft of cars also increase?

Disingenuous.

Computer games are an easy target when it comes to dealing with society's ills.

No, offensive computer games are an easy target. Frogger, Mario? Hard targets. GTA, Bully, Call of Duty? Easy targets.

But there are plenty of studies showing there is no link between gaming and violence in real life.

Science. Do it well or stop pretending.

That's the thing about games - they're not real, and most people who play them realize that.

That's the thing about media. It affects people, and effects those who think it doesn't effect them most, and it affects social attitudes.

Playing violent video games isn't everyone's cup of tea, but no-one is making anyone else pick up a controller.

They still have to share a world with the people who do, and the complaint was specifically at Target. This is getting ridiculously off base.

If you don't like it, don't do it. But don't go around pretending people who play games are going to turn into violent thugs.

Disingenuous, lying misinformation.

Anyone who is a gamer will tell you the games provide stress relief and relaxation.

Catharsis actually makes people more prone to violence. Giving in to violent impulses for stress relief actually is poor for impulse control. I'm not saying don't play violent games or do violent things. I'm saying that doing those don't actually have the positive effect claimed here, and further below.

Given the increasing amount of road rage and angry people these days, surely taking out a day's stresses in a make-believe world is preferable to getting in someone's face when they cut you off at the lights?

That damn science thing you've been misusing has some things to say about that.

I've raised two boys who both spent many hours playing computer games, including GTA, in their teen years and they haven't gone on to a life of crime or violence.

Cool. Story. Bro. Of course, the plural of anectdote is not data. That's completely irrelevant to the claims, or their proof, and is profoundly unscientific. That cuts both ways.

Why? Because games don't have that much influence on people who are generally sensible, reasonable human beings.

Not everyone is sensible, or reasonable. Or might I remind you that our nation runs a fucking concentration camp, and that we interred a mentally ill citizen of our nation in one by accident?

There are so many more factors that go into making a criminal or an abuser - family history, parenting or lack thereof, socioeconomic status, education.

A lot of those things are down to the cultural influences involved, and GTA is a part of culture.

If people want to promote the message that violence against women is not okay, they would do well to call for more support for parents who need it, so we can all raise boys and girls who are respectful to others.

That's a laugh. GTA isn't at all respectful towards women, and GTA V is a step backwards from the last one in how it treats and depicts women.

Of course, this petition has the same dishonest bullshit from the other thread.

If whoever made it takes out the bullshit, and the lies, and the misinformation, I'll sign it. Target actually had a better price on GTA V, for once, and that'd be a nice pricematch, although I don't think that'd help for my PC copy.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

Oh christ, not this again. I absolutely disagree with the removal of GTA 5 and the stupid reasons given in the petition, but it isn't censorship. It's just some self righteous group throwing their weight around, they shouldn't have succeeded in pressuring the stores to single out this one game, but they did, that's still not censorship but it's no less abhorrent even if it is fully legal and within their rights to do so.

What i don't get is the way people are now smugly shouting down this petition after arguing in favor of the right to petition in the other threads. If people have the right to petition to get it removed then surely people have the right to petition to have it brought back, correct? Is it just the badly worded manner of the petition? If so, how is it any worse than the other one.
But of course not, the reason there is so much shit flinging going on around here is because people have gotten so used to banging the drums and waving the banners from the other thread that they have come to this thread ready for round two of Us vs Them rather than actually addressing the ideas at hand. That is precisely why the other threads were immediately turned into a GG vs anti-GG argument at the first available opportunity, because apparently the 1281 page thread that still exists (no, i'm not even kidding. It is still alive) wasn't enough to quench people's thirst for this bullshit.

 

[Signa]

Oh christ, not this again. I absolutely disagree with the removal of GTA 5 and the stupid reasons given in the petition, but it isn't censorship.

Just wondering, if this isn't censorship, then what is to you? I should have been asking this of others in the thread, but you posted last when the question came to mind.