Target Audience

[Something Amyss]

But of course, you've never expressed any close-minded or hostile views towards gamergate, it would be a smart idea to not lie about things that are on record. I'm using quotes to paraphrase, deal with it.

Paraphrasing generally doesn't insert new material, which you have done here. So you're not paraphrasing me, you're not quoting me, and it's rather ironic that you're accusing me of closed-minded views when you routinely predetermine what I mean and then twist what I say to try and force it. Like when you accused me of advocating child abuse.

Also, you say "on record," but whenever I ask you to back up your claims you stop replying.

As for words, then no, if anyone is free to pick and choose their own meaning, then yes, it's meaningless, because the point of words is to communicate, and if you redefine the word enough to where it no longer becomes

Have you ever looked at a dictionary? I would assume so. You know where they have those numbers, like 1. and 2. and so on? Yeah, those are multiple meanings. Even going by the dictionary, you can freely pick and choose. That's not the same as meaningless. It's also not the same as redefining the words, though language is an evolving, breathing thing and redefinitions are common. The fact that you're speaking with "redefined" language and syntax is enough evidence of that.

Not really. You see, the meaning behind the definition speaks to that of a feminist, even a true one, but the fact that GTA encourages violence against men too means that the people who wrote the petition were misguided, and ignorant, or simply uncaring, of the fact that it affects men to.

This speaks to someone who believes in real feminist ideas, but expresses them through an unhealthy mindset and filter, the same way you can have a perfectly well-adjusted person who reads the bible, and have another who will blow up school in the name of that same book. It's called a radical.

But that doesn't make them not a "true feminist" then. If they're misguided, then they may still believe exactly what you claim is "true feminism."

Consistency.

 

[Something Amyss]

No, a misguided radical and a well-adjusted believer of a set of ideals are not the same thing.

The closest you've come to demonstrating that they're "radicals" is to compare them to people who blow up buildings in the name of the Bible. That's disingenuous at best.

Also, I notice you've shied away from the proof of me being "on record" again.

 

[Something Amyss]

Thanks for making me dig through my post history because you can't be honest.

Your quotes don't match up with your claims, yet again. You have to switch the scope of your claims in order for them to line up. Also, I hope you notice that you were the one insisting on hostility against Gamergate, when I simply called it out on its crap. And you even trotted out a quote where I specifically said "largely." You really don't understand language, do you?

Give it time. It takes a bit to sift through the forums.

It's been a month since I last asked you to back up your claims. You still haven't.

As for the other part of the argument, you don't think they're radicals?

I don't think your "simily" is consistent with your argument. Or with your definitions. Or with the concept of belief.

To further it, I don't think you get to decide what a true Christian is. There are literally thousands of branches of Christianity that believe various things, and if one interprets the book as a reason to murder people, well, you can't really say they're any less Christian than someone who doesn't. There is plenty of violence and vague language and edicts of hate and even murder in the Bible. The people who turn it into a message of love are every bit as guilty of cherry picking as the people who turn it into a message of hate. Saying someone is a radical doesn't mean they're not a "true Christian," any more than your example here about "true feminism."

Even then, you have to make a logic leap to call this a feminist-specific issue after you just dictated the people involved aren't true feminists. All you have is non-exclusive terms that you jumped on, much like the radical in your example probably latched on to what was convenient in scripture.

 

[Fiairflair]

Really busting out the strong language in the sign off today, hey.

Not that I object (although on a side note: HEY! Australia matters! We're real people, even if we do speak funny and dress poorly), but the issue is probably better supported by a less colourful expression of opinion.

Whatever makes you feel better though, Grey.

 

[mecegirl]

while its sweet of Americans and the rest to care

I doubt they actually care, though. That's the thing. People keep bringing up other examples of actual widespread issues with games and nobody cares or cared. In fact, if people weren't tossing around the "f" word, I'm not sure this would have gotten the attention it did.

Maybe they do, maybe they don't. Peoples minds can be selective in ways that defy logic. So they may actually care while completely blanking out other issues. Possibly because of a known or unknown personal bias. Possibly because of ignorance.n

But on the topic of actual censorship. I think I may have only seen one thread on the topic of what's going on in India here, and I'm not even sure if any Escapist writers spoke of it. Either way it happened a good month ago and the site wasn't hit with multiple threads about the censorship there. The cynic in me has a few guesses why.

 

[Something Amyss]

But on the topic of actual censorship. I think I may have only seen one thread on the topic of what's going on in India here, and I'm not even sure if any Escapist writers spoke of it. Either way it happened a good month ago and the site wasn't hit with multiple threads about the censorship there. The cynic in me has a few guesses why.

That was one of the things I was referencing. The thread petered out at two pages, and there was a total of one person with a consistent position to their current one complaining about censorship.

Really busting out the strong language in the sign off today, hey.

Not that I object (although on a side note: HEY! Australia matters! We're real people, even if we do speak funny and dress poorly), but the issue is probably better supported by a less colourful expression of opinion.

Whatever makes you feel better though, Grey.

He's not saying Australia doesn't matter, he's pointing out the contradiction between our (US) ratings system, which forces self-censorship if someone wants in on the retail market, compared to a single company opting to not stock. Perhaps a better example would be the Australian ratings board, but since most of the people flipping tables are my fellow Americans, I'm guessing Grey was trying to point out that we have worse than this in our own back yard.

But, of course, that one lacks the ERMAGERD FEMINISTS thing that really set people off.

 

[Something Amyss]

If all you can do with your argument is tell me which words i can and can't use, then there's really nowhere we can go with this, is there?

Where did I say that?

If all you can do is say i can't call things things, even after trying to work with you on how you want me to set up the terminology, then really, you're not here to communicate, you're here to be difficult and to waste my time.

Honey, you can call anything anything you want. That wasn't the point and I suspect you know better.

To avoid another bullshit semantics argument with you, i'm going to make up words for them.

This isn't bullshit semantics, this is literally changing your entire argument.

It is the difference between someone who finds homosexuality gross, but accepts that these are people and they have the right to have sex with another consenting adult, even one of the same gender, and someone who goes and actively votes against gay marriage.

No, following your example, it'd be the difference between someone who votes against gay marriage and someone who goes out and beats the shit out of gay people. Both are active in their beliefs, they simply enact them in different ways.

And you still can't establish that feminists were involved.

By the way, why is it okay for Gamergate to boycott content they don't like, but not for "feminists?"

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

Snip

I think the fact that the majority of the female characters are passive is at least worthy of a double take.

I'm pretty sure people would've gotten just as pissed off if the petition had been 100% factual. Like Jim Sterling said, I'm pretty sure this is people just attacking GTA V because it's popular and it's naughtiness can be spoon fed to people looking for something to be pissed off about without having to do any research.

See above. Don't get me wrong I think it's stupid, but Target has every right to make this decision. I mean how is forcing someone to sell something they don't want to any different from forcing them to not sell something they do want to?

i dont know man you know im pretty blind to these tropes and shit, i dont pay attention to that, its entertainment afterall, i legitimately dont know if the game is sexist or anything

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

why dont we let the market decide if the game is bad or not?

Some companies would. Some companies won't. Also some do want to have a certain "image" about them. Its the fact that a petition was starting to get a lot of public approval so best to pull it now and look like the good guy and maintain the image. Besides the game is a year old and its shipped about as much as it was going to. The only one benefiting from this really is Rockstar because of all the publicity for their game thus possibly shipping more units.

Sometimes the "market" doesn't always get to decide. If this were an ideal world it would however this is not an ideal world. Still this isn't censorship.

like i said before, if it was a matter of image, if they wanted to pull all violent games to make the store more family friendly etc, i would be annoyed but i would understand it as a business decision

but no, GTA was targeted specifically, and the argument used to target the game was a complete lie, whenever you consider the game sexist or not, it absolutely does not encourage violence agaisnt women

 

[KazeAizen]

Some companies would. Some companies won't. Also some do want to have a certain "image" about them. Its the fact that a petition was starting to get a lot of public approval so best to pull it now and look like the good guy and maintain the image. Besides the game is a year old and its shipped about as much as it was going to. The only one benefiting from this really is Rockstar because of all the publicity for their game thus possibly shipping more units.

Sometimes the "market" doesn't always get to decide. If this were an ideal world it would however this is not an ideal world. Still this isn't censorship.

like i said before, if it was a matter of image, if they wanted to pull all violent games to make the store more family friendly etc, i would be annoyed but i would understand it as a business decision

but no, GTA was targeted specifically, and the argument used to target the game was a complete lie, whenever you consider the game sexist or not, it absolutely does not encourage violence agaisnt women

It was a PR move by Target Australia. A dumb PR move but a PR move none the less. That's all it comes down too. Whatever this was censorship is not the word I would use to describe it as many people are. It was simply a company trying to save its public image because of some stupid petitioners. Letting "the market decide" doesn't always get to happen.

 

[Azure23]

that doesn't make it any less morally wrong.

What is morally wrong about it?

I was pulled because a bunch of soccer moms found it morally offensive.

Replace "soccer moms" with "survivors of sexual assault and victims of the sex industry" and you might have something there. Is it really so difficult to imagine those types of people being sincerely offended by a game that tacitly encourages you to murder prostitutes (statistically one of the groups with the highest percentage of victimization, physically and sexually)?

Edit: just some other thoughts. Considering how livid a good many people seem to be over the supposed misrepresentation of GTA in the original petition, I'd think people would be better about not misrepresenting the petition itself. Time and time again I've seen people framing this as some sort of Parents Watch Association hit job of GTA, instead of what it is. And what it is a sincere (if slightly poorly worded) plea to not endorse behavior that has victimized and hurt the original petitioners.

Disclaimer: I bought GTA V, I played it, and I found it's female characters to be uniformly horrible. With the exception of maybe one grandma with terrible taste in men.

 

[Something Amyss]

Also i like how you quote feminists but not gamergate.

Perhaps it's because Operate Disrespectful Nod was directly tied to Gamergate and this petition wasn't directly tied to feminists. I mean, yeah, it's horribly biased of me to rely on things like facts because...wait, what?

Call me when you're not so blinded by loyalties and ready to drop the battleflag tots.

You know, I'm still waiting on your to back up those claims you made. And maybe you of all people shouldn't be so quick to complain about someone being "blinded by loyalties."

It's fine to say "i'm not buying this". It's not fine to say "you're not buying this either".

So, again, why is it okay when Gamergate does this? Why does a bunch of butthurt geeks on the internet get to dictate what content I choose to enjoy?

 

[Something Amyss]

It was a PR move by Target Australia. A dumb PR move but a PR move none the less.

How is it dumb? What corporation wouldn't choose the larger portion of their business in a boycott situation?

Replace "soccer moms" with "survivors of sexual assault and victims of the sex industry" and you might have something there. Is it really so difficult to imagine those types of people being sincerely offended by a game that tacitly encourages you to murder prostitutes (statistically one of the groups with the highest percentage of victimization, physically and sexually)?

Yes, but if you address it honestly, then the outrage looks kind of ridiculous.

but no, GTA was targeted specifically, and the argument used to target the game was a complete lie, whenever you consider the game sexist or not, it absolutely does not encourage violence agaisnt women

Hey, remember when you were telling people to stop being offended on X's behalf, and a bunch of Australians told you to do the same?

I really wish you'd practice what you preach.

 

[KazeAizen]

It was a PR move by Target Australia. A dumb PR move but a PR move none the less.

How is it dumb? What corporation wouldn't choose the larger portion of their business in a boycott situation?

Its just kind of dumb on their part as now its creating more publicity for the game and they'll lose out on sales to competitors. I mean I'm sure I would've probably done the same thing in their situation but out of this whole thing the only one that hurts for cash is Target.

 

[Something Amyss]

Its just kind of dumb on their part as now its creating more publicity for the game and they'll lose out on sales to competitors. I mean I'm sure I would've probably done the same thing in their situation but out of this whole thing the only one that hurts for cash is Target.

It's only dumb if they were a sizable part of the GTA market, and if that GTA market outweighs all the so-called "soccer moms." This is the only instance in which it "hurts" them cash-wise.

Can you demonstrate this is the case?

 

[KazeAizen]

Its just kind of dumb on their part as now its creating more publicity for the game and they'll lose out on sales to competitors. I mean I'm sure I would've probably done the same thing in their situation but out of this whole thing the only one that hurts for cash is Target.

It's only dumb if they were a sizable part of the GTA market, and if that GTA market outweighs all the so-called "soccer moms." This is the only instance in which it "hurts" them cash-wise.

Can you demonstrate this is the case?

Eh I can't really. GTA is a big game though and some people I know go out of their way to shop at Target to avoid giving money to things like Walmart. Still this whole thing got people talking about the game and its not even the "bad" kind of publicity. I think people with a brain just think its all kind of dumb while other people are crying censorship which it isn't. Again the only one that really benefits from all this is Targete's competition and Rockstar.

 

[Something Amyss]

Eh I can't really. GTA is a big game though and some people I know go out of their way to shop at Target to avoid giving money to things like Walmart.

You're not Australian, however. Australians here have claimed virtually nobody buys games at Target there, and someone even claimed that they represent a whopping 2% of retail game sales in Australia.

Again the only one that really benefits from all this is Targete's competition and Rockstar.

Target benefits by not losing customers over an infinitesimally small market share of a product they don't get a lot of demand or money for. This is compared to people who are potentially far more lucrative. It's unlike you'll see much of a sales spike elsewhere, either, unless Target really does represent a large portion of the market. So you're not demonstrating any real benefit for anyone else or any drawback for Target. Unless you count idiots trying to ban the Bible to make a "point" about censorship or whatever.

 

[mecegirl]

Its just kind of dumb on their part as now its creating more publicity for the game and they'll lose out on sales to competitors. I mean I'm sure I would've probably done the same thing in their situation but out of this whole thing the only one that hurts for cash is Target.

It's only dumb if they were a sizable part of the GTA market, and if that GTA market outweighs all the so-called "soccer moms." This is the only instance in which it "hurts" them cash-wise.

Can you demonstrate this is the case?

Eh I can't really. GTA is a big game though and some people I know go out of their way to shop at Target to avoid giving money to things like Walmart. Still this whole thing got people talking about the game and its not even the "bad" kind of publicity. I think people with a brain just think its all kind of dumb while other people are crying censorship which it isn't. Again the only one that really benefits from all this is Targete's competition and Rockstar.

Maybe they do in the States, but I'm fairly sure that Walmart does no exist in Australia. But even with the people here in the States places like Target are not the go to for gamers. Places like Target are good if there happens to be a sale, or if you are a parent picking up the newest AAA title for your child. But for gamers a GameStop (Or for Australia EBGames) works better. Even a media and tech store, so whatever Austraila's equivalent to a store like Best Buy, would work better. There simply is more stock at a store centered around media than an all purpose store like Target.

I mean, not judging you if you do, but do you shop for games at the US Target? Like as much as I prefer Target to Walmart who shops there for hardware and software of any kind on the regular?

 

[Something Amyss]

It's not ok when gamergate does this. I never once said it was. Read what i type please.

Which part? The part where you've defended Gamergate or the part where you've tried to dismiss this as not a part of Gamergate? Both are disingenuous.

That's exactly my issue, why do a bunch of butthurt geeks on the internet get to dictate what content i can enjoy?

If that's exactly your issue, you're saying you oppose Gamergate.

Which leads me to believe it's not exactly your issue. You only seem to have a problem when "feminists" do it. One group boycotts to eliminate content that they find offensive, and you attack people who are against it. Another group boycotts to eliminate content they find offensive, and they're clearly in the wrong.

You've spent something like a week now defending people who successfully dictated what content people can enjoy, so it seems VERY strange for you to now suddenly claim to opposed to the notion.

To the contrary, I've spent "something like a week" now watching you misrepresent people and try and shift the goalposts. Most of your argument was about feminists and true feminists, so even if this has taken a week it was in no way defending the boycott. However, I do seek consistency, and when you stick up for Gamergate but rail against the wicked feminists and both are boycotting to "censor" content, I look to reconcile those two.

I think in all probability, you only care about the one because "feminists"--in this case, women--were involved. This is by and large the Gamergate MO.

On the other hand, I support the right of the consumer to boycott, and I do so consistently. Neither the act of supporting the right to boycott--by which logic, I am also a Gamergate supporter--or pointing out that you're inserting feminism because of convenience actually constitutes defending the group that did it.

At least, no more than I've "defended" Gamergate or other groups I think are full of shit or even outright disgusting (WBC, Duck Dynasty, etc). You, on the other hand, defend one group and criticise another for doing the same thing.

 

[Something Amyss]

I mean, not judging you if you do, but do you shop for games at the US Target? Like as much as I prefer Target to Walmart who shops there for hardware and software of any kind on the regular?

In my neck of the woods, Target has often had better prices, a better selection, and for music, they've had the unedited versions of albums. I used to shop there a lot over Wal-Mart, though I'm also an American and can't speak to how the business is run on another continent. But Kaze may be in a similar situation. Even still, that doesn't make it relevant to Australia.