PETITION: Continue to sell Grand Theft Auto 5 in Australia

[shrekfan246]

Well, first off, all instances of man-on-woman violence being removed from the game. Or removal of sexual encounters with prostitutes. More broadly, the removal of weapons or alteration of script due to swears. Any actual tangible change to the game's content caused directly by the complaints of an outside source is at least far more worthy of being called "censorship" than this. Though by the technical meaning of the word even all of that hardly applies if it's a change being actively made by the developer themselves. Trivializing the meaning of the term with the "Self-censorship is still censorship!" argument does nothing to help us if you ask me.

More specifically, I should think I've already made this obvious but I would consider it to be censorship if the governing body of Australia had seen this and stepped in to decide "Oh hey, no, you guys can't sell Grand Theft Auto anymore." Or if they had initially declined to classify Grand Theft Auto in the first place, thus preventing it from being sold at all within the country.

So let me spin this around on you. So in order to be true, actual censorship, the content of the "offensive" medium has to be altered to suit another party? Either that, or the Government has to be that other party? I'm just trying to make sure I follow you.

If that's the case, would it still be censorship if this watchdog group asked the government to make Target pull the game instead? It still would be the same people making the same decisions, but there would be a middleman making the calls now.

While it may seem petty to be so specific, yes, I do think that having a middleman step in to make the decision for the company would tip this over into being actual censorship. In that instance, Target Australia would not be the ones making the decision; it is being made for them by a third-party and imposed upon them by said party. As it is, they made the decision of their own volition, even if it was prompted by a ridiculous, overblown, and possibly faked or troll petition.

Trivializing the meaning of the term with the "Self-censorship is still censorship!" argument does nothing to help us if you ask me.

I also wanted to ask about this line. I feel like you said it because it felt right, but parsing it out, I can't make sense of it. What would be "helping us" and how does defining this as censorship hurt us? The game has already been banned, and that group is moving on to do more damage.

To clarify, it diminishes the meaning of the term "censorship", which harms actual cases of censorship in the world. Think of it as a "Boy Who Cried Wolf" sort of thing.

Also, there's still a difference between a retailer refusing to stock a game and said game being banned from sale. Target and K-Mart are still capable of selling Grand Theft Auto V, they're simply choosing not to. In cases of censorship, that choice would not be present.

EDIT: Or to use your animal analogy, think of it like being shown a golden retriever and a fox, and the person showing you the two is trying to tell you they're both dogs. On a technicality they're very similar, but it's not the same thing.

 

[MerlinCross]

This does of course mean another group of shoppers are upset, namely gamers. But answer me this: Which of these two demographics makes up the largest portion of clientele that Target receives? Parents shopping for gifts for their kids over Christmas?, or gamers?

If that's the case, why are other forms of media in the same ratings category not being pulled? I mean what if some parent mistakenly buys GASP, CALL OF DUTY, as a present? They should pull it to avoid that mistake. Movies too because they shouldn't watch those. Or any of the novels that are in the limited book sections(Dunno about other stores but mine has a small 'Best Sellers' book area, along with a lot of trashy romance novels and other popcorn books). Oh and any alcohol products should be removed to. I mean, think of the children!

Part of me finds it weird that GTA was singled out but on the other hand, it's an easy target(heh) to go after. That and well it was featured in the TOY section of a target add, right next to barbie. Really Target, really? We still have the 'games are toys' idea around? Especially with it getting a label that says DO NOT SELL TO KIDS!

Petition was stupid(The wording at parts not the idea), Target pulling the game is a little sad, but the same time they really left themselves open when selling it in the 'kids' sections of adds.

 

[Signa]

I don't enjoy nuance, but if you want the boring and nuanced version, I'll refer to TotalBiscuit. I can get behind this as well:

Thanks for posting that. TB said everything I've been trying to say, but better. He even went as far as pointing out how it is Target's right to do this, and in all my discussing here, I've never said otherwise.

 

[Something Amyss]

No, they did not.

I think that's your answer, then.

A little disingenuous perhaps?

Only so long as you don't mind redefining "disingenuous." Which, given the way you've redefined things like "fraud" and "evidence" and completely rephrased my arguments before to better suit strawman arguments, I'm sure isn't an issue.

You're working backward from a conclusion and trying to justify it.

No. I don't have a clipboard. I bet Target also doesn't sell them.

Man, those monsters are just all up in your free speech, censorin' you and stuff.

And I'm also sick of seeing the same people assuming they're the most informed, useful person, to causes they know nothing about. Women lead the fight for women, queers (And I mean all of us, whatever letter, acronym or descriptor we're under) lead the fight for queers and so on. Being told that as an Australian man, I'm a part of a group being killed by guns all the time, or that my access to GTA V HD is being prevented is fucking irritating, because it's all lies, and if they listened to us for a second they'd know it.

Yes, but I'm not even sure you're relevant to the conversation as far as a lot of the opponents are concerned. It's what makes the "not your shield" thing so bloody delicious. Though the actual "not your shield" was basically a misrepresentation itself, which ironically was used as a shield in itself, but that's another ball of yarn.

Indeed. I'm sick of these people not even quoting these things that are lies. At least people were referencing her words when people were lying about Sarkeesian and toxic masculinity, they're not even bothering here, so I went through the entire petition and illustrated everything I found wrong about it for the sake of consistency. And they'll have my signature the minute they stop being so scummy.

I'm not an Australian, and so this doesn't impact me directly, but I really would like to see some consistency from the same folks who keep bubbling up in these arguments. But I'm not convinced a lot of them are doing the thinking for themselves. It's just rote lines repeated, up to and including the ones about how this is different because....

I really think it's the GG thing.

And just imagine if GG (at least, the GGers who keep popping up in these threads) applied the same logic to themselves as they do to others. It's not going to happen, but still.

 

[J Tyran]

A little disingenuous perhaps?

Only so long as you don't mind redefining "disingenuous." Which, given the way you've redefined things like "fraud" and "evidence" and completely rephrased my arguments before to better suit strawman arguments, I'm sure isn't an issue.

Ouch, I guess this must be a combination of bitterness about being unable to prove your assertions in a thread about what? Over a week or more ago... and inability to find a way to twist this discussion around enough to allow you to hold onto your point this time around as well.

Well thanks for conceding, as for that sore spot? You might wanna get some cream for that.

P.S

Don't complain about alleged strawman arguments when your only response to a legitimate point is a pure ad-hominem with no attempt to address the discussion.

 

[Something Amyss]

Cognitive dissonancce requires there to be cognition in the first place.

You're trying to make my Christmas card list, aren't you?

Ugh, now they are watching me masturbate. Seriously, how do I get these elephants out of my room! GO AWAY PURPLE ELEPHANTS!

Somehow, you're managing to make a more coherent statement than the one relevant to this thread.

The game has already been banned, and that group is moving on to do more damage.

No game has been banned in this instance. It's not even like you particularly need to go outside the original news articles to know this.

or why there aren't male prostitutes or strippers.

I seriously would like to know how many of the people who don't want this stuff out of games and think they're going to be taken away would flip out if COMPLETELY OPTIONAL (caps for effect) male strippers/prostitutes were in the game. Or trans ones, for that matter. Or, if it was a 100% requirement to engage in one or both with either/both groups. Because somehow, I think the position would shift from "if you don't like it, don't buy it" very fast.

Sort of like how the winds have changed now that a boycott is working against "gamers."

I mean people are rightfully criticizing the first petition for being insulting towards gaming, and now this petition is being insulting towards feminists. Anyone else see the hypocrisy here?

Don't forget we're misrepresenting a petition that we supposedly hated and called out specifically for misrepresenting us. I guess two wrongs make a right?

I'm pretty sure this has nothing to do with GamerGate Ice.

The petition itself? Because a lot of the people screaming censorship are vocal advocates of Gamergate and of boycotting "SJWs" and "feminists."

To clarify, it diminishes the meaning of the term "censorship", which harms actual cases of censorship in the world. Think of it as a "Boy Who Cried Wolf" sort of thing.

Hell, as the Aussies have pointed out, there is an actual, recent, heated history with censorship in Australia. Once you look at it in that light, this comes off as petty and petulant. And worse, as you point out, the responses do paint us in the exact light we get mad at people for painting us in.

If that's the case, why are other forms of media in the same ratings category not being pulled?

This should be simple: nobody's asking them to. To the followup, Call of Duty wasn't being advertised in with children's reading aids.

 

[DementedSheep]

What's happening in New Zealand is far more worth getting upset about (though they're still perfectly entitled to do what they want with their stock, too) and yet that's all getting side-lined because of this stupid Grand Theft Auto V "censorship" nonsense.

not to take this off-topic, but what exactly is happening there? It's on the opposite side of the world for me so I have no idea to be honest.

(and yes, this whole thing is laughable at this point, I think this is just alot of people being particularly obtuse to each other)

Sassafrass linked it above, about a week and a half or two weeks ago a retailer called The Warehouse Group decided that they would pull all R18+ material, games and DVDs, from their stores. Purchases which had already been made would be honored, but they're apparently no longer stocking anything with that rating.

I guess the big difference is that it sounds like it was an entirely corporate decision, so there aren't any scapegoats for people to point fingers at.

One thing that amuses me about their decision is that they classified Game of Thrones as something they were fine with stocking, until Grand Theft Auto V for PS4/Xbox One came out.

They are? I didn't know about this.
If the people running it don't want to stock R18 they don't have to. The Warehouse has done this sort of thing before and its not like anyone goes to the Warehouse specifically to buy DVD's and games anyway. There are a lot of other places to get that stuff from.

 

[Something Amyss]

Can this comment just be like highlighted and posted before and after every other comment?

I still don't think it'd make a difference.

 

[IceForce]

This does of course mean another group of shoppers are upset, namely gamers. But answer me this: Which of these two demographics makes up the largest portion of clientele that Target receives? Parents shopping for gifts for their kids over Christmas?, or gamers?

If that's the case, why are other forms of media in the same ratings category not being pulled? I mean what if some parent mistakenly buys GASP, CALL OF DUTY, as a present? They should pull it to avoid that mistake. Movies too because they shouldn't watch those. Or any of the novels that are in the limited book sections(Dunno about other stores but mine has a small 'Best Sellers' book area, along with a lot of trashy romance novels and other popcorn books). Oh and any alcohol products should be removed to. I mean, think of the children!

That's something only Target can answer.

If they want to get picky or choosy, or even inconsistent with their explanations for stocking or not stocking a product, that's their prerogative.

But if two (reasonably significant) customer demographics appear to be at odds with one another, the store is obviously going to do what it can to appease the larger of the two groups.

Part of me finds it weird that GTA was singled out but on the other hand, it's an easy target(heh) to go after. That and well it was featured in the TOY section of a target add, right next to barbie. Really Target, really? We still have the 'games are toys' idea around? Especially with it getting a label that says DO NOT SELL TO KIDS!

Petition was stupid(The wording at parts not the idea), Target pulling the game is a little sad, but the same time they really left themselves open when selling it in the 'kids' sections of adds.

Oh indeed, Target messed up here. Not just by the way they were stocking/selling the game, but by the way they obviously didn't fact-check the petition to make sure it was accurate in its assertions.

It may even be considered incompetence. But it's definitely not censorship.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Cognitive dissonancce requires there to be cognition in the first place.

You're trying to make my Christmas card list, aren't you?

No, as an apatheist I self-censor Christmas.

 

[J Tyran]

Don't complain about alleged strawman arguments when your only response to a legitimate point is a pure ad-hominem with no attempt to address the discussion.

You accused me of being disingenuous. The fact that you're a consistent liar is completely relevant the minute you try and question my honesty. Ad hominem is only a fallacy if you go after the person instead of the point. In the case of honesty, your lack of it may be an ad hominem, but it's not an ad hominem fallacy. That you once again had to remix the course of events to get there should be a clue.

I accused of being disingenuous because I was actually giving you some credit, sorry about that I won't make that mistake in the future.

Can you explain why bringing up a thread you disgraced yourself in around a fortnight ago(you know the accusation that a guy committed fraud by getting $90 price match by deceiving the manager with a $400 price listing...) has any relevancy to this topic?

Because it simply appears to be completely unnecessary ad-hominem because you couldn't address this topic mixed with more than a little bitterness, your chemist can help with that and allow you to sit in comfort again.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

The target ad was a laugh. GTA being for adults is a good laugh. You know when I want to get something seriously for adults, my girlfriend and I have to go to a store which is underground and has blacked out windows and checks ID.

Home loan application, huh?

If I wanted to go to a bar or gambling area in Australia, I'd have to be 18 just to be in the room, or with an adult leading me to get a counter meal. GTA is in the section with games for teaching your kids to read.

Not in South Australia... thanks to fuckstick Atkinson and some Family First dickbag who refused to control their kid in the shops and then got a case of the vapours when said kid grabbed the empty[ cover to some 'inappropriate' DVD.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

Come on everyone, say it with me now: "It's different when GamerGate does it."

I'm pretty sure this has nothing to do with GamerGate Ice.

Blasphemy! BLASPHEMY!
Everything is about GamerGate.

 

[Something Amyss]

No, as an apatheist I self-censor Christmas.

I should have known you were a fellow Christmas warrior!

Can you explain why bringing up a thread you disgraced yourself in around a fortnight ago(you know the accusation that a guy committed fraud by getting $90 price match by deceiving the manager with a $400 price listing...) has any relevancy to this topic?

Can you explain why you had to lie about those circumstances?

 

[Signa]

Ugh, now they are watching me masturbate. Seriously, how do I get these elephants out of my room! GO AWAY PURPLE ELEPHANTS!

Somehow, you're managing to make a more coherent statement than the one relevant to this thread.

I let them outside now. You'll never guess what they are doing now! They are playing BASKETBALL!!! It's amazing! I bet they are going to be thirsty when they are done.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

No, as an apatheist I self-censor Christmas.

I should have known you were a fellow Christmas warrior!

If by 'Christmas Warrior' you mean 'ignores Christmas except for mooching 3 meals from the family and accepts gifts of alcohol and Amazon credit' then yes.

 

[Something Amyss]

If by 'Christmas Warrior' you mean 'ignores Christmas except for mooching 3 meals from the family and accepts gifts of alcohol and Amazon credit' then yes.

Isn't that pretty much all "The war on Christmas" is? A bunch of people complaining that we're not celebrating?

There's probably even a decent parallel to the current talks of censorship.

 

[Callate]

Please. Stop saying "this isn't censorship" because it isn't government-sponsored or universal.

You know what else "wasn't censorship" by that standard? The Comics Code Authority. Stifled comics creators for decades, but it wasn't handed down directly by the government. You could still hypothetically get your comics sold- only for years, no mainstream comic shop would sell them, and most major publishers knew they'd soon be bankrupt if they tried.

So because it isn't government censorship, it should be okay?

Because it isn't every shop that's declining to sell a legal product that people want, it should be beneath notice?

Is there a certain scale for wrongheaded, misleading campaigns of condescending self-righteousness that is supposed to be acceptable? Is anyone really ready to set a standard for that?

If you think GTA V shouldn't exist, fine, argue that how you will. But don't pretend this shallow, narrow definition of censorship is a meaningful point of contention on which to stake your superiority, because it's not. It's a dodge, and a petty and ridiculous one at that.

 

[Veylon]

Please. Stop saying "this isn't censorship" because it isn't government-sponsored or universal.

You know what else "wasn't censorship" by that standard? The Comics Code Authority. Stifled comics creators for decades, but it wasn't handed down directly by the government. You could still hypothetically get your comics sold- only for years, no mainstream comic shop would sell them, and most major publishers knew they'd soon be bankrupt if they tried.

So because it isn't government censorship, it should be okay?

Because it isn't every shop that's declining to sell a legal product that people want, it should be beneath notice?

Is there a certain scale for wrongheaded, misleading campaigns of condescending self-righteousness that is supposed to be acceptable? Is anyone really ready to set a standard for that?

If you think GTA V shouldn't exist, fine, argue that how you will. But don't pretend this shallow, narrow definition of censorship is a meaningful point of contention on which to stake your superiority, because it's not. It's a dodge, and a petty and ridiculous one at that.

There is indeed a gray area here. Another analogy might be realtors in white neighbor hoods not selling houses to blacks. Segregation not by government fiat, but by conspiracy.

But the situation isn't (yet) anywhere near that level. If, say, Target and most other retailers all stopped carrying this game all the same time, then there would be a case. But, for now, it's just Target. This could, someday, turn into something like the CCA, but it's nowhere near there right now.

If/when this changes and suddenly GTA5 (or some other game) is tough to locate due to a whole swath of stores not carrying it together, then there's reason to be alarmed.