PETITION: Continue to sell Grand Theft Auto 5 in Australia

[mitch13pavel]

Gamers deserve a choice in what and where they buy their games! competition is healthy for growth.

 

[Something Amyss]

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.

Hey, remember when Marvel published a comic without the CCA and nothing bad happened?

Well, "remember" might be the wrong term, since it was almost certainly before your time in this case, but still. It's almost as though it didn't quite have that kind of power, and the power of the authority was predominantly self-enforced. Largely because that's what it was.

By this logic, why is there more outrage over a couple of stores opting not to stock a single game than there is about the entirety of the various ratings systems? The ESRB's adoption by the industry is actually a similar story to the CCA's, and the parallels don't end there. Is this censorship? If so, why aren't people railing against it like this one instance? Where's the consistency?

But, for now, it's just Target.

Australia's branches of K-Mart and Target.

 

[MerlinCross]

That's something only Target can answer.

No that's something only the petition group can answer. For or against, I'd love to see the reaction if the game was Saints Row, CoD, or any other rated game. Would we have seen the same petition if one of those was next to barbie in the ads? Who knows, theory crafting now. But personally I hope Target didn't learn from their mistake in the Ads to see if this can repeat.

Australia's branches of K-Mart and Target.

They have the same parent company don't they? Makes sense for HQ to decide to pull the game from both outlets.

 

[Callate]

Hey, remember when Marvel published a comic without the CCA and nothing bad happened?

Why, yes! Seventeen years later. Just a handwave, really.

Well, "remember" might be the wrong term, since it was almost certainly before your time in this case, but still. It's almost as though it didn't quite have that kind of power, and the power of the authority was predominantly self-enforced. Largely because that's what it was.

So are you mis-remembering that I never used the term "remember", or are you suggesting that the twentieth century is far too distant and far-gone a era for anything that occurred to be relevant?

It was "self-imposed" in the sense that it was an external body initially agreed to by the comics industry under duress, not a governmental one. Led not by some cozy comics industry insider, but a New York magistrate who specialized in juvenile delinquency.

So do any of your assumptions have the slightest basis in fact? Any shred of evidence to back them up? Because from here, there's no resemblance at all. In fact, I'd suggest seventeen years and a need to form an underground comics industry in the sixties suggest it's completely fabricated from whole cloth.

By this logic, why is there more outrage over a couple of stores opting not to stock a single game than there is about the entirety of the various ratings systems? The ESRB's adoption by the industry is actually a similar story to the CCA's, and the parallels don't end there. Is this censorship? If so, why aren't people railing against it like this one instance? Where's the consistency?

For one, I'm not aware of a single instance of the ESRB refusing to grant a rating to a game at all. Which is what the CCA did if they decided a comic didn't meet the code, rendering it dead in the water.

For another, the ESRB's ratings are intended to make sure the audience for a given product is appropriate, not to attempt to keep that product out of the hands of adults.

For a third, that Australia already has a ratings system in place, GTA V falls within it, and pressuring for its removal amounts to second-guessing and over-reaching of that system- a system that has all too recently come into its current form which allowed R18 games to be legally obtained in the first place. If it's so easily circumvented on a retail level, a lot of people who fought for its existence are being informed that their decision doesn't amount to all that much.

There is a difference between an effort to control the distribution of a product to make sure it doesn't reach an inappropriate audience and an attempt to make that product cease to exist or never exist in the first place. Despite the scale, this is very clearly the latter. That is the difference between the CCA and the ESRB, and it's as bloody obvious as night and day.

 

[J Tyran]

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?

So this must be a tacit admission that there actually is no relevance, if the relevance was just in your head what lends any further statement of yours any credibility?

Furthermore I have not lied, after several back and forth posts asking you to prove the customer taking advantage of a special offer was committing fraud the best you came up with was a tweet of his saying he displayed Amazons own listing after showing the $90 3rd party listing.

No lies there, just face saving on your part. You couldn't address that point, you couldn't address this topic either so you are trying to devolve it into an argument about nothing in particular.

Seems thats typical in your posting judging by both these exchanges, lots of sound and fury and a lack of ability to really say anything of relevance.


But seriously though if you just want to keep discussing your past past embarrassments don't bother, either address this topic rather than doing anything and everything to avoid it or don't bother.

 

[Loonyyy]

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?

Yeah, I don't know why they want those places to look so serial killer dungeon-y. It can't be good for business.

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.

How innapropriate can a DVD case be? Family First are the worst though. My mother used to shoot votes their way because she was heavily into being a full-on parent, and not so heavily into checking their policy first. I definitely don't agree with just taking these things away or putting them under the counter to avoid having kids run into the game, because I don't think the game boxes really matter. That parents don't pay attention to ratings, that the games are poorly stocked, and are targetted as "Games" and then split by console is far from a perfect system, and for some reason, it means every other EB has a large chunk of wall dedicated to DS and Wii shovelware and some still have old UMD movies for the PSP that didn't sell.

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.

I've a feeling it's more than a few.

Or trans ones, for that matter.

Be careful what you wish for. I was fact checking a couple of things on the GTA wiki, and I ran into this gem: http://gta.wikia.com/Reni_Wassulmaier

Words fail me at that shit. Hahaha trans people, now go fuck a stripper, there's something to wank to if you're attracted to women, male, and have a tolerance for shittily animated smut. See it's satirical???? People honestly wonder why GTA is always the target. Because it's a fucking easy one.

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."

Indeed. I also don't remember people standing up for MW2 when it was being boycotted because censorship and freeze peach. If boycotts are ok, then they're ok, and if they're ok, it's ok to respond to them (Unless people want to pretend they're all permissive and progressi-wait, that's exactly what it is). The question people should be asking is whether or not they agree with the why, not the how, because anti-boycott shit is also something that the Australian Prime Minister, and evil little man named Tony Abbot, was in favour of. Because it potentially hurts a businesses bottom line.

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.

We only recently got the R18 rating, and I can finally play my damn L4D 2 without the vanishing bodies nonsense, without having to modify game files and break my install beyond all hope of repair. And we've passed laws recently targetting whistleblowers and journalists (Even when they're working in the public interest). Our review and classification board was the nemesis of Australian gamers everywhere. And that one actually DID censor games nationwide. Telling Australians who have had their games censored by the government with no recourse that this is a case of censorship is fucking insulting.

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.

Sorry, I seem to have misinformed you. I should clarify: Target didn't advertise the game with children's reading aids. That's just where it ends up sitting in their stores, because like most stores, games are sorted as games, and then by console, and most Targets and Kmarts have limited shelf space and stock, so it amounts to half an eisle in some stores of the latest AAA fare (Grossly innapropriate for the kiddlens) and shitty shovelware that no-one wants to buy (Which really should be put somewhere else.) Unfortunately, stores seem to mistake the format for the content, and then shit happens.

Target advertised the game besides Peppa Pig toys, a childrens show run on the ABC network, "Spiderman Goblin Attack" and "Barbie Hairtastic Dolls": http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.866306-Target-Australia-will-no-longer-stock-GTA5?page=5#21658760

Parents still don't understand that games aren't children's toys, and that many of them are not for kids, and Target continues to peddle this misconception.

 

[Bat Vader]

I can't really see this as being censorship. I think it's stupid that a Target and a K-Mart store in Australia aren't selling GTA V but I don't see this as censorship.

It's about as much censorship as when Toys R Us pulled the Breaking Bad dolls they were selling. Remember kids cooking meth helps build teamwork and you also get to meet new and interesting people. Yes, that's a joke.

 

[Loonyyy]

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

ikr. Just like Penny Arcade said, it's just like Nazis, what Target is doing to us, the Australian gaming public. This is our night of the long knives, this is the first strike against our freedoms, this is our patriot act.

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.

I have a feeling you're exactly right. Also telling is that this new petition describes the other one as "misinformed feminists". The original petition identifies feminism not once, and actually purports to be by a survivor of violence, and including survivors of violence in the sex industry. Makes this whole thing seem a whole lot more nasty.

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.

#NotYourShield was only ever a shield, and only ever an excuse to pretend that GG had no problem with minorities whilst campaigning against recognising the diversity of the gaming audience, against supposed "Social Justice" or discussions of inclusivity, race, gender and sexuality. The entire thing is filled with 4chan sock puppets, a few misinformed people, and a lot of hogwash. There are words for those who campaign against the interest of those like them, and they're not nice. And I don't give a fuck about that.

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....

It's easy to call things lies when you only ever repeat the memes that are all those devoid of critical faculty can spit. I'm not going to comb through again, but I didn't see one post that referenced the wording of the petition in it's supposed dishonesty, barring those who deny the games content, and for some reason, these people getting pissed at misrepresentations of the game don't jump them.

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.

I don't think that there's a logic to it. There's a pattern, but I'm not sure that they looked at any facts and then applied an operation to it to generate some truth, I think they just want to add their voices to the crowd, until that's all that people can hear. If enough people say it's all lies, or "Nutjobs", people will think that's what it is, and what point is there to read it?

Also, PSA: To the people talking that, you're way, way way out of line, and I've seen that from some I'd respect. If you want to fuck with mental illness, then let's get nuts. Come the fuck at me. That's the only response you're getting there, there is no discussion, no debate, no kindness or sympathy for your ignorance. There is righteous rage, backed up with barely contained contempt for you and what you say, which is far less than you deserve. Which is to suffer, exactly as we have. Or if you don't want to do the whole, ableist, stigmatizing of the mentally ill bit, and you know, avoid calling people who purport to be survivors of violence and violence in the sex industry as nutjobs, because these things are repellent actions, then sit down, shut the fuck up, and listen to an Australian for once in your life. (I could also have a go at the Australian mental health system and the lack of support for sufferers, a factor which makes this all the worse, but I've rambled enough about tangents of Australian culture, policy and current governance)

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

I signed, but not because I resent Target taking it off their shelves and thereby inconveniencing maybe 50 people nationwide, but because the original petition was dodgy.

 

[Something Amyss]

Why, yes! Seventeen years later. Just a handwave, really.

Not so much a handwave as a demonstration of the lack of any actual power. But feel free to ignore evidence contrary to your claims, it seems it'll be a pattern.

So are you mis-remembering that I never used the term "remember", or are you suggesting that the twentieth century is far too distant and far-gone a era for anything that occurred to be relevant?

Neither. I was indicating that odds are you weren't alive in the seventies, as most Escapists are not older than me.

It was "self-imposed" in the sense that it was an external body initially agreed to by the comics industry under duress, not a governmental one. Led not by some cozy comics industry insider, but a New York magistrate who specialized in juvenile delinquency.

Well, no. It was self-imposed in that it was formed within the business, relied on self-policing, and most importantly only had power if people agreed to follow it.

So do any of your assumptions have the slightest basis in fact?

Depeds on what you mean by "fact." You appear to be using a proprietary definition.

For one, I'm not aware of a single instance of the ESRB refusing to grant a rating to a game at all. Which is what the CCA did if they decided a comic didn't meet the code, rendering it dead in the water.

You mean like how an AO rating is a kiss of death in the AAA games market? I suppose that's completely different, except for the part where it would render any such game dead in the water.

For another, the ESRB's ratings are intended to make sure the audience for a given product is appropriate, not to attempt to keep that product out of the hands of adults.

It's still censorship. It sounds like you're saying censorship is okay if the intent is right. I have trouble believing that's what you mean, but that would be consistent with your current statement. However, you just railed against people for saying something trivial wasn't censorship by using another, larger, dated example of self-censorship.

For a third, that Australia already has a ratings system in place, GTA V falls within it, and pressuring for its removal amounts to second-guessing and over-reaching of that system- a system that has all too recently come into its current form which allowed R18 games to be legally obtained in the first place. If it's so easily circumvented on a retail level, a lot of people who fought for its existence are being informed that their decision doesn't amount to all that much.

Kind of like how retailers in America won't stock games that fall into AO.

There is a difference between an effort to control the distribution of a product to make sure it doesn't reach an inappropriate audience and an attempt to make that product cease to exist or never exist in the first place. Despite the scale, this is very clearly the latter. That is the difference between the CCA and the ESRB, and it's as bloody obvious as night and day.

It's not very clearly in the latter. I'd also note that this is a criticism heavily leveled against both the MPAA and ESRB in America, and other such bodies in other countries. You can say it's totally different until you're blue in the face, but from here it looks like you're either completely oblivious to the facts or you're trying to artificially distinguish censorship you're okay with with the kind you're not okay with.

 

[Something Amyss]

So this must be a tacit admission that there actually is no relevance, if the relevance was just in your head what lends any further statement of yours any credibility?

It's a statement that I'm not going to address a fictitious point.

Nothing else. You asked me why I did something that is clearly false. As such, the lack of truth to your statement became the relevant point.

Yeah, I don't know why they want those places to look so serial killer dungeon-y. It can't be good for business.

Well, they've pretty much got you by the short hairs.

On a related note, I can't wait to see how Escrow Hero sells.

How innapropriate can a DVD case be?

That reminds me. In the US, major retailers like Wal-Mart "censor" mags by hiding the ones with risque covers. Their idea of risque is a little weird, but it's totes censorship either way.

I've a feeling it's more than a few.

Me too. I just wish I could see it. I want to see how many of the faces from here who have used the "just don't buy it" or "it's optional, so what's the problem?" lines would flip out. Hell, look at Anders. People are so upset that if you choose to interact with him, it means sex or letting him down.

Be careful what you wish for. I was fact checking a couple of things on the GTA wiki, and I ran into this gem: http://gta.wikia.com/Reni_Wassulmaier

Words fail me at that shit. Hahaha trans people, now go fuck a stripper, there's something to wank to if you're attracted to women, male, and have a tolerance for shittily animated smut. See it's satirical???? People honestly wonder why GTA is always the target. Because it's a fucking easy one.

GTA is fortunate in that satire doesn't have to be funny. The thesis of GTA V is mostly based around the notion of "look how shitty everyone is!" This statement is technically satire, but rarely funny. However, do you seduce Reni?

Indeed. I also don't remember people standing up for MW2 when it was being boycotted because censorship and freeze peach. If boycotts are ok, then they're ok, and if they're ok, it's ok to respond to them (Unless people want to pretend they're all permissive and progressi-wait, that's exactly what it is). The question people should be asking is whether or not they agree with the why, not the how, because anti-boycott shit is also something that the Australian Prime Minister, and evil little man named Tony Abbot, was in favour of. Because it potentially hurts a businesses bottom line.

Oh, the mental gymnastics required here. I don't get it.

Personally, I'm pro-boycott, even if I disagree with the boycott. I don't think this game should be pulled, but if I start complaining about the right of consumer activism now, my argument becomes inconsistent. Besides, I've supported WBC, Duck Dynasty fans, and Chick Fil-a, all groups opposed to me. Somehow I'm stifling free speech, though.

We only recently got the R18 rating, and I can finally play my damn L4D 2 without the vanishing bodies nonsense, without having to modify game files and break my install beyond all hope of repair. And we've passed laws recently targetting whistleblowers and journalists (Even when they're working in the public interest). Our review and classification board was the nemesis of Australian gamers everywhere. And that one actually DID censor games nationwide. Telling Australians who have had their games censored by the government with no recourse that this is a case of censorship is fucking insulting.

I agree, really. But to clarify, some games still must face changes or not be certified, yes?

Sorry, I seem to have misinformed you. I should clarify: Target didn't advertise the game with children's reading aids. That's just where it ends up sitting in their stores, because like most stores, games are sorted as games, and then by console, and most Targets and Kmarts have limited shelf space and stock, so it amounts to half an eisle in some stores of the latest AAA fare (Grossly innapropriate for the kiddlens) and shitty shovelware that no-one wants to buy (Which really should be put somewhere else.) Unfortunately, stores seem to mistake the format for the content, and then shit happens.

Target advertised the game besides Peppa Pig toys, a childrens show run on the ABC network, "Spiderman Goblin Attack" and "Barbie Hairtastic Dolls": http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.866306-Target-Australia-will-no-longer-stock-GTA5?page=5#21658760

Parents still don't understand that games aren't children's toys, and that many of them are not for kids, and Target continues to peddle this misconception.

My bad. I think I just conflated a couple of things. Still, that's a big issue, and I imagine that parents might not be particularly happy with that. On that note, though, I do find it hilarious that Wal-Marts here will often cover up risque mags, but put the goriest game covers with the rest of the games, and sell R and unrated movies. At the local stores, they often sell the latter group on endcaps outside eletronics, where anyone can pick 'em up (though they still require an adult to buy 'em).

Come to think of it, I bought Porky's at Wal-Mart back in the day, and it didn't even flag me for my age at the register.

Then again, with an innocent cover like this (NSFW [http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMjAwODMyMjM0MF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwMTY5OTk4._V1_SX640_SY720_.jpg]), who could blame them for not knowing any better?

 

[Something Amyss]

ikr. Just like Penny Arcade said, it's just like Nazis, what Target is doing to us, the Australian gaming public. This is our night of the long knives, this is the first strike against our freedoms, this is our patriot act.

I want to make a "First they came" joke, but it seems too tasteless.

I have a feeling you're exactly right. Also telling is that this new petition describes the other one as "misinformed feminists". The original petition identifies feminism not once, and actually purports to be by a survivor of violence, and including survivors of violence in the sex industry. Makes this whole thing seem a whole lot more nasty.

Well, don't you know? The only people who have a problem with being abused are feminists, and feminists are by nature misinformed.

#NotYourShield was only ever a shield, and only ever an excuse to pretend that GG had no problem with minorities whilst campaigning against recognising the diversity of the gaming audience, against supposed "Social Justice" or discussions of inclusivity, race, gender and sexuality. The entire thing is filled with 4chan sock puppets, a few misinformed people, and a lot of hogwash. There are words for those who campaign against the interest of those like them, and they're not nice. And I don't give a fuck about that.

It seems like there's a LOT of misinformed people. And that's more or less what I was getting at. People who are like "WTF? HOW DARE YOU SAY THERE ARE NO WOMEN GAMERS? #notyourshield" seem to fill up the ranks. And that's a conversation I think nobody was actually having. The conversation was about women and minorities in games, and women and minorities in Gamergate.

Similarly, I don't know if you're aware, but there's a hashtag movement going on right now to get women to show off their copies of GTA V. And I'm sure the people prompting this and the people doing it think they're making a meaningful point.

It's easy to call things lies when you only ever repeat the memes that are all those devoid of critical faculty can spit. I'm not going to comb through again, but I didn't see one post that referenced the wording of the petition in it's supposed dishonesty, barring those who deny the games content, and for some reason, these people getting pissed at misrepresentations of the game don't jump them.

There was a study, and I think I'm going to have to try and dig this up again, but the study looked at a part of your brain that influenced decision making, which basically shuts down when someone of perceived authority is speaking. I also suspect that there is a degree of wishful thinking/group hate going on. It'd be so much easier if there was one group who was responsible for all the wrongs in gaming. But still, I think people are just deferring to authority. Even if that authority isn't necessarily very authoritative.

I don't think that there's a logic to it. There's a pattern, but I'm not sure that they looked at any facts and then applied an operation to it to generate some truth, I think they just want to add their voices to the crowd, until that's all that people can hear. If enough people say it's all lies, or "Nutjobs", people will think that's what it is, and what point is there to read it?

Funny thing about that. Whenever someone says "that's not what feminism is" and a Gamergate supporter comes back with "that's what it's perceived as," I really just am amazed. Yeah, and Gamergate is perceived as a bunch of racist, sexist man-children. Does that make it valid?"

The biggest pattern is inconsistency. And if you rule out "nutjobs," I think you end up ruling out most of the movement.

Also, PSA: To the people talking that, you're way, way way out of line, and I've seen that from some I'd respect. If you want to fuck with mental illness, then let's get nuts. Come the fuck at me. That's the only response you're getting there, there is no discussion, no debate, no kindness or sympathy for your ignorance. There is righteous rage, backed up with barely contained contempt for you and what you say, which is far less than you deserve. Which is to suffer, exactly as we have. Or if you don't want to do the whole, ableist, stigmatizing of the mentally ill bit, and you know, avoid calling people who purport to be survivors of violence and violence in the sex industry as nutjobs, because these things are repellent actions, then sit down, shut the fuck up, and listen to an Australian for once in your life. (I could also have a go at the Australian mental health system and the lack of support for sufferers, a factor which makes this all the worse, but I've rambled enough about tangents of Australian culture, policy and current governance)

You have my sword snark.

 

[Skatologist]

ikr. Just like Penny Arcade said, it's just like Nazis, what Target is doing to us, the Australian gaming public. This is our night of the long knives, this is the first strike against our freedoms, this is our patriot act.

I want to make a "First they came" joke, but it seems too tasteless.

Not when it seems like people are actually using that tired old thing to refuel their paranoia of all the evil people trying to take away our freedoms, no matter how small or trivial or non applicable a loss is to you personally, because slopes are slippery don't you know?

#NotYourShield was only ever a shield, and only ever an excuse to pretend that GG had no problem with minorities whilst campaigning against recognising the diversity of the gaming audience, against supposed "Social Justice" or discussions of inclusivity, race, gender and sexuality. The entire thing is filled with 4chan sock puppets, a few misinformed people, and a lot of hogwash. There are words for those who campaign against the interest of those like them, and they're not nice. And I don't give a fuck about that.

It seems like there's a LOT of misinformed people. And that's more or less what I was getting at. People who are like "WTF? HOW DARE YOU SAY THERE ARE NO WOMEN GAMERS? #notyourshield" seem to fill up the ranks. And that's a conversation I think nobody was actually having. The conversation was about women and minorities in games, and women and minorities in Gamergate.

Similarly, I don't know if you're aware, but there's a hashtag movement going on right now to get women to show off their copies of GTA V. And I'm sure the people prompting this and the people doing it think they're making a meaningful point.

A prominent critic of GG brought up a similar point in a blog post, I'll quote him:

I had written and rewritten much of what follows several times over, hoping to strike on the best possible way of expressing what I have to say, when I stumbled across a KotakuInAction thread that convinced me that there's no point. Back in October, The Daily Dot published an essay in which I argued that, all along, there have been people who were "core" and "hardcore" gamers in every respect that matters, but whom the industry had chronically and unfairly overlooked because they didn't fall into the straight, white male demographic that marketers (and some gamers) have long construed as gaming's core market. To reiterate, the explicit point of the article was that women, persons of color, and people on the LGTB spectrum can be gamers every bit as hardcore as the stereotype, and that publishers, marketers and the gaming press ought to pay them more attention. Nevertheless, GamerGate supporters (henceforth: Gaters) somehow interpreted my essay to mean the exact opposite of what I had written. As one incensed Gater put it:

How dare that fucking writer say that I?m not important? How dare Rhodes try to minimize my voice by saying I?m not "hardcore" enough? That I'm not important in the scheme of GamerGate because I?m a minority and a woman so I'm not a real gamer?

...to be continued on with a deep explantion on why he still has problems with the movement

Oh, and also that other hashtag promoted by ReviewTechUSA had this as their first shot to "empower female gamers of GTA" had apparently seen no possible problem using this as the first image on their video on the subject:

Eh, but you know, if you complain about this and you're a woman, I'm guessing he feels you're part of the problem.

It's easy to call things lies when you only ever repeat the memes that are all those devoid of critical faculty can spit. I'm not going to comb through again, but I didn't see one post that referenced the wording of the petition in it's supposed dishonesty, barring those who deny the games content, and for some reason, these people getting pissed at misrepresentations of the game don't jump them.

There was a study, and I think I'm going to have to try and dig this up again, but the study looked at a part of your brain that influenced decision making, which basically shuts down when someone of perceived authority is speaking. I also suspect that there is a degree of wishful thinking/group hate going on. It'd be so much easier if there was one group who was responsible for all the wrongs in gaming. But still, I think people are just deferring to authority. Even if that authority isn't necessarily very authoritative.

Please link if you get that link if you can. I still really do enjoy this one here: http://psychcentral.com/news/2012/12/11/negative-effects-of-violent-video-games-may-build-over-time/48918.html as an example of violent games at least contributing to violent thought. As for the feminism comparison you raise after this, I still think Moviebob nails it for whenever topics like this are brought up, even though he doesn't actually tackle the GTA prostitute thing in this video and I'm not sure if he ever did:

 

[WhiteNachos]

I am earnestly curious to see how this turns out.

Best o' luck to ya.

Personally, I'm imagining disgruntled shop workers putting up with this.
"Hold the show guys, there's been another petition, we're putting the GTA5 games back up."
"The hell? We just finished rearranging the shelves!"


EDIT:

"I fear the other retailers will follow this trend, soon this game won't be sold anywhere in Australia."

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

Consistency, please.

Did one person actually say both those things?

"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?

Seems standard BS hyperbole nowadays. I saw a radio station get flooded with lots of different people complaining about something and people who agreed with the station called it harassment (I won't say what the issue was because it's unrelated to this story).

 

[WhiteNachos]

Oh, and also that other hashtag promoted by ReviewTechUSA had this as their first shot to "empower female gamers of GTA" had apparently seen no possible problem using this as the first image on their video on the subject:

So? The controversy isn't about women in skimpy outfits or whatever, and not every woman gives a crap about stuff like this. This seems like a minor misstep at best.

 

[WhiteNachos]

"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?

Hey Zach, do you ever actually contribute to discussions here? All I ever see you do is passive agressively imply that people are stupid, or hypocritical or sexist and you use that to dismiss everyone.

I haven't seen your actual opinion on this whole issue other than "it's not censorship". Do you agree with Target do you object to the implication that playing the game will lead to more violence in real life? Do you object to the petition saying the game encourages violence against women.

 

[WhiteNachos]

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.

I've a feeling it's more than a few.

Yeah it feels good to imagine your opponents are hypocrites, even if you're basing it entirely off assumptions. It makes it either to dismiss someone, Tu Quoque or not.

 

[Erttheking]

Oh God something hilarious just happened. A bunch of people demanded that Target stop selling the Bible on the grounds that it's also mysognistic. Got 40,000 signatures, just short of the one that got GTA V. I wasn't sure what to think of this, but then something happened that I find to be hilarious. Target explained why they can't stop selling the Bible. They weren't actually selling it in the first place. This would've been the ultimate ironic take that if the makers of the new petition had looked before they jumped.

You have to admit that's pretty funny.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/target-cant-ban-the-bible-because-they-dont-sell-it

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

I still really do enjoy this one here: http://psychcentral.com/news/2012/12/11/negative-effects-of-violent-video-games-may-build-over-time/48918.html as an example of violent games at least contributing to violent thought.

Rather than go into my issues with Brad Bushman's work, I'll just point out that the study only shows correlational relationships not causal ones. Might be something to it but it also might be an 'ice cream causes shark attacks' type correlation.

 

[Skatologist]

Oh God something hilarious just happened. A bunch of people demanded that Target stop selling the Bible on the grounds that it's also mysognistic. Got 40,000 signatures, just short of the one that got GTA V. I wasn't sure what to think of this, but then something happened that I find to be hilarious. Target explained why they can't stop selling the Bible. They weren't actually selling it in the first place. This would've been the ultimate ironic take that if the makers of the new petition had looked before they jumped.

You have to admit that's pretty funny.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/target-cant-ban-the-bible-because-they-dont-sell-it

No... that's undeniably funny and is a much bigger indication of everyone's ignorance since online news sources actually mentioned the banning of the Bible petition before this dropped, many basically saying "Yeah, why are they still selling this misogynist book" until this dropped and I'll have to see many with tails between their legs saying "Oh...they don't actually sell it. Well then."Huge amounts of egg on so many faces and I love it.

Rather than go into my issues with Brad Bushman's work, I'll just point out that the study only shows correlational relationships not causal ones. Might be something to it but it also might be an 'ice cream causes shark attacks' type correlation.

I just know many of the studies on the other end of this debate kind of trotted out too much and are generally too highly regarded by many in our community. One being used featuring the game Hitman is often used to show very minimal consequences of violent gaming, but that study is full of flaws, along with many other studies regarding the topic from that point of view. Also, you do realize the correlation does not imply causation is somewhat of a tricky thing? Most occurrences of strong correlations chalk up to a cause or causes that contribute to both. Example being a fairly strong correlation between ice cream sales and gas prices because both are usually dependent on weather and time of year. I'm also not beyond saying these things are minimal or can be fought against or I can switch my position, but based on my observation, catharsis hypotheses don't work for either me nor those around me. And, if I'm not mistaken, can't everything be said to be correlation and not causal? This is what philosophers argued against people claiming chemicals in the brains caused emotions rather than correlate with them, even if the correlation was .99[footnote] I've heard a 1 correlation is actually impossible, at least I heard a few people say such a thing would require constant observation.[/footnote]