PETITION: Continue to sell Grand Theft Auto 5 in Australia

[IceForce]

]

(Sighs)....Once again,letting potential sponsors and advertisers know just how much of a ass the people they're working with are is not censorship.

Why not also let the local dairy owner know, or the owner of the local garden center?

Don't be disingenuous. The endgame goal of "letting sponsors and advertisers know" is to put pressure on the websites in question to alter their content or change what content they publish in the future. Either that or drive them out of business altogether by severing their advertising income.

Where's the proof of this?Any rational customer would exercise their consumer rights if some people in a industry were acting like jackasses.There wouldn't even be a ad/sponsor campaign if some of these journalists acted like professionals so reap what you sow and all that jazz.

Yes, exercising their consumer rights by simply not visiting those sites. But wanting the site(s) to pull content or go under altogether? That makes you no better than the people behind this GTAV petition.

And for the last time, opinion pieces lamenting the end of a entertainment medium enthusiast stereotype, is not an example of journalists "acting like jackasses".

 

[Haerthan]

who cares about their editorial content? if they want to write an editorial defending jocial justice or blaming the jews for 9/11 i couldnt care less

when they push lies as news, i care, when they hold close relationships with the individuals they are covering, i care, when they take money for positive press, i care, when they try to use their position to push politics into gaming i care

So, again, what do you think of people pressuring websites to alter their editorial content? You think pressuring developers into changing their content is censorship, so we're all just wondering if you'll be consistent with your views. So far, all you've done is sidestep it with GamerGate nonsense you all love parroting over and over and over without anyone asking.

gamergate is not a person, but the movement is and has always been about ethics in games journalism, and about keeping politics out of gaming

there are ways to express your political beliefs that do not lead to developers being pressured into participating into a certain agenda

so far i have only participated in activities that promote these goals, that punish unethical news outlets and support ethical ones, ive stopped visiting sites accused of corruption and pushing political agendas, ive sent emails to the advertisers of corrupt outlets and outlets run by people for for instance, support bullying, ive also congratulated the efforts of certain unless towards being more transparent, such as the escapist

Really, keeping politics out of games? Is that even possible? Every rational person would say no. Our very culture, and all other cultures are political. Everything has a politics. EVERYTHING. THere is no such as a product/industry/person who isn't political. It is impossible by the very nature of humanity. But hey keep telling yourself that.

And what outlets were "unethical"? The ones that ran those OP-EDs of "Gamers are dead". Trying to censor harassment and showing you that gaming is diverse does not count as unethical. Your very campaign is rooted in misogyny and all your attempts to show differently are just lies or misinformation.

Attacking "unethical" outlets just cause they have a different politics or believe in diversity of gaming is unethical in of itself. I read the OP-ED after September from Polygon. You know what it says for every OP-ED at the end of it? That the opinions shown in the article are not Polygon's. And that is one example that I know off. Since Intel pulled off their ad funding from Polygon, or was it them

http://www.polygon.com/2014/11/17/7235801/game-criticism-ideology-gamergate-and-they-live

Guess what it says on the pic: OPINION. The end says :"The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, Polygon as an organization". In my eyes you are nothing more than a cancer willing to silence everyone that has a different opinion.
Want more proof that your entire movement is tainted? HEre it is:
http://www.polygon.com/2014/8/28/6078391/video-games-awful-week. Again an OP-ED. Time and time again you and your cohorts have done nothing more than attack people for daring to:

1) be women in a male-dominated industry
2)

attack everyone who has a different opinion as if games were something sacrosanct.

Both sides are guilty of that,I've had plenty of Anti GGers attack me and other people just for having a different opinion so it's not the sole work of GamerGate.

Congratulations. You PROVED Jack Thompson right. You proved everyone who had a stiffy against gamers right. And it is all on YOU.

Okay now you've lost me here....how does a internet group prove Jack Thompson and company right?Alright I've got back home from work so let's see what he have here...

who cares about their editorial content? if they want to write an editorial defending jocial justice or blaming the jews for 9/11 i couldnt care less

when they push lies as news, i care, when they hold close relationships with the individuals they are covering, i care, when they take money for positive press, i care, when they try to use their position to push politics into gaming i care

So, again, what do you think of people pressuring websites to alter their editorial content? You think pressuring developers into changing their content is censorship, so we're all just wondering if you'll be consistent with your views. So far, all you've done is sidestep it with GamerGate nonsense you all love parroting over and over and over without anyone asking.

(Sighs)....Once again,letting potential sponsors and advertisers know just how much of a ass the people they're working with are is not censorship.

I'm done with this crap,you people can have your petty little fights.I'm washing my hands of all of this GamerGate nonsense.

Ok im going to make it in simple words GamingBlaze. The amount of harassment thrown to Zoe Quinn shows that we are IMMATURE. That we view games as sacrosanct for some stupid reason. We proved him right when the first harassment campaign started against her and Anita Sarkeesian. There was a bloody videogame ffs about beating her up. He could have safely said :"See they are violent". That simple fact proved.

Oh and having a different opinion is being an ass. No GamingBlaze you are an ass. Everybody is entitled to their opinion. As you believe that having a different opinion means being an ass in your eyes, in my eyes you are a cancer for the community. So again Congratulations, nobody is taking us seriously anymore. I hope you are freaking happy.

Edit: I do apologize for insulting you. But this entire thing is tainted. Stop GG and maybe people will stop seeing as nothing more than misogynists.

And he would be wrong,generalizing a entire group based of the actions of a minority is something I dislike.

And what else is new?I've been insulted left and right on multiple forums over this crap.You wanna talk about immaturity?Look no further than the people who are on your side.I'm a cancer?Really???

[Edit]:I missed the part where you apologized but my point still stands.

Oh dont worry the people on my side who harass other people are scumbags, just like the ones on your side. I never said that my side didn't have issues. What I am saying is that your side has bigger issues than mine. At least I call out people from my side and say that what they are doing isn't right. So here goes "nothing":

EVERYBODY WHO HARASSES IS A SCUMBAG IN MY EYES, REGARDLESS OF IDEOLOGY.

My side?
No fuck that noise,I'm tired of having to explain every fucking time that I don't and never have supported GamerGate.People like you have constantly tried to push me into their camp because you take a "us vs them" to the extreme.

So no,you nor anyone else don't get to label me just so I can be a "enemy",fuck that shit.

Then how about you stop parroting the crap they spew? Maybe then people will stop pushing you that way. Think for yourself for a minute, because if you are not a GGer than you are either a neutral, which I applaud, or you are one of us (one of us, one of us, one of us). So if you are not on their side, why would you spew their rhetoric? And that is an actual question

Or and this may surprise you....I can agree with some points from both sides while not being neutral(since I want nothing to do with this shit anymore).Shocker right?I can think that games journalism should be more professional without supporting GG.You people need to seriously grow up and realize the world isn't black and white.

Anyway this is the last time I'm going to talk about this topic,all of you(GG/Anti GG supporters) are some of the most immature,hateful,amoral,and hypocritical people I've seen on the net.

Here is a really good link why GG can never work out, without even touching the tainted roots, attacking the very thing GG purports to stand for:
http://www.polygon.com/2014/11/17/7235801/game-criticism-ideology-gamergate-and-they-live

And I am not hypocritical I told you. I called out my side when they pulled that shit. I would be willing to have a debate with GG if they weren't so bloody bad at having a discussion. They parrot the same "evidence", the same thing over and over and over. And amoral I am not, I know where my morality lies, immature not really, not anymore and hateful, well no. You gotta do some bad shit to get on my hate list. I dont hate GG, I just dislike GG's immature inability to see the bloody truth.

 

[Loonyyy]

Isn't that the old joke, though? That what men are really afraid of is that another man will treat them as badly as they treat women?

I hadn't heard that one, but I've seen it more than once. It's funny fucking with people like that though.

I think GTA would need to be funny or insightful to be good satire. When it's not funny or not insightful, it's pretty bad satire. At the very least from that character sheet, the joke is transphobic stereotypes, and the insight is hate speech. Count me out.

I somehow doubt it's good, either. I have fun with GTA games, but I kind of roll my eyes at a lot of the "satire."

I haven't seen much from GTA V I'd call good satire either. I think the series is very hit and miss with it. Personally I found GTA IV much more interesting with the perspective on immigration and the American Dream, but then I'd get interrupted with "Cousin, you want to go bowling?"

I'm sorry Roman, whatever people say, the stupid minigames have never been fun. It's not as bad as going to the gym in San Andreas, but if you like me less for not doing it so I can't have your rewards I'll be irritated.

IIRC, AvP's last game was refused classification prior to the R rating for the high impact violence and dismemberment, but they refused to make changes and the game was sold with an MA rating, 15+. Australian Gamers don't have much faith in the governments understanding of technology and games (And that goes further with Ministers Stephen Conroy and Malcolm Turnbull, Communications ministers who don't understand the internet).

Wait, what? They refused classification, no changes were made, and they sold it anyway?

I'm fairly sure that was how it went down. It was recently after the L4D 2 fiasco. At least in my circle, we were also pissed at the review score that "Good Game" a series on the public, government station ABC gave the game a worse score, specifically citing the disappearing bodies etc, after mentioning the whole censored edition stuff. It felt like they as what amounts to government employees, were rubbing the salt in after the fact, rather than the obvious point that the game was worsened by government interference.

IIRC, the devs of AVP said they weren't changing it, they just wouldn't bother with Australia, and we changed our tune. It didn't inspire confidence in the Review Board. I think the escapist posted a couple of stories on it, they're probably still lying around somewhere.

Well, for what it's worth, in America they just buy the games for their kids. And "don't you tell me how to raise my kids" is a very common phrase.

It's the same here. You see the parents going to the register loaded up with the latest CoD and the backlog, as well as whatever else. Of course, if you got caught doing the same with cigarettes or alcohol, the situation would be quite different.

Australia is clearly censoring it. Anyway, if you're interested (for the context), you can look on IMDB for "porky's." The cover isn't like, totally dirty, but considering what Wal-Mart covers up, it's hilarious that this was stocked, on a lower shelf, outside the closed system of the electronics department, and didn't bring up a 17 or older flag at the register.

Yeah, I checked the cover. I think it's another great example of how these stores are willing to do the most visible, but least effective effort with these issues, while affecting their bottom line the least.

Damn you Australian censorship, I wanted to look at that jpg, not the other one.

 

[Callate]

Except te evidence in question isn't disputed, despite it not bringing the ruination of Marvel.

In other news, a disease that only kills 50% of its sufferers is no longer a deadly disease.

Lack of any actual power, you said. Your standard. Your failure.

Hey, you changed your profile! Awesome! Still doesn't make my statement false, so I'm not sure what you think you proved.

Aside from shifting around a few badges, my profile, including my birth date, hasn't changed in... I don't know. Four years? The only statement it relates to is your mistaken assumption that I wasn't old enough to remember the seventies. But it says a lot that you couldn't even be bothered to click a link in the Escapist itself to check whether your assumptions were correct.

Because you said so?

You, too, are capable of doing research, rather than trying to be pithy and making conclusions without evidence. You only need go as far as the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund's page for that one. The same people who are using the CCA's seal in their work, now, because that "powerless" agency you disregard actually still serves as a reminder of what can go wrong for a lot of artists working today.

Assuming, of course, that actually being right is more important than assuming you're right and moving on.

I'm not sure anyone's sharing a common reality with you.

Bother to check, you might be surprised.

Am I to take it that censorship is okay if it only happens to a few items, then? I'm trying to find some consistency here. But even then, only one game has not been stocked. A whopping total of one game. If one game is censorship, why not four?

All of the games I mentioned are still available, in their original forms. Are you even reading any more? You've moved from "making games unavailable to adults isn't censorship" to "publishing games in slightly altered forms, with the originals still available, is", and you think I'm the one who's inconsistent?

The year after the ESRB was put into place, Mortal Kombat 3 was released. The year after the CCA was put into place, Incredible Science Fiction ceased publishing. By some accounts, because the head of the CCA had it in for the publisher.

By some accounts. You want evidence, but provide rumour and speculation.

Everything I've said can be found if you bother to look, but first you would have to consider the possibility that you might be wrong.

Here's one source; if you wish to dismiss it out of hand, there are others.

Judge Charles Murphy (administrator of the Code) said that they would have to change the astronaut from black to white if they wanted it to be included. This was not part of the Code at the time. Feldstein and Gaines felt that Murphy was just deliberately messing with them (again, Gaines felt that the Code was designed specifically to put him out of business).

If all I offered was rumour and speculation, it would still be more than mere contradictory opinion.

That doesn't address the statement that it's still censorship. To the contrary, it seems to make it acceptable that individual stores don't stock a game, since you can still buy the game and give it to your kids.

The factors those behind the campaign have given for removing the game from the shelves at Target/Kmart give no indication that they wouldn't remove it across the board if they felt they had the ability to do so. The reasons groups like the ESRB give for the ratings, their mission statements and so forth, give no suggestion that they seek to remove particular titles or content from general availability entirely, nor do their actions. Their stated purpose is to inform potential customers of the content of their purchases, a purpose they are largely successful in fulfilling.

It's as though they were different, in spite of shallow attempts to pigeonhole both as "censorship".

Some, like Fry's, do, actually, but that's beside the point. That (incredibly rare) AO rating was given by someone whose job was to assess its content, not by a random person shopping in an entirely different department second-guessing that rater.

Censorship is different when you're okay with it is the only takeaway I'm getting here.

That's quite the determined narrowness you're showing, then.

As you can't be bothered to so much as offer a solid definition of censorship to contradict, I don't think I'm going to keep attempting to jump that hoop.

Oddly enough, adding more words doesn't seem to add any content to your replies.

Ironically, posting to these forums five times as often doesn't seem to add much content to yours, either.

I've gotten better responses to mine those who were actually reading them, rather than looking for places to insert "no, it isn't" in a reply. Including people who disagree with me, some of whom I've had quite interesting and broadening exchanges with. You are the lonely exception.

But they're censorship bodies. Is this an appeal to authority? Your entire argument was "you know what else isn't government censorship?" When questioned on another body that met the same criteria, you decided it was totes different because ponies. You've made a bunch of excuses, but by the standards set forth, if you were being honest and consistent, these would be censorship bodies. At the point that you're selectively okay with censorship, you lose the moral high ground over people who are okay with this case.

I've been completely honest and consistent. I've offered reasons for differentiation between different bodies, and you've dismissed them "because ponies". Whereas by your "arguments"- or, rather, the same argument repeated ad nausuem because you fail to notice multiple attempts to address it- amounts to it being accurate to label someone who wants to keep alcohol out of the hands of toddlers a temperance campaigner.

Further, your insistence that I'm "okay" with censorship- if that's how you insist on defining it- coming from the likes of an ESRB or MPAA, is one more on a growing stack of glaringly incorrect assumptions that you pulled out of nowhere. If you care (all evidence to the contrary), I make the assumption, given the near universality of ratings systems in modern states (which you insist on calling censorship, having again failed to define your terms), that most modern societies prefer to have some manner of ratings in place for many forms of media- and that it is preferable that those ratings be put into place by organized bodies of qualified people with rules and petitions for appeal in place, rather than loose crowds of angry, ill-informed strangers. That doesn't mean I "approve", merely that I consider it a lesser evil.

For the umpteenth time, a rating system issued by a qualified body with an appeal system is different than a product pull of a legal product brought about by a mob (especially in addition to that already existent rating system). A group that makes games unavailable for purchase is different than one that does not. Your equation of the two is a failure of your vision, not mine.

My original point was merely that whether a body or an action fit the peculiarly narrow definition of "censorship" some are attempting to use as though it were a meaningful point of argument, it could still be harmful. I've also made a pretty good case for that- again, regardless of whether you can be bothered to see outside the shell of your ill-founded assumptions.

At this point, I have no reason to believe that I couldn't say, "Well, one is a variety of brine shrimp, and one is one of the moons of Jupiter" and still have you respond "They're both censorship! Censorship, censorship, censorship!" Believing you're right is more important than reality, and I've wasted quite enough time.

Incidentally, it's dishonest to say that an ad-hoc mob is the arbiter here. Target is the one in that position.

Yes, Target/Kmart's managing company made the ultimate decision. I believe that decision was a mistake; I think the petitioners are not likely to reward the company, and some game-purchasers will punish it. I also feel it was an ethical lapse, and rather a cowardly one. On the former point, time will tell.

But without that mob, there's no indication Target would have made this decision. And if an arbiter is "one who decides what is right, good, and proper", it was that mob that made the decision GTA V didn't fit that description. Target, if their statement is any indication, merely decided that failing to heed that decision would be bad for their bottom line.

Now if you'll pardon me, I have other concrete walls to beat my head against.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

When the likes of Gamestop/EB Games doesn't stock it, then I'll give a shit, HELL the executives sare probably wringing their hands with glee, all set for an; 'Only sold here!' kind of ad campiagn. They're gonna make crazy money.
Target's the kind of thick burks that put R18+ games in the 'toys' section of their catalogs.

As an Aussie though, I haven't bought a game locally (within the country at least) for over 4 years now. Fuck the arbitrary price hike we Aussies have to put up with, the UK can have my money.

 

[Loonyyy]

I think I worded that a bit forcefully. I'm in agreement with you about the Not Your Shield stuff, my contempt for that particular hashtag and the people who fill it is hard to contain.

Not that I blame you. It's been less than twelve hours since I've seen it used to justify the notion that SJWs are the real bigots.

Yeah, I read some similar stuff too. There was a rather nasty argument where Ultratwinkie got banned, where he insisted that Jux was some sort of a racist, or ignoring racism in game journalism or development, which was the same shit. Ironically it meant he had to invoke institutionalised and societal racism, which tend to not be GG's favourite talking points. Unless it suits them, in which case I guess they're happy to use them to try to pretend they're somehow more valid.

It's particularly telling that they had to beg and lie to get people onboard in the first place. And then they're like "look, they hate these things, too!" I mean, there are women who are dismissive of women's rights, blacks who are opposed to black rights, and gays who are opposed to gay rights. But like I said, whenever I see #notyourshield, it's almost always something like outrage at the "gamers are dead" articles. Something untrue, except in the echo chamber.

Exactly. And whenever someone finds me a gay person who's against gay rights, or black person against black rights, or women against women's rights, it's almost always because they went to a significant effort to find it.

My local University paper published an article where they had a gay man argue against gay marriage. The closest thing to an argument in it was that he personally wasn't going to use it. Solidarity is for other people I guess. They deliberately ran a for and against article where they found the one bastard who'd sell out his fellows. Right over the page some shit about the Liberal and Christian societies on campus. Since then, I've taken to correcting every issue of this magazine I come across in common rooms. Fight the power.

I think I quoted you in the big reply where I also touched on this, but I think the video is one of the least problematic things Rich has said or done about women.

I don't usually follow him, I find a lot of the YT personality crowd creepy, and it gets worse in tech spheres. The cult-like following of Linus or Logan is creepy, even when I like their content. And the concept of unboxing that ends up being their filler makes me want to smack sense into people. I think I did see a bunch of videos hosted by him on networking as part of University coursework.

He's routinely criticised "fake" girl gamers with little criteria outside of appearance (which does make the images he chose kind of funny, but still), asked what girls "expect" in terms of harassment, and routinely gone after "feminazis" for mild or even imaginary issues.

I'm not suprised. They tend to go together. These are the good girls. These are the good blacks. Don't make waves. Pull your pants up. Don't be too this. Don't be too that. Don't show affection in public, because we don't like your affection. If people had a better understanding of history they'd understand how bigotted that is, and how disgusting the way that powerful groups try to enforce their preferred traits on disempowered ones, and how it's about resisting any real change. And any complaining is too much, which is why it always breaks down into riots, which are then also condemned by the same scummy people.

He recently put up a video where he said a lot of people are surprised he's pro-woman because he doesn't have a shrine of Anita Sarkeesian in his place or something to that effect.

I haven't met a woman yet who knows of Anita Sarkeesian. I've met a lot of guys who say they're pro woman, and what they tend to mean is that they're not as bad as say, the Republican party or that they'd like to fuck women. That's not even worthy of a consolation prize in my book.

Howabout because his videos are dickish to women routinely?

An awful lot of misogynists are regularly suprised by this. Or how women aren't attracted to them when they complain about bitches and sluts and teases, and when they're exclusively interested in big titted harem animes and schlock.

Not to mention, this is the guy who couldn't even say Anita shouldn't be harmed because harming someone is wrong. He instead said it was because she was irrelevant--something he sort of undermined with his recent video promoting a petition to stop her from being involved in a game she isn't involved in.

Rich has been really disgusting of late. T&A shots of video game characters is probably the least of it, though.

Thanks for the read in. The image is emblematic of a problem of self-awareness amongst geek circles and their treatment of women to my mind though. I think I overestimate some people though. For a counter, I'd consider George Bush Jr's statements on the Garner decision. I don't think for a second that W cares about black people or Garner, Kanye West has the final word on that one. But that's a perfect example of political savvy, because opposing going forward on prosecution isn't a winning step, it's one that alienates black voters, and is obviously counter to the way the system is meant to work. And it's not as if it going to trial means anything, the officer would still get off free. It's the perfect way to sound like you're in support of something, without doing anything, and ending up with the same result.

I can't imagine this going well. Especially since Rich relies on a lithpy gay voith to make his strawman arguments.

Oh yay. I love that shit. Some of these people need to learn with a kick to the groin. I do get a grin when these people do this in a way though. They're just so stupid, and so intolerant, that they can't help it slipping through in examples of blatant bigotry.

Hey! As an American I'm offended!

...well, not really.

We went there too, and we've had the temerity to put asylum seekers from the region in concentration camps after we made their countries more fucked up. Still, I think many people have become annoyed at the default discussion of politics being American, and the American attitude towards policing the world when they can't even get their own shit together. Islam denigrates women but the body has a way of shutting rape pregnancy down. Americans want to tell me about censorship when they're still after Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, and imprisoned Chelsea Manning.

I also notice a lot of it comes from people who have likely never been openly discriminated against. I can't speak to your friends, obviously, and my view is mostly American, but still.

That's very true. And I think the American perspective here is particularly important, because here Australians were saying that the harrassment was unrealistic because it happens in a lower amount here, or New Zealand. It was exactly the same thing in reverse, American women have a problem with sexist street harrassment, and Australian women say that it's obviously wrong because it's a little different here so ignore them. Instead of getting the American perspective on an American issue, they ignored it.

I just want some consistency. Not "feminism is poisoned because perception" from people who complain that we totes have Gamergate wrong because you can't judge them based on public perception. Or the "bad apples" argument, where bad apples from one group prove the movement is bad, and bad apples from another don't prove anything because ponies.

I was personally more annoyed by the "Third Party Trolls" line that floated around, while simultaneously there was a thread complaining about fucking Mike Cernovich being doxxed for being GG(Where in the name of ethical journalism, I was slandered), and constant shit about supposed "Antis" in the megathread etc which always comes back to anyone who is anti-GG, and the downright hypocritical response that these threads got considering how this shit started.

And I snipped the spoiled stuff for length, but a couple of things that really do bug me in all that are the notions that "journalistic ethics" should derive from a group who has so routinely lied, and more specifically how unevenly they apply it. I haven't seen one Gamergater complain about the article on the Escapist dealing with this issue showing a clear bias by editorialising.

I definitely agree. The lack of understanding of these ethics is a big problem. I think a large portion of the JE line came from people insisting at the beginning that the Zoepost was newsworthy and should have been reported on, and complaints that figures like Ben Kuchera thought the thing should be shut down (Which it should have been. The early posts in that thread really should not have been tolerated). A bizarre request for Daily Mail, gossip rag reporting on dodgy sources and asking for harrassment to be allowed to continue has nothing to do with ethics. Since then at least the claims have expanded, but mostly into "I hate the Gamers Are Dead" articles, and complaints about SJWs.

And lo, did the social justice wars begin.

I'm going to be the first one down aren't I? Damnit, if only the Australian government hadn't censored my ability to purchase a large caliber semi-automatic rifle designed specifically for killing in large numbers.

Since it's Star Wars season, I think we should go with Yoda: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6aD-m7Cw84

"Begun the Social Justice War has!"

 

[Something Amyss]

I hadn't heard that one, but I've seen it more than once. It's funny fucking with people like that though.

Brings me back to high school.

I haven't seen much from GTA V I'd call good satire either. I think the series is very hit and miss with it. Personally I found GTA IV much more interesting with the perspective on immigration and the American Dream, but then I'd get interrupted with "Cousin, you want to go bowling?"

GTA IV really just bored me. And that may have come down to its status as a dating simulator.

IIRC, the devs of AVP said they weren't changing it, they just wouldn't bother with Australia, and we changed our tune. It didn't inspire confidence in the Review Board. I think the escapist posted a couple of stories on it, they're probably still lying around somewhere.

That's screwed up if true.

It's the same here. You see the parents going to the register loaded up with the latest CoD and the backlog, as well as whatever else. Of course, if you got caught doing the same with cigarettes or alcohol, the situation would be quite different.

The elephant in the room. You shall not address it.

Yeah, I checked the cover. I think it's another great example of how these stores are willing to do the most visible, but least effective effort with these issues, while affecting their bottom line the least.

Damn you Australian censorship, I wanted to look at that jpg, not the other one.

Yeah, these companies don't seem to care much. But in fairness, neither do the people who complain.

Yeah, I read some similar stuff too. There was a rather nasty argument where Ultratwinkie got banned, where he insisted that Jux was some sort of a racist, or ignoring racism in game journalism or development, which was the same shit. Ironically it meant he had to invoke institutionalised and societal racism, which tend to not be GG's favourite talking points. Unless it suits them, in which case I guess they're happy to use them to try to pretend they're somehow more valid.

Daaaaamn. I wasn't even talking here.

Exactly. And whenever someone finds me a gay person who's against gay rights, or black person against black rights, or women against women's rights, it's almost always because they went to a significant effort to find it.

Which in no way is a commentary on the actual ranks. I'm reminded of the ever-controversial Keith Olbermann asking "where are all the black people?" of the Tea Party, and the responses were generally "look in this picture of a thousand angry white people. There's one over there, somehwere."

My local University paper published an article where they had a gay man argue against gay marriage. The closest thing to an argument in it was that he personally wasn't going to use it. Solidarity is for other people I guess. They deliberately ran a for and against article where they found the one bastard who'd sell out his fellows. Right over the page some shit about the Liberal and Christian societies on campus. Since then, I've taken to correcting every issue of this magazine I come across in common rooms. Fight the power.

I've actually seen black people call other black people "uppity niggers" with the basic assumption that the black people must have done something wrong, not so much based even on their behaviour. And hell, you don't have to leave this board to watch gays throw other gays under the bus.

I don't usually follow him, I find a lot of the YT personality crowd creepy, and it gets worse in tech spheres. The cult-like following of Linus or Logan is creepy, even when I like their content. And the concept of unboxing that ends up being their filler makes me want to smack sense into people. I think I did see a bunch of videos hosted by him on networking as part of University coursework.

A couple years ago, RTU kept showing up in my feed. And at that point, he made more than a few videos talking sense. But a decent point on how he's changed his content is that he went from saying things like "no matter how simple you make PCs, some people can't be bothered, so consoles make sense" to "I AM SO ANGRY IF YOU DON'T HAVE EXCLUSIVES MICROSOFT NOBODY WILL BUY YOUR CONSOLES CONSOLES ARE DEAD!!!!!!!!"

Keep in mind, this is a dramatic reenactment, but he always sounds butthurt to me these days.

I'm not suprised. They tend to go together. These are the good girls. These are the good blacks. Don't make waves. Pull your pants up. Don't be too this. Don't be too that. Don't show affection in public, because we don't like your affection. If people had a better understanding of history they'd understand how bigotted that is, and how disgusting the way that powerful groups try to enforce their preferred traits on disempowered ones, and how it's about resisting any real change. And any complaining is too much, which is why it always breaks down into riots, which are then also condemned by the same scummy people.

It's probably just a coincidence that the good ones all agree with me.

I haven't met a woman yet who knows of Anita Sarkeesian.

I still agree with Mr Sterling on this one. Had gamers not had a tantrum over her, virtually nobody would have heard of her. So I'm not surprised, really.

An awful lot of misogynists are regularly suprised by this. Or how women aren't attracted to them when they complain about bitches and sluts and teases, and when they're exclusively interested in big titted harem animes and schlock.

It amazes me how often people who exhibit prejudicial behaviour play the wounded party when called on it. I don't know if you watch The Daily Show, but earlier in the year they had a clip where KKK members pulled this.

Thanks for the read in. The image is emblematic of a problem of self-awareness amongst geek circles and their treatment of women to my mind though.

Can't argue there. There seems to be a large lack of self-awareness in geek communities. On a related note, my GF found this line a while back, which I'm reminded of:

people say big bang theory isnt what nerds are like well i just watched a new ep and like

yep the nerds being lewd and sexist to the conventionally attractive female, being unpleasant to the neuroatypical person, that underlying racism to the one non white friend and generally having that superiority complex

like thats my experience with nerd culture

Americans want to tell me about censorship when they're still after Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, and imprisoned Chelsea Manning.

It's funny watching people whiplash on that. Because we hate the gummit spying on us, but we can't stand snitches. Or something. But seriously, dude, this is more important than civil rights, domestic spying, or government overreach. This is about a video game I can't buy in two chains owned by the same company.

That's very true. And I think the American perspective here is particularly important, because here Australians were saying that the harrassment was unrealistic because it happens in a lower amount here, or New Zealand. It was exactly the same thing in reverse, American women have a problem with sexist street harrassment, and Australian women say that it's obviously wrong because it's a little different here so ignore them. Instead of getting the American perspective on an American issue, they ignored it.

Hey, it's never a problem until it happens to me.

Well, unless it's video games.

I was personally more annoyed by the "Third Party Trolls" line that floated around, while simultaneously there was a thread complaining about fucking Mike Cernovich being doxxed for being GG(Where in the name of ethical journalism, I was slandered), and constant shit about supposed "Antis" in the megathread etc which always comes back to anyone who is anti-GG, and the downright hypocritical response that these threads got considering how this shit started.

Or the "false flags." It seems were are to believe that all harassment of GG is bad and legit, while all harassment of anyone else is fake and probably staged. Or they do go the extra step and justify it.

I definitely agree. The lack of understanding of these ethics is a big problem. I think a large portion of the JE line came from people insisting at the beginning that the Zoepost was newsworthy and should have been reported on, and complaints that figures like Ben Kuchera thought the thing should be shut down (Which it should have been. The early posts in that thread really should not have been tolerated). A bizarre request for Daily Mail, gossip rag reporting on dodgy sources and asking for harrassment to be allowed to continue has nothing to do with ethics. Since then at least the claims have expanded, but mostly into "I hate the Gamers Are Dead" articles, and complaints about SJWs.

Well, SJWS are inherently unethical. Or something. I don't know, it doesn't particularly make sense to me, but the faults probably mine. I'm looking for consistency.

I'm going to be the first one down aren't I? Damnit, if only the Australian government hadn't censored my ability to purchase a large caliber semi-automatic rifle designed specifically for killing in large numbers.

Don't you wrangle dangerous animals regularly? I admit, I only know facts about Australia I learned from Paul Hogan movies.

 

[Something Amyss]

Ah yes...the whole"if you disagree with me you must be against X rights" argument.

I mean, if you don't mind not actually sticking to what either of us have said, yeah.

That's pretty damn arrogant of the both of you to assume that the people in NotYourShield are against black,gay,and women rights.

It's pretty damn dishonest to make that connection.

You claim to not be a part of Gamergate, but if you're willing to lie to protect them, it makes no difference. That disingenuous streak that seems to run through the most vocal of apologists is what makes the concept of "ethics in journalism" such a sham.

 

[Something Amyss]

In other news, a disease that only kills 50% of its sufferers is no longer a deadly disease.

You haven't even demonstrated 50%. You've offered rumours.

Lack of any actual power, you said. Your standard. Your failure.

You made a positive claim in the first place, that they could ruin a company. Your failure.

The only statement it relates to is your mistaken assumption that I wasn't old enough to remember the seventies.

Which I didn't say. I said the odds were against it. And since I did check your profile before the original post....

But it says a lot that you couldn't even be bothered to click a link in the Escapist itself to check whether your assumptions were correct.

Yeah, it says that you're being dishonest.

You, too, are capable of doing research, rather than trying to be pithy and making conclusions without evidence.

Conclusions you attribute to me. There's a difference.

Bother to check, you might be surprised.

Bother to check the things that aren't evidence? Okay, sure. Hey, they're still hearsay.

All of the games I mentioned are still available, in their original forms.

And so is GTA V.

Everything I've said can be found if you bother to look, but first you would have to consider the possibility that you might be wrong.

The problem isn't that I might be wrong, the problem is that you're making claims like "according to some." You may full well be right that, according to some, these things happened. Doesn't make it true. There are four different accounts in the Bible of the resurrection.

Judge Charles Murphy (administrator of the Code) said that they would have to change the astronaut from black to white if they wanted it to be included. This was not part of the Code at the time.

Your link doesn't make an A to B. Quite likely because such an actual link couldn't be established. But someone feeling that they were targeted doesn't prove that the code had any power other than that which was self-enforced.

If all I offered was rumour and speculation, it would still be more than mere contradictory opinion.

No, it would still be a conspiracy thoery.

The factors those behind the campaign have given for removing the game from the shelves at Target/Kmart give no indication that they wouldn't remove it across the board if they felt they had the ability to do so.

You mean kind of like Clinton and company with AO games. So what?

It's as though they were different, in spite of shallow attempts to pigeonhole both as "censorship".

It's kind of ironic, since it's your shallow definition of censorship that causes this problem, and you're struggling to distinguish them because you want it to be different.

As you can't be bothered to so much as offer a solid definition of censorship to contradict, I don't think I'm going to keep attempting to jump that hoop.

And now you shift the goalposts. Weird how a new definition is needed when your complaints would apply here.

Ironically, posting to these forums five times as often doesn't seem to add much content to yours, either.

Thank God I'm not the one who keeps complaining about it, then. It sort of looks like you don't have any cogent argument.

I've been completely honest and consistent.

Good one.

Further, your insistence that I'm "okay" with censorship- if that's how you insist on defining it- coming from the likes of an ESRB or MPAA, is one more on a growing stack of glaringly incorrect assumptions that you pulled out of nowhere.

Again, you misrepresent me. I have asked for clarification, I have told you how your words read, I have even said that I don't think that's actually what you mean, and yet you claim I assume something to the contrary. Kind of weird, considering you're complaining I'm not reading your posts.

If you care (all evidence to the contrary), I make the assumption, given the near universality of ratings systems in modern states (which you insist on calling censorship, having again failed to define your terms), that most modern societies prefer to have some manner of ratings in place for many forms of media- and that it is preferable that those ratings be put into place by organized bodies of qualified people with rules and petitions for appeal in place, rather than loose crowds of angry, ill-informed strangers. That doesn't mean I "approve", merely that I consider it a lesser evil.

People prefer it. Doesn't make it not censorship, just like people being okay with Target in your initial statements. Deferring to another body doesn't mean it's not censorship.

For the umpteenth time, a rating system issued by a qualified body with an appeal system is different than a product pull of a legal product brought about by a mob (especially in addition to that already existent rating system). A group that makes games unavailable for purchase is different than one that does not. Your equation of the two is a failure of your vision, not mine.

And the CCA is different, and state bans are different, but they're still censorship.

My original point was merely that whether a body or an action fit the peculiarly narrow definition of "censorship" some are attempting to use as though it were a meaningful point of argument, it could still be harmful. I've also made a pretty good case for that- again, regardless of whether you can be bothered to see outside the shell of your ill-founded assumptions.

You mean the ones you've made up or altered.

And you know what, if your point is solely that they can still be harmful, so can the MPAA, ESRB, or any other censorship body. Meaning, again, so what?

Believing you're right is more important than reality, and I've wasted quite enough time.

Honey, you're projecting. Hell, that goes right back to your original argument. You're trying to compare the CCA, something you claim had the power to financially ruin major publishers (despite that being a baseless conspiracy theory) to a corporation opting to not stock a single game. And I know that you think your argument is totes different, but that's kind of the point. Your argument comparing the two was horrible, broad, and vague. By the time we get to "self-regulated markets are censorship," which is what the CCA was, you're including other self-regulating bodies (such as voluntary ESRB compliance) and self-policing. Otherwise, it's special pleading. IT's worse if the argument is "they can be bad, because of this," because any of these have the potential for abuse.

Yes, Target/Kmart's managing company made the ultimate decision.

And I don't care about the rest. You're factually wrong.

But without that mob, there's no indication Target would have made this decision.

Kind of like the ESRB. Or Parental Advisory labels. Or the MPAA. Without "the mob," those wouldn't exist. Especially strange, since Australians are still dealing with actual censorship.

Incidentally, I checked the Fry's Electronics thing. Some people claim they stock AO games. Others claim they don't. Looking online, you can filter for AO, and you get one result--RE6, which is rated M and even label so in the picture. I'm not really inclined to believe this is true.

 

[Something Amyss]

Encarta has it as "the suppression or attempted suppression of something regarded as objectionable". So yeah, it is censorship. The government doesn't have to be behind it.

You can still buy GTA V. You haven't demonstrated it's suppression or an attempt at suppression. They didn't go after all stores or retailers or petition the government. They threatened to boycott a store. Hell, if you want to consider this suppression, any boycott is censorship.

 

[Elijin]

Its hard to get behind this notion when
a) Grand Theft Auto 5 is still sold in Australia
and
b) Retailers choosing not to stock something isnt censorship.

Encarta has it as "the suppression or attempted suppression of something regarded as objectionable". So yeah, it is censorship. The government doesn't have to be behind it.

Thats like rocking up at my house, finding I dont like the beer you drink and thus dont have it, and claiming the beer is censored. The beer still exists. The beer is still freely available to purchase at the majority of reasonable venues. I just dont have the beer for you. You cant get the beer here. Your beer is in another castle.

Its not being suppressed, its just not for sale in a shop which would consider videogames to be probably not even half a percent of their sales.

 

[Loonyyy]

GTA IV really just bored me. And that may have come down to its status as a dating simulator.

Ugh, the contacts list was a pain. Getting calls from random characters to do boring side stuff that you're penalised for not doing. And it turns out there's neat rewards for going through all the boring history building with each of them to maximum likeness.

That's screwed up if true.

Googled it, this one gives an overview. Rebellion refused to make a censored version, and the Review board collapsed like wet tissue paper. That game has you, the player, removing spines, throats, heads, and is far more graphically violent than say, L4D 2. Additionally, one of the complaints against L4D 2 was that the enemies are infected humans, whilst of course, AVP has you dismembering actual, screaming humans as opposed to shooting gibbering zombies.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/aliens-vs-predator-game-ban-overturned-for-ma15-australian-release/story-e6frfro0-1225812391001

Of course, the other reading is that they didn't backpedal, and just made a mistake on the first pass. Which still doesn't inspire confidence, and considering the nature of the violence, invites questioning of their previous decisions.

It's the same here. You see the parents going to the register loaded up with the latest CoD and the backlog, as well as whatever else. Of course, if you got caught doing the same with cigarettes or alcohol, the situation would be quite different.

The elephant in the room. You shall not address it.

I forgot. Games have influenced no-one ever, and thus it doesn't matter if we ignore the age restrictions. That's why I play all my games stoically, with no emotional involvement whatsoever. Can't say I've had fun yet, but at least I haven't been aggressive.

Which in no way is a commentary on the actual ranks. I'm reminded of the ever-controversial Keith Olbermann asking "where are all the black people?" of the Tea Party, and the responses were generally "look in this picture of a thousand angry white people. There's one over there, somehwere."

Haha, that's a classic.

I've actually seen black people call other black people "uppity niggers" with the basic assumption that the black people must have done something wrong, not so much based even on their behaviour. And hell, you don't have to leave this board to watch gays throw other gays under the bus.

It's pretty disappointing really. And it's more disappointing how eager some people are to find the exceptions just to excuse their behaviour. But of course, society isn't unjust, and it isn't a majority that's unjust. It's just a few bad apples, which is why gay people can marry, women make the same as men and their rapes are punished effectively and with zeal, and the black people are arrested for drug use at a prevalence indicated by their use, and never shot without justification by Law Enforcement.

A couple years ago, RTU kept showing up in my feed. And at that point, he made more than a few videos talking sense. But a decent point on how he's changed his content is that he went from saying things like "no matter how simple you make PCs, some people can't be bothered, so consoles make sense" to "I AM SO ANGRY IF YOU DON'T HAVE EXCLUSIVES MICROSOFT NOBODY WILL BUY YOUR CONSOLES CONSOLES ARE DEAD!!!!!!!!"

Keep in mind, this is a dramatic reenactment, but he always sounds butthurt to me these days.

Ugh, I can't even be bothered with the console vs PC debate. Apart from the elitism, the snobbery, and the general flaminess of it, there's always the undercurrent of competing to spend money, and I just can't get that invested in my capitalism and consumerism. These are elements of day to day life I tolerate, I don't celebrate spending money and being screwed while doing it. If they're going to fuck me, they should wine and dine me first. I'm cheap, I'll go for goon. Delicious goon. $16 dollars for 4 litres of primo cask wine, vintage 2014.

It's probably just a coincidence that the good ones all agree with me.

Subjective. Clearly all the good ones agree with me.

I still agree with Mr Sterling on this one. Had gamers not had a tantrum over her, virtually nobody would have heard of her. So I'm not surprised, really.

I've only recently seen Sarkeesian threads pop up that weren't written by people opposing her with an ax to grind. Of course, they do it in the middle of "Sarkeesian says sexism against men is impossible" "More damning evidence that Sarkeesian is a fraud" etc. I agree with her more often than not, and my attitude is kind of meh? She's certainly not popular because millions of people like her content on it's merits. It's because some people can't react to her with anything but nastiness, pettiness, obsession or bigotry.

It amazes me how often people who exhibit prejudicial behaviour play the wounded party when called on it. I don't know if you watch The Daily Show, but earlier in the year they had a clip where KKK members pulled this.

I think I saw that one. It's pathetic how many people refuse to stand up beside their behaviour. They have some mythical racist in their head, some Nazi or KKK member, and they figure as long as they're not as bad as that, they can make as many "Fried Chicken" jokes, talk about "Cotton Picking fingers" and call protesting against the murder of black civilians "Savagery". I used to like PETA and the Westboro Baptist Church because I felt they acted as examples of how not to do things, but it seems that people just calibrate their moral compass to be less bad than that guy.

Can't argue there. There seems to be a large lack of self-awareness in geek communities. On a related note, my GF found this line a while back, which I'm reminded of:

people say big bang theory isnt what nerds are like well i just watched a new ep and like

yep the nerds being lewd and sexist to the conventionally attractive female, being unpleasant to the neuroatypical person, that underlying racism to the one non white friend and generally having that superiority complex

like thats my experience with nerd culture

That's a good one. The other one that cracks me up is the "Nerd Blackface" line. It's like, god, don't you see how offensive that shit is? Most nerds could wish to be the cast of TBBT. They're intelligent, with degrees in STEM, and make large amounts of money most of which is disposable, and still manage to spend most of their time eating Chinese take-out and playing Halo and paintball. And, even though they're leery, and have unresolved issues with women, they still end up partnered with conventionally attractive women who put up with their unattractiveness and lack of self-awareness. Apart from Sheldon who gets the weird one, because people who are different belong together, don't they Cupid-me?

It's funny watching people whiplash on that. Because we hate the gummit spying on us, but we can't stand snitches. Or something. But seriously, dude, this is more important than civil rights, domestic spying, or government overreach. This is about a video game I can't buy in two chains owned by the same company.

It's like the Journalistic Integrity bit. The amount I care about that is comparatively little. While obviously there are some problems (Just not one that GG has found), it's small fries compared to say, a group of media outlets owned by one entity using their clout to run an attack campaign against one political party for it's own ends, and to pervert the course of the election of the Australian government. I understand people who do care, but some perspective would be nice. It's not Nazis. If it were Nazis, they'd be dead for saying that. I'm much more sympathetic to figures within the industry talking about it, because, suprise, they know way more, and it also affects them directly. I think it was Eurogamer's policy stuff regarding trips for exclusives etc I was reading, it was a great inside look at how the PR machine for publishers work. A day comped at a hotel, spent riding ATVs and messing around, and also some previews.

And I wish the freedom guys would stand up for Assange and Snowden. And how Manning is imprisoned for blowing the whistle on a war crime and mass murder, I'll never know. "Free Speech" until you do something useful with it.

Or the "false flags." It seems were are to believe that all harassment of GG is bad and legit, while all harassment of anyone else is fake and probably staged. Or they do go the extra step and justify it.

And of course, none of this started with harassment.

Well, SJWS are inherently unethical. Or something. I don't know, it doesn't particularly make sense to me, but the faults probably mine. I'm looking for consistency.

I wouldn't even mind inconsistency so long as they picked something worth fighting for, and a target worth fighting. At least their rage at Gawker is a start on that, even if how that relates to game journalism I don't know (Even if they own Kotaku), and how anything they do at Gawker is journalism I don't know, since it's mostly reposting lazily shit they read on other outlets and reviews etc, which is op-ed. The closest to regular journalism that game journos get most of the time is interviews and previews and industry events, and the last two are still impressions and editorial content as well as straight reporting.

Don't you wrangle dangerous animals regularly? I admit, I only know facts about Australia I learned from Paul Hogan movies.

I did just kill a spider in the bathroom with a broken beer glass. I then placed it in a very manly fashion in a rubbish bin filled with hair nets, hair dye and conditioner before avoiding my taxes.

 

[144_v1legacy]

Note: although it isn't "censorship" per se that kept Target from stocking GTA V, this petition is the correct consumer response. It shows that no, Christian fundamentalists aren't their only customers (if that's true) and that Target may have made an error in judgement.

This will only work if the petition has enough signers/is worded well. Target choice not to stock was a free one based on consumer response. Maybe they'll choose to restock if there's enough reverse consumer response.

Somehow, I don't think it'll happen. Can we cut Target some slack? Religious nuts are crazier than us. Let them have this battle. Target gets to make them happy. You weren't going to buy a videogame from them anyway. They get to feel like they accomplished something, and maybe they'll stay out of actual, important issues.

 

[Something Amyss]

Ugh, the contacts list was a pain. Getting calls from random characters to do boring side stuff that you're penalised for not doing. And it turns out there's neat rewards for going through all the boring history building with each of them to maximum likeness.

Yeah, it felt like too much of a chore to get all the bonuses and the likes, especially when they seemed to program the game to choose the worst times to nag me about it. I don't much like nagware in any game, mind. A friend of mine got killed last night because Brucie (I think) called him up in GTA V online at the wrong moment. Wouldn't be so bad if the phone wasn't mapped to the A button. In any case, at least we don't have to take him to see Kat Williams. I tried picking up a prostitute last night because some people were whining that you don't even get health for prostitutes anymore (with regards to the Target petition, and spoilers: you do), and I drove up alongside a prostitute and honked my horn, and five seconds later it told me I could honk my horn to get a prostitute. This shit is ridiculous. She was already in my car asking me to go somewhere private. I thin, at this point, I've successfully demonstrated I know how to wrangle a prostitute.

Saints Row has done this in the last couple games, too, combined with the constant tutorial crap where it takes up like a fifth of the screen to remind you you can do something that you did like five seconds ago.

Of course, the other reading is that they didn't backpedal, and just made a mistake on the first pass. Which still doesn't inspire confidence, and considering the nature of the violence, invites questioning of their previous decisions.

Yeah, neither version of that exactly fills me with confidence. Then again, the fact that it is a censorship board in the first place doesn't really do that.

I forgot. Games have influenced no-one ever, and thus it doesn't matter if we ignore the age restrictions. That's why I play all my games stoically, with no emotional involvement whatsoever. Can't say I've had fun yet, but at least I haven't been aggressive.

Well, good. But if you ever got angry at anything, we know video games would be to blame. Which is why we treat them with such seriousness.

But to further the point, one of the things I loved about working retail was basically that I couldn't sell an M-rated game to a minor. I couldn't sell it with permission. But even if the kid handed an adult the money, the adult bought the game, and the adult handed the kid the game, I was obliged to make that sale. This is such a Lawful Evil policy it drives me nuts, and it wasn't even just one store. I couldn't imagine someone trying that with tobacco or porn.

It's pretty disappointing really. And it's more disappointing how eager some people are to find the exceptions just to excuse their behaviour. But of course, society isn't unjust, and it isn't a majority that's unjust. It's just a few bad apples, which is why gay people can marry, women make the same as men and their rapes are punished effectively and with zeal, and the black people are arrested for drug use at a prevalence indicated by their use, and never shot without justification by Law Enforcement.

Well, of course. The police must have been justified.

I don't know if you've seen this, due to your geographical location, but even as we're dealing with Ferguson, there was a riot in Keene, NH. Swat was called, the bearcat John Oliver mocked was used (And for the event he was mocking, Pumpkin Fest) and....Well, it was a bunch of white frat boys, primarily, who did the rioting. And this is local to me, being only about 30 miles away, so I'm watching people complain about these rioters having their lives ruined because they're facing penalties from their college. And people complaining that other folks have been charged.

Meanwhile, we're being told that black people rioting in Ferguson proves how black people are thugs and animals, and how the peaceful protestors are complicit, but it's totes not racist and the fact that we as a nation don't condemn white people for rioting is just...I don't know, coincidence?

I keep asking myself who Gamergate thinks its fooling, but then I look at people who say it's unfair to "ruin someone's life" for committing crimes and posting them on Facebook, then turning around and saying that it was right to shoot Michael Brown because he had committed a crime, and I think...well, a lot of people might be fooled by this, because we're already willingly suspending disbelief.

Ugh, I can't even be bothered with the console vs PC debate.

I don't really care that much, but I thought it was a good point he made a couple years ago. No matter how idiot proof you make the tech, some people can't be bothered. And I'm the same way. No matter how simple you make, say, gardening, I'd rather buy my produce at the store. No matter how simple you make cars, I'd rather have someone who knows what they're doing deal with it. No matter how simple you make PCs, I'm still in business maintaining computers for local businesses because they can't be bothered. I don't curse these people for not caring, but rather understand they're busy enough they'd rather pay me to do it.

And then he turned into a frothing idiot because he can't justify owning an Xbone and a gaming PC. It's not like the world has changed. If anything, there's more demand for simplified boxes than ever, and that's why we have a bunch of people jumping on Steam Machines. And even those are probably too complex for a lot of people.

I don't really care in the sense of who has the superior experience or the douchebaggery, but I think it's a decent point.

Subjective. Clearly all the good ones agree with me.

Truth is on my side!

I've only recently seen Sarkeesian threads pop up that weren't written by people opposing her with an ax to grind. Of course, they do it in the middle of "Sarkeesian says sexism against men is impossible" "More damning evidence that Sarkeesian is a fraud" etc. I agree with her more often than not, and my attitude is kind of meh? She's certainly not popular because millions of people like her content on it's merits. It's because some people can't react to her with anything but nastiness, pettiness, obsession or bigotry.

She's a rather innocuous, bland critic who is only an issue because the people who want her to shut up keep bringing her up. And ironically, if she is the self-promoting con artist they claim she is, they're feeding the trolls.

Even funnier, followed her a bit before she started doing the TVWiVG thing, more than I do now. Mostly because I find she works better in small doses. I probably wouldn't watch the VG series at all if people didn't keep making demonstrably false claims about her and the series. She's just too boring to care much. And the thing is, I'm not convinced her critics are watching her, either.

I think I saw that one. It's pathetic how many people refuse to stand up beside their behaviour. They have some mythical racist in their head, some Nazi or KKK member, and they figure as long as they're not as bad as that, they can make as many "Fried Chicken" jokes, talk about "Cotton Picking fingers" and call protesting against the murder of black civilians "Savagery". I used to like PETA and the Westboro Baptist Church because I felt they acted as examples of how not to do things, but it seems that people just calibrate their moral compass to be less bad than that guy.

I don't know, PETA has been tied to terrorism and while I don't think anybody in WBC have been charged with such an event, they've physically obstructed and even laid hands on the people they were protesting. Neither of these are legal, so they're not exactly good choices for examples.

I will defend WBC's general right to speak out against people like me, though.

That's a good one. The other one that cracks me up is the "Nerd Blackface" line. It's like, god, don't you see how offensive that shit is? Most nerds could wish to be the cast of TBBT. They're intelligent, with degrees in STEM, and make large amounts of money most of which is disposable, and still manage to spend most of their time eating Chinese take-out and playing Halo and paintball. And, even though they're leery, and have unresolved issues with women, they still end up partnered with conventionally attractive women who put up with their unattractiveness and lack of self-awareness. Apart from Sheldon who gets the weird one, because people who are different belong together, don't they Cupid-me?

Even Amy's a sex maniac who is only "unnatractive" in the Hollywood sense. In almost any other series, she'd be the girl the main character was supposed to get together with in the end because they're really right for one another and if she just shook her hair out right she'd be pretty and....whatever the rest of that is. I think I just threw up in my mouth.

But yeah. Nerd blackface. Or a total lack of self-awareness.

It's like the Journalistic Integrity bit. The amount I care about that is comparatively little. While obviously there are some problems (Just not one that GG has found), it's small fries compared to say, a group of media outlets owned by one entity using their clout to run an attack campaign against one political party for it's own ends, and to pervert the course of the election of the Australian government. I understand people who do care, but some perspective would be nice. It's not Nazis. If it were Nazis, they'd be dead for saying that. I'm much more sympathetic to figures within the industry talking about it, because, suprise, they know way more, and it also affects them directly. I think it was Eurogamer's policy stuff regarding trips for exclusives etc I was reading, it was a great inside look at how the PR machine for publishers work. A day comped at a hotel, spent riding ATVs and messing around, and also some previews.

And I wish the freedom guys would stand up for Assange and Snowden. And how Manning is imprisoned for blowing the whistle on a war crime and mass murder, I'll never know. "Free Speech" until you do something useful with it.

The cry for ethics wouldn't bother me so much if there was any truth to it. I mean, I get it. We prioritise things that are close to us. Gaming is important to a lot of people. I get that. But the boycott lists for GG didn't just include the people who behaved unethically, it included "SJWs" and "people I disagree with." That's not ethics, that's petitioning Target to remove GTA because it offends you.

These other issues are definitely more important, mind. I'm just saying what personally bugs me abut the idea of ethics in entertainment media. My position on ethics in gaming journalism is that I'm generally for it, but I don't think that GG is particularly fighting for it. Nor is it a huge priority. Even reviews no longer play much of a role in my purchasing decisions, now that I can watch unedited footage on YouTube.

But the thing that kills me is how routinely I'm portrayed as being against "ethics in games journalism" for not prioritising this as the end of the world, or for disagreeing on what actually constitutes ethics, or for simply fact-checking someone. It's even worse when folks do what GamingBlaze did in this thread yesterday, claiming that I'm accusing everyone who disagrees with me of being against X, when that's exactly what they're doing to others and what has been done specifically to me.

Even worse, I've written both news and media reviews for money in papers, and I'm familiar with standards and practice. Moreover, I know people who are well above my pay grade and deservedly so. They are better writers, critics, and editors than I can hope to be. A lot of the standards GG has put forth in terms of ethics, including the policing of op-ed material, are ridiculous and wouldn't be an issue in "real" journalism, which means that they're basically applying for special snowflake status. And when I see things like complaints about getting "free games" to review (side note: I do think these big events that companies put on are tacky, but you almost never see complaints about these same events happening in other entertainment fields), I don't think there's enough facepalming in the world. Oh, and games need different review standards than all other media.

But again, this has nothing to do with ethics or standards. That's why GG spent more time trying to connect Zoë Quinn to things than dealing with things that could be easily proved: the fact that Anthony Birch and Jim (effing) Sterling outed themselves should have been a big hint there.

And of course, none of this started with harassment.

Well, unless it was done by *gasp* ANTI-GAMERGATE!

Because people who aren't GG are harassing all the time.

I wouldn't even mind inconsistency so long as they picked something worth fighting for, and a target worth fighting. At least their rage at Gawker is a start on that, even if how that relates to game journalism I don't know (Even if they own Kotaku), and how anything they do at Gawker is journalism I don't know, since it's mostly reposting lazily shit they read on other outlets and reviews etc, which is op-ed. The closest to regular journalism that game journos get most of the time is interviews and previews and industry events, and the last two are still impressions and editorial content as well as straight reporting.

I'd rather have consistency over something stupid, TBH. Ideally, I'd rather have consistency over something that mattered. Maybe it's just the OCD speaking.

I did just kill a spider in the bathroom with a broken beer glass. I then placed it in a very manly fashion in a rubbish bin filled with hair nets, hair dye and conditioner before avoiding my taxes.

Did you quip at it, first?

 

[Something Amyss]

How am I lying again?I was just calling it like I see it,both of you don't like NYS and think they're against civil rights.

How am I lying again?

Like, you ask that, and immediately make the same claim that isn't true. I'm not even sure if you're serious right now.

Honestly you sound no different from the politicians who claim anyone who disagrees with them must be against freedom and shit.

As long as you don't mind the part where you have to make dishonest claims to get there. This is so massively hypocritical I'm not sure it isn't a joke. You keep complaining about others putting people in boxes, but that's literally what you yourself do and are doing it right now. This is the epitome of "it's okay when I do it," which is exactly what I brought up before.

Stop making up things to rail against. If you don't like my position, go after my position. Don't come up with some twisted fantasy version of it.

 

[Loonyyy]

Yeah, it felt like too much of a chore to get all the bonuses and the likes, especially when they seemed to program the game to choose the worst times to nag me about it. I don't much like nagware in any game, mind. A friend of mine got killed last night because Brucie (I think) called him up in GTA V online at the wrong moment. Wouldn't be so bad if the phone wasn't mapped to the A button. In any case, at least we don't have to take him to see Kat Williams.

All of the agree. And some of the bonuses are even cool. I think if you max out the leader of the Irish faction from the late game, you can install explosives in cars. I never used that, because you can't even grind out reputation, they tell you they just hung out with you and hang up.

I tried picking up a prostitute last night because some people were whining that you don't even get health for prostitutes anymore (with regards to the Target petition, and spoilers: you do), and I drove up alongside a prostitute and honked my horn, and five seconds later it told me I could honk my horn to get a prostitute. This shit is ridiculous. She was already in my car asking me to go somewhere private. I thin, at this point, I've successfully demonstrated I know how to wrangle a prostitute.

Yeah, it's not exactly a hidden secret.

Saints Row has done this in the last couple games, too, combined with the constant tutorial crap where it takes up like a fifth of the screen to remind you you can do something that you did like five seconds ago.

Saints Row 3 was so bad with this. The game had such little original content, as something nearing half the missions were side activities. And a bunch of them sucked or were too easy to screw up through chance (The tiger one and driving the celebrities around especially). And they got rid of the neat ones like the bodyguard gig.

I tolerated it more in 4 because it gave me the superpowers, and they made the game trivially easy, whilst still entertaining, but then they'd force you back onto the ship, for mech suit fights etc, which were tedious.

Well, good. But if you ever got angry at anything, we know video games would be to blame. Which is why we treat them with such seriousness.

But to further the point, one of the things I loved about working retail was basically that I couldn't sell an M-rated game to a minor. I couldn't sell it with permission. But even if the kid handed an adult the money, the adult bought the game, and the adult handed the kid the game, I was obliged to make that sale. This is such a Lawful Evil policy it drives me nuts, and it wasn't even just one store. I couldn't imagine someone trying that with tobacco or porn.

Yeah, it's pretty messed up. And gamers tend to resist any and all questions of restrictions, likely due to our history with Jack Thompson, the moral panic, and the constant threat of censorship and government intervention the internet has. But it still leaves me playing with a bunch of kids who've been raised by xBox Live and GTA screaming in my ear when I want to game online.

I understand the fear, but personally, as a gamer, I'd like to be seen as part of a mature adult audience, and that means taking responsibility for what happens in gaming. It's rather similar to professional responsibility. I've had a few interesting discussions on professional responsibility, my girlfriend studies pharmacy, and they're really strict on it, and on not defending people breaking the rules, and as an engineering student, nearing the end of my degree, there's a lot of emphasis on this too, as well as in some of the skeptical circles I frequent. Which I'm often shocked when contrasted with the Police force or the military, and the lack of professional responsibility, ethics and conduct.

Well, of course. The police must have been justified.

I don't know if you've seen this, due to your geographical location, but even as we're dealing with Ferguson, there was a riot in Keene, NH. Swat was called, the bearcat John Oliver mocked was used (And for the event he was mocking, Pumpkin Fest) and....Well, it was a bunch of white frat boys, primarily, who did the rioting.

I saw a couple of posts, I think by you, in another thread about it. It's pretty messed up.

And this is local to me, being only about 30 miles away, so I'm watching people complain about these rioters having their lives ruined because they're facing penalties from their college. And people complaining that other folks have been charged.

Meanwhile, we're being told that black people rioting in Ferguson proves how black people are thugs and animals, and how the peaceful protestors are complicit, but it's totes not racist and the fact that we as a nation don't condemn white people for rioting is just...I don't know, coincidence?

It clearly reflects badly on white people. Clearly I am a thug and an animal, and anything I say about my treatment or rights is irrelevant because of those other people who acted improperly.

I keep asking myself who Gamergate thinks its fooling, but then I look at people who say it's unfair to "ruin someone's life" for committing crimes and posting them on Facebook, then turning around and saying that it was right to shoot Michael Brown because he had committed a crime, and I think...well, a lot of people might be fooled by this, because we're already willingly suspending disbelief.

It could never happen to them. As long as white people are priviliged by society and the police force, they know it doesn't happen to them, and they'll keep blaming the individuals for what they did wrong. Because stealing cigars, selling loose cigarettes, or carrying a toy gun in a playground in a state with open carry as a child, is warrant for execution.

I don't really care that much, but I thought it was a good point he made a couple years ago. No matter how idiot proof you make the tech, some people can't be bothered. And I'm the same way.

I've always agreed with this sentiment. It's also a good deal cheaper. Yes if you know computer hardware well you could make a cheaper machine, or a better one, but most people don't. And consoles are easy to get into. I've been trying to get my girlfriend into more games, and the controller interface makes a lot of sense, even if it is less precise. I recently started showing her Skyrim, and she started with the controller, because the 3d camera controls or first person can take a while to learn, and once she understood the game a little better, she switched to the keyboard and mouse because they're more effective. But the arguments always end up being so toxic, and I've never gained anything by wandering in. I'm pretty sure I've contributed myself to that in the past, and it's embarrassing.

No matter how simple you make, say, gardening, I'd rather buy my produce at the store. No matter how simple you make cars, I'd rather have someone who knows what they're doing deal with it. No matter how simple you make PCs, I'm still in business maintaining computers for local businesses because they can't be bothered. I don't curse these people for not caring, but rather understand they're busy enough they'd rather pay me to do it.

And then he turned into a frothing idiot because he can't justify owning an Xbone and a gaming PC. It's not like the world has changed. If anything, there's more demand for simplified boxes than ever, and that's why we have a bunch of people jumping on Steam Machines. And even those are probably too complex for a lot of people.

I don't really care in the sense of who has the superior experience or the douchebaggery, but I think it's a decent point.

It is. I'm personally not a fan of exclusives, even if I understand them. They sell consoles, and console sales invite developer confidence, which means a bigger library. At the same time, it means I haven't played a contemporary Nintendo title, because I don't own a Wii, and I don't want one just for Skyward Sword, and I can't afford a Wii-U just to get the latest Zelda and Hyrule Warriors.

She's a rather innocuous, bland critic who is only an issue because the people who want her to shut up keep bringing her up. And ironically, if she is the self-promoting con artist they claim she is, they're feeding the trolls.

Even funnier, followed her a bit before she started doing the TVWiVG thing, more than I do now. Mostly because I find she works better in small doses. I probably wouldn't watch the VG series at all if people didn't keep making demonstrably false claims about her and the series. She's just too boring to care much. And the thing is, I'm not convinced her critics are watching her, either.

Couldn't agree more.

I don't know, PETA has been tied to terrorism and while I don't think anybody in WBC have been charged with such an event, they've physically obstructed and even laid hands on the people they were protesting. Neither of these are legal, so they're not exactly good choices for examples.

Oh, I agree. Personally, I liked them because they were so unlikeable. I hoped that they stood as some sort of example. For instance, maybe you don't personally believe in any orientation but straight, but when you're protesting others living that way and fucking with them, that's what you look like. You personally might not believe in eating meat or animal products or animal testing, but you sound like PETA when you get too out of hand. That's not to say they can't advocate for it, it's just nice that you don't even have to satire those things. Unfortunately people seem to decide that instead, as long as we're not as bad as this thing which is collectively decided as bad, then they're doing ok.

I will defend WBC's general right to speak out against people like me, though.

I won't. I personally am not a believer in free speech. I accept free speech as the best, though flawed way, of getting certain benefits, like government criticism etc(Which for some reason governments always fuck with), but I'm not a fan of hate speech, and I'm not a fan of the effect that it has collectively on the mental health of people, queer folk of all stripes in particular. I will never be convinced that there is any value to homophobic, or racist speech, or worse.

Even Amy's a sex maniac who is only "unnatractive" in the Hollywood sense.

Eh, I feel creepy talking about it, but I don't quite agree. She's got a different body type to the convention, more bottom heavy, and she's heavier. I don't think that makes her unattractive, but I think she's a bit more extreme than most films or television shows are willing to go. And I can't think of a way of phrasing that that's not leery or creepy.

In almost any other series, she'd be the girl the main character was supposed to get together with in the end because they're really right for one another and if she just shook her hair out right she'd be pretty and....whatever the rest of that is. I think I just threw up in my mouth.

As I call it: The Allison Hannigan.

The cry for ethics wouldn't bother me so much if there was any truth to it. I mean, I get it. We prioritise things that are close to us. Gaming is important to a lot of people. I get that. But the boycott lists for GG didn't just include the people who behaved unethically, it included "SJWs" and "people I disagree with." That's not ethics, that's petitioning Target to remove GTA because it offends you.

Particularly, it ended up with Jim Sterling on it at one point. Which is hogwash.

These other issues are definitely more important, mind. I'm just saying what personally bugs me abut the idea of ethics in entertainment media.

If it weren't in direct contrast with the harassment, and the content of the editorials they disliked, which called out bigotry, and misbehaviour amongst gamers, and stated the hobbies diversity, then I'd maybe be interested. But when the cries of Journalistic Integrity are coming out targetting the Gamers are Dead stuff, or Jim Sterling, or even the Devin Faraci piece which was thoroughly misrepresented, it's staggering. There is a very real and troubling problem with the way some of us act, and instead of caring about that and making gaming better, it's instead off to deliberately ignore it, try to get those people taken down, and pretend they hate us.

My position on ethics in gaming journalism is that I'm generally for it, but I don't think that GG is particularly fighting for it. Nor is it a huge priority. Even reviews no longer play much of a role in my purchasing decisions, now that I can watch unedited footage on YouTube.

I find the best thing to do is to use my brain. There are some source I don't trust, and the people I do trust have varying tastes and opinions, so I keep that in mind. I read Jim Sterling's reviews, even though I disagree with nearly all of his conclusions, because they're still entertaining, and still inform me of the details of the game. I understand his perception to an extent, and how that effects his judgement. Gamers have a long standing issue with this, and discussions of objectivity, and it's exacerbated by Metacritic, and publishers using it to determine bonuses etc.

But the thing that kills me is how routinely I'm portrayed as being against "ethics in games journalism" for not prioritising this as the end of the world, or for disagreeing on what actually constitutes ethics, or for simply fact-checking someone. It's even worse when folks do what GamingBlaze did in this thread yesterday, claiming that I'm accusing everyone who disagrees with me of being against X, when that's exactly what they're doing to others and what has been done specifically to me.

I'm not dealing with GamingBlaze. There's only so much parroting of GG whilst insisting they're not GG I can deal with. Their unironic invokation of the race card and the exact argument you elucidated above about making minority groups look bad doesn't help either. Good luck with that particular discussion. I'm not going to try to explain how siding with what started as a harassment campaign as a token minority isn't moral, and I'm not going to pretend the "minority" (I have encountered one too many sock puppets to take their shield status as a significant body with seriousness) status of them means that they're not accountable for siding with GG. They're disgusting because they're GG, and GG is disgusting. Being black, gay, trans, bisexual, a woman, or whatever the fuck, does not excuse the behaviour of GG, or this entire thing.

GG has a longstanding issue with discussions of representation of people belonging to minority groups, and that's why I characterise them as containign a lot of bigotted beliefs about those groups. And it's visible, amongst many of the prominent GGers I referenced in my rant. If you can stand alongside Cernovich, you're not anti-bullying, pro-trans, pro-gay, or pro-woman. And each of those figures has a similar list. And rather than this shit being shut down, we get the same shit about SJWs in the stupid Sarkeesian threads, and the complaints about editorials, and there's only so much I can pretend that they're about a journalistic integrity anything like real integrity.

And as small as the number of GGers is, the number of NYS members of GG is smaller (And inflated). If they really think that that represents the view of those groups, they're wrong. They're just putting them forward because they agree with them, and they're convenient. And the SJW stuff would be funny, if some of the supposed SJWs weren't also members of minority groups. It is of course, impossible that we could want diversity because we too would like representation. It's like arguing that Herman Cain represents black people.

Even worse, I've written both news and media reviews for money in papers, and I'm familiar with standards and practice. Moreover, I know people who are well above my pay grade and deservedly so. They are better writers, critics, and editors than I can hope to be. A lot of the standards GG has put forth in terms of ethics, including the policing of op-ed material, are ridiculous and wouldn't be an issue in "real" journalism, which means that they're basically applying for special snowflake status.

A writer for the Guardian was hit with it. They'd actually run it past their legal department and had been informed that there wasn't any need for disclosing contributing to Patreons or Kickstarters. Which is fucking obvious, because if we're to take this shit as said, contributing to Kickstarters, or the Patreons of various creatives, would imply some sort of extra relationship, instead of a new (Stupid) funding system. Am I not to trust Yahtzee now if he paid (And he has many times) a company for it's game?

And when I see things like complaints about getting "free games" to review (side note: I do think these big events that companies put on are tacky, but you almost never see complaints about these same events happening in other entertainment fields), I don't think there's enough facepalming in the world. Oh, and games need different review standards than all other media.

It's damned if you do, damned if you don't.

But again, this has nothing to do with ethics or standards. That's why GG spent more time trying to connect Zoë Quinn to things than dealing with things that could be easily proved: the fact that Anthony Birch and Jim (effing) Sterling outed themselves should have been a big hint there.

That's the impression more than a few of us have.

Well, unless it was done by *gasp* ANTI-GAMERGATE!

Because people who aren't GG are harassing all the time.

Because of course, people are divided into Gamergate and Anti-Gamergate, long before GG came along and made the distinction. Also, I'm not sure who Anti-GG is. Is it #StopGG? Is it Anita? Is it Zoe? Is it the targets? Is it the people who haven't joined any group, but dislike them, or criticise them? !GG is a large category. I've no trouble believing that there aren't people harassing GG, but I didn't draw the lines and make up sides, I just fell outside the circle GG cut for itself.

I'd rather have consistency over something stupid, TBH. Ideally, I'd rather have consistency over something that mattered. Maybe it's just the OCD speaking.

No, I get it. I've tended towards skeptical circles and the atheist communities because of my interest in philosophy, logic and argumentation(I was an outcast for a long time due to my interest in school and my performance.), but I've gradually drifted away, often because I can't stand their hypocrisy (T-Foot is scum. PZ Meyers is scum. He had a lovely little attack on Shamus Young, because he happens to be Christian and homeschools. Of course, his wife is a trained educator, meaning as he put it, they have a tiny class size, and superior resources, but that didn't matter. TAA is scum. Funny how the logic and decency bit broke down once they had to deal with people outside of the easy target of Creationism. It goes back to what I was saying about PETA and the WBC. It seems to make people lazy, not wary). Over time I've come to accept that most people aren't going to have the same standards, and especially, we all have different expertise. So I've grown to value intentions and values more. Particularly as the very well intentioned tend to be more open to changing their mind, and criticism than the very interested in logic and consistency crowd. I'm trying personally to make myself better intentioned, and less nasty, and I'm trying to value these things to encourage them in myself. So I take my toxicity and anger, and I direct it at targets that are without a doubt, deserving of it. It's easier than ending up in arguments with people, or having people you know complain that you're too cynical.

Did you quip at it, first?

Damnit, I knew I forgot something. "You call that a fang? This is a fang-well, no it isn't, screw you, die spawn of Arachne!"
There, much better.