Target Audience

[mecegirl]

It's interesting how the regions can lead to different things. My nearest Target was roughly twice the size of the local Wal-Mart until they upgraded to a Super Wal-Mart or whatever (I think their inventory is over 9000 now?), and now they're somewhat larger, but not by much. Target and Best Buy both seemed to keep their prices lower than Wal-Mart, but Best Buy went out of business here (not sure if they're still around or not). We have a Gamestop, but it's a stone's throw away from Wal-Mart, which usually has slightly better prices on everything (so the trade-in would be the only benefit). But, I mean, our Target is a sizable one. I think Wal-Mart only gets away with worse prices because it's got like THE prime location to severe two cities and several dozen towns.

Our Staples is horrible, though. And the next nearest is too far to use reliably.

We still have Best Buys in Georgia. The closest near me is near the mall though, but the prices are really, really good, so I always stop by when I'm over that way. All the Walmarts in the Savannah area are out in remote locations, they are a lot easier to get to in Atlanta. And yeah Staples sucks, but for me it's convenient. It's weird how being an adult gives you so much time and yet not a lot of time at all. Like yeah I could ride cross town just for a few bucks off the price of something, or I can get what I want in a place nearby and go home.

 

[Something Amyss]

This isn't the consistency I'm looking for.

Move along.

Now bring Captain Solo and the Wookie to me!

Also, XD

 

[Kameburger]

Target Audience

Pro tip: They always mean, "me."

Read Full Article

This certainly made me lol, but it is certainly a case where people are right about it being bullshit, but wrong about why it's bullshit. Is it what the Nazis did? no. Admittedly as a society we need to stop describing everything we see as being Nazi-ish. We don't need to start every comment by calming down hyperbole to get to the point of a discussion, and the best way to do it is stop saying that we're doing things like the Nazis did. This is arbitrary and frankly a useless habit we get into as people to say that to try and make the other side feel inherently wrong for no real reason. Yes Hitler was a vegetarian, and I don't think vegetarianism is evil (for that reason).

What happened in the Target case was that a group, and lets stop being cute here, a group riding the recently popular push-button moniker of feminism, circulated a disingenuous petition targeting a year old famously infamous game to get attention. It worked and now you have people who feel like they have to defend themselves for enjoying a game that is now being publicly attacked for content that it doesn't have, and is being aided in that by a giant corporation that people generally trust. It's actually brilliant on the part of this group as the dominoes will all fall in the right place for them.

This groups biggest aim is tackling sexual violence against women, and particularly sex workers. But who is pro sexual violence? Now I have to seriously go into detail when I talk about this issue cause frankly if I'm going to be saying hey this group that is against sexual violence against women is disingenuous and lying to further their agenda, the implications of this make maneuvering around the issue far more complicated. This is probably the very reason target gave in to begin with because well target is a giant corporation and won't maneuver as well as an individual can. But as an individual we can be more careful (although we often decline the chance).

 

[Something Amyss]

What happened in the Target case was that a group, and lets stop being cute here, a group riding the recently popular push-button moniker of feminism, circulated a disingenuous petition targeting a year old famously infamous game to get attention.

Well, except for the "feminism" part. That was something that the "angry white male" crew jumped on, but wasn't part of the initial petition.

But who is pro sexual violence?

Define "pro." How many people rationalised sexual violence in light of this petition alone? Is that enough to count as "pro" or do they actually need to say "hey, I think sexual violence is awesome?"

I find it endlessly amusing that a certain type of gamer is raging about Target pulling GTA and calling it censorship, while that exact same certain type of gamer just so happens to the type to rage and demand Steam stop carrying games like Gone Home and Depression Quest.

Hypocrisy must be fun.

But it's totally not hypocrisy. When we ***** about women taking over gaming and complain about feminists and social justice warriors, it's a consumer movement. When someone bitched about the games we like, it's Nazi censorship, man! And we will uniroincally make "first they came" comparisons with no sense of self-awareness or scope. Because it's totally different. Totally different!

It's not hypocrisy! It about ethics! And journalism! And.... something.

And as we all know, misrepresenting something we don't like is ethical, while misrepresenting something we do like is totally unethical. And if they're going to commit such acts of censorship we should totally boycott them and threaten their sponsors.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Calling it censorship is not only wrong, it actually cheapens the word and the experiences of those who face actual censorship.

*citation needed*

Your complaints about the meaningless nature of the word (or even the concept) might mean something if you actually bothered to provide a reasonable foundation for what you think censorship means (or what you think it should mean and why).

Or is your comedy now based on arrogant presumption of fact?
(and just because you say it's 'truth time' doesn't automatically make it so)

I truly hope not, because that's the kind of pretentious, self-absorbed crap I'd come to expect from MovieBob (and why I stopped watching his stuff); not the people that normally make me laugh. Critical Miss is one of the main reasons I even bother visiting this site now.

C'mon, you're better than this.

EDIT: To avoid necro-bumps.

Spamming my inbox is a great way to guarantee I don't read what you have to say.

If you don't have the courage to address me in public, don't bother addressing me further. Any message I have from you is going to be deleted unread.

OH MY GOD, how do you do this? Not many people have ever pushed my buttons the way you do.
I have never come across someone so hell bent on ending every sentence in some condescending insult.

Zachary is a very well versed practitioner in passive-aggressive quote-spin and context twisting.
He ended up on my ignore list months ago after the second time he took my points completely out of context, and just resorted to poisoning the well to attack my character.

He didn't used to be that way; I have no idea what the hell got to him.

 

[Kameburger]

What happened in the Target case was that a group, and lets stop being cute here, a group riding the recently popular push-button moniker of feminism, circulated a disingenuous petition targeting a year old famously infamous game to get attention.

Well, except for the "feminism" part. That was something that the "angry white male" crew jumped on, but wasn't part of the initial petition.

Well it's kind of why I phrased it the way I did, but I don't think it's any coincidence that this came out when it did. That's not a conspiracy either, that's just identifying opportunism where it may or may not exist. Incidentally, you say that the "angry white male" crowd jumped on this but I would say that this is a chicken egg argument in that regard. I mean this petition is not in good faith and pretty bad in this regard on its own, but regardless there are going to be people who accuse its opposition of being misogynists that are at the very least ignorant to the experience of women. So in this way, you can say that they were labeled feminists by the angry white male patriarch society of evil white men, but what your insinuating this word could be divorced from this issue easily and while in concept I agree with you, in practice this is likely not to be the case.

But who is pro sexual violence?

Define "pro." How many people rationalised sexual violence in light of this petition alone? Is that enough to count as "pro" or do they actually need to say "hey, I think sexual violence is awesome?"

Those who would rationalize sexual violence in wake of this are not who I'm referring to, you can argue this, but what your essentially saying is "what about the rape sympathizers?" and I would argue there is a very small small minority of people on either side of this issue who give a damn about anything coming from someone like the kind you described.

What I'm saying is that there are two ways to be against this argument, one is to say that art should be left at the consumers discretion on whether or not to purchase it, or the far better argument that the very premise of this petition is flawed during many points and giving into these people simply says that lying about a games content because it serves your cause and your cause is good, is something that target and other large corporations will allow themselves to be complicit in. Never the less opposing an action because you reject the means, can often be spun as disagreeing with the cause itself. My implication is that there are few people who would make the argument that the cause is wrong and most people are taking issue with the means. Regardless, it is not going stop those from being labeled as misogynists.

[edit] I realize I used "never the less" one too many times lol, my bad. I have tried to correct this but I doubt it will be in time.

 

[Something Amyss]

Well it's kind of why I phrased it the way I did, but I don't think it's any coincidence that this came out when it did.

Look, that's part of the problem. A certain segment of the community immediately assumes that anyone who has issues with this sort of thing are feminists, or are tied with feminism, but the reality is that you have a fairly significant, vocal group of people who are against feminism and still dislike current treatment of women. I'm subscribed to a couple on YouTube even, who will go "ermagerd, fucking feminists" one week and then "h ow dare you treat women this way?" the next week. It's not improbable, unlikely, or even remotely questionable that this had abso-freaking-lutely nothing to do with feminism in any sense, other than a bunch of butthurt people who hate feminists or feminism have decided to lump it in due to convenience. People saying ERMAGERD IT MUST BE FEMINISM are about as accurate as me labeling you a Gamergater because you posted in the megathread.

You made a factually incorrect assertion of motive, one based on some pretty lazy reasoning.

Those who would rationalize sexual violence in wake of this are not who I'm referring to, you can argue this, but what your essentially saying is "what about the rape sympathizers?" and I would argue there is a very small small minority of people on either side of this issue who give a damn about anything coming from someone like the kind you described.

But now your argument is a non-sequitur. Nobody has to be "yay, rape" to be relevant to this issue, or the petition in question. Nobody has to say "actually, sexual violence is a good thing" to be at issue. And oddly enough, one can actually question the facts without being considered a misogynist.

I find your use of "never the less" less troublesome than your use of false equivalence, for the record.

 

[Kameburger]

Well it's kind of why I phrased it the way I did, but I don't think it's any coincidence that this came out when it did.

Look, that's part of the problem. A certain segment of the community immediately assumes that anyone who has issues with this sort of thing are feminists, or are tied with feminism, but the reality is that you have a fairly significant, vocal group of people who are against feminism and still dislike current treatment of women. I'm subscribed to a couple on YouTube even, who will go "ermagerd, fucking feminists" one week and then "h ow dare you treat women this way?" the next week. It's not improbable, unlikely, or even remotely questionable that this had abso-freaking-lutely nothing to do with feminism in any sense, other than a bunch of butthurt people who hate feminists or feminism have decided to lump it in due to convenience. People saying ERMAGERD IT MUST BE FEMINISM are about as accurate as me labeling you a Gamergater because you posted in the megathread.

You made a factually incorrect assertion of motive, one based on some pretty lazy reasoning.

Those who would rationalize sexual violence in wake of this are not who I'm referring to, you can argue this, but what your essentially saying is "what about the rape sympathizers?" and I would argue there is a very small small minority of people on either side of this issue who give a damn about anything coming from someone like the kind you described.

But now your argument is a non-sequitur. Nobody has to be "yay, rape" to be relevant to this issue, or the petition in question. Nobody has to say "actually, sexual violence is a good thing" to be at issue. And oddly enough, one can actually question the facts without being considered a misogynist.

I find your use of "never the less" less troublesome than your use of false equivalence, for the record.

I beg your pardon but would ask that you read what someone says thoroughly before you respond. I'm not going to sit here and shit fling with you because you're cherry picking my comments and I don't feel like I should have to rewrite what I already wrote. The rubuttles to your comments are in my previous post.

Feminism is a nebulous concept, and like it or not there are "feminists" who have ideas that do more harm then good.

Your point was if I'm not mistaken that there were people who attacked this decision to the point where they were defending sexual violence or rationalizing it. I responded by saying that I don't feel that people were getting to this point and that those who were are a vocal minority.

However I find your post insulting. You've attempted to mischaracterize my arguments by cherry picking them and using them out of context. And worst of all you've done this completely unprovoked. I didn't ask you. No never asked you to critique my reasoning and incidently I never attacked you. But you've called my reasoning lazy without refuting it, and you've accused me of making false equivalences and you didn't even point out what those were.
What are you trying to achieve here by saying these things to me?

Also you do this a lot. This isn't the first time you've used rather insulting comments with little substance at me for no reason. If you have a problem with me, then pm me. Otherwise please don't responsd. I'm done.

 

[Something Amyss]

I beg your pardon but would ask that you read what someone says thoroughly before you respond.

I would ask you to not assume I didn't because of convenience.

The rubuttles to your comments are in my previous post.

Then they are shit rebuttals.

Feminism is a nebulous concept, and like it or not there are "feminists" who have ideas that do more harm then good.

That's nice, but doesn't really address anything I said. Maybe instead of getting pissy at me for not reading your posts, try actually reading mine.

So, I'll try and do the opposite of just saying "my rebuttal is in the previous post." I'll spell it out, as that might actually be useful.

Yes, there are feminists who are harmful, stupid, wrong, or bad. That wasn't my issue. My issue, which was actually spelled out previously, was that you have no reason to tie this to feminists or feminism in any way, as there are plenty of non-feminists and even "anti-feminists" who take issue with things along the line of this petition, including violence against women and violence against sex workers.

This is why I brought up the Gamergate comparison. I could say your issues are because you're a Gamergate supporter, lumping you into a category I actually doubt you'd agree with. This is what you're doing. You're lumping this petition in with feminists, with no proof that there is any relationship beyond taking issue with the same idea. By that logic, you're a Men's Rights Advocate. Hell, you complained about the concept of being called a misogynist for disagreeing with the petition, but by your own logic of categorisation, it'd only be fair to lump you with with people who hate women.

And before you get upset at that, I'm not saying you are a misogynist. I'm saying that fair's fair.

Your point was if I'm not mistaken that there were people who attacked this decision to the point where they were defending sexual violence or rationalizing it.

My point was actually that precluding these people as the actual issue is foolish at best and dishonest at worst, and that the issue of "yay rape" was never on the table in the first place. That I pointed out these people was secondary to my point, more a point of clarification that you "cherry picked." Hello, irony.

However I find your post insulting.

You don't take the time to read or understand what I wrote, but you find it insulting. You know, you chastised people for doing this exact same thing in one of your posts on Gamergate, and it's kind of hypocritical to do so and then turn around and be insulted without reason.

You've attempted to mischaracterize my arguments by cherry picking them and using them out of context.

Context is still there for anyone to read. They can click on the handy-dandy link that is created whenever I quote you. What I did, instead, was shorten it to the relevant points I was addressing. Hell, I didn't even do that, since I referenced things you didn't say in the portions I quoted (and I'm still doing that). It's dishonest to accuse me of cherry picking because I didn't do a line-by-line rebuttal or include your entire text when tackling only portions.

And worst of all you've done this completely unprovoked.

Kind of like how you got offended unprovoked. How is this not "do as I say, not as I do?

I didn't ask you. No never asked you to critique my reasoning and incidently I never attacked you.

You posted on a forum accessible to any registered viewer and viewable by anyone with internet access. Most of all, you did it on a site that encouraged discussion value. Not only do you not seem to understand me, you don't seem to understand the very media which you used to express your opinion. I am entitled to respond to your argument, with or without your permission, so long as I'm not violating the rules of the board. If you think I am, mark me rather than complaining about irrelevant crap like this.

Also, no. You never attacked me. Nor have I attacked you, unless it is your stance that all criticism is inherently an attack.

But you've called my reasoning lazy without refuting it, and you've accused me of making false equivalences and you didn't even point out what those were.

Actually, I called your reasoning lazy and have refuted it twice now, both in the post where I called it lazy and this one, one that should be redundant. Either you're not reading my posts or you're being dishonest, and neither is particularly a point in your favour right now. I didn't explain the false equivalence claim, which perhaps I should have. However, since you're pulling the "I'm done here" card, I don't see as there's any practical purpose anymore.

What are you trying to achieve here by saying these things to me?

Which part? The part where I "refuted" the laziness claim and you ignored it, or the part where I noted false equivalence? The former was actually to get you to understand what was wrong with asserting this was feminism, and the latter was to point out your use of false equivalence. The former is more important, however (hence why my post was weighted heavily to it), and I dedicated a fair amount of time and number of words to explaining it. In fact, I dedicated over 400 words to it now, which is basically a small article. Kind of a shame, since A. you probably won't read it and B. I had to repeat myself so much to that end.

Also you do this a lot. This isn't the first time you've used rather insulting comments with little substance at me for no reason. If you have a problem with me, then pm me. Otherwise please don't responsd. I'm done.

Any "problem" with you appears to be a wholesale construction of your own design. I have no problem with you, but that does not immunise you from criticism. And if you cannot handle criticism on points where you have made incorrect assertions, perhaps public forums aren't appropriate for you. You are simply wrong to tie this to feminism, your counterpoint about people being pro sexual violence was wrong and disingenuous, and your claims that I have attacked or insulted you are ridiculous. It's unfortunate that i seems you're copping out, rather than dealing with these things, but do not try and play this up as an attack or an insult or me not reading you when you clearly couldn't be bothered to do the same to me. Twice.

If you're done, that's a shame. But mostly because you took umbrage rather than confront clear issues in your own thinking.

 

[sumanoskae]

I don't even like GTAs but this is problematic in one sense.

Imagine these guys removing a book, CD or movie from their shelves for some political or bigoted reason. The world would come down in flames.

But a game? Pffft. Who the hell cares?

I agree. This is not a big deal in the moment, but it's a bad precedent. And the fact that Rockstar are going to sell more units doesn't comfort me; I think GTA deserves more respect than being a popular taboo.

 

[Something Amyss]

I agree.

Yeah, it's not like the Dixie Chicks, for example, ever had their music pulled from the airwaves or stores. It's not like we've ever seen books pulled by consumer demand in a modern setting, or even Wal-Mart demanding artists and studios change their media or not be stocked by the media giant.

The funniest thing is how often the last one, infinitely worse than Target opting not to stock a CD, is, and nobody loses their heads like gamers have. And yet, somehow video games are the odd one out.

 

[sumanoskae]

I agree.

Yeah, it's not like the Dixie Chicks, for example, ever had their music pulled from the airwaves or stores. It's not like we've ever seen books pulled by consumer demand in a modern setting, or even Wal-Mart demanding artists and studios change their media or not be stocked by the media giant.

The funniest thing is how often the last one, infinitely worse than Target opting not to stock a CD, is, and nobody loses their heads like gamers have. And yet, somehow video games are the odd one out.

I would point out that video games are really fucking popular, and that you're on a forum about video games.

I am aware of the incident involving the Dixie Chicks, but I know many people who aren't, and I'm sure that the average citizen isn't going to even remember this happened by this time next year, if they even know now.

People aren't making as big a deal about this as you seem to think; you're just more exposed to the deal they are making of it because you're on a gaming message board.

By the by, the fact that this has happened before doesn't make the issue better, it makes it worse. Nobody self identifies as being poorly informed; you shouldn't be antagonizing people who are fundamentally on your side because they've only recently joined it.

 

[sumanoskae]

Wait, didn't you say earlier that you didn't know if the game was sexist or not?

He's also repeatedly told us not to be offended on behalf of X, and to ask X what they think, but has ignored that when it comes to Australians telling him they're not his shield.

This is not the consistency you're looking for.

This isn't the consistency I'm looking for.

Move along.

He didn't say the game was or wasn't sexist, he said it didn't encourage violence against women.

 

[sumanoskae]

Shit, double post. Sorry

 

[sumanoskae]

Say what you want about the ESRB, but at least it is predictable - once a rating has been given, the publisher knows where they can sell it. If need be adjustments can be made. Sadly, the moral outrage machete gang is less predicable - they can go on campaign over issues both real and imaginary. Tell me, what would cause more self-censorship for developers who wish to err on the side of caution - a formulaic age rating, or arbitrary outrage culture?

I think you bring up a very important point; more damaging than an official government sanction would be a culture of fear. Nobody should be able to twist arms like this. Jack Thompson may be out of the picture, but people like him are still around, and they won't hesitate to go for blood if they get the chance. Video games are safer than they once were, but the culture at large still doesn't place them in the same camp as other art forms, and a large section of the public would still be on board for using them as scapegoats.

The fact is that the industry still occupies kind of a precarious position; the AAA gaming world is growing increasingly inflated and unstable, and the culture as a whole isn't going to act as a safety net if things start to collapse.

If a bunch of movie studios collapsed tomorrow, there are plenty of people with lots of money who are interested in keeping the art of film alive. If the same thing happened to video games, I fear the powers that be would treat it like a vacuum of power; seldom few of them would have an interest in, say, preserving the master copies of classic niche games for sale later.

 

[Something Amyss]

I would point out that video games are really fucking popular, and that you're on a forum about video games.

That doesn't make the thing you agreed with any more true. That you're aware of the Dixie Chicks means you were agreeing with something you knew wasn't true. Holy crap, that makes this more absurd.

People aren't making as big a deal about this as you seem to think; you're just more exposed to the deal they are making of it because you're on a gaming message board.

I'm curious as to how big a deal you think I think this is.

This was an issue of people claiming that this wouldn't be tolerated if it was anything but video games. Something you added on to, by the way. This is factually incorrect, whether one person says it or a billion.

By the by, the fact that this has happened before doesn't make the issue better, it makes it worse.

Again, the "issue" here is the notion that this wouldn't happen with other media. That it has happened before makes this issue not true. And since you seem to agree that it has happened, there's not much room for discussion.

Anything else would misrepresent what I said.

 

[Something Amyss]

I think you bring up a very important point; more damaging than an official government sanction would be a culture of fear. Nobody should be able to twist arms like this. Jack Thompson may be out of the picture, but people like him are still around, and they won't hesitate to go for blood if they get the chance. Video games are safer than they once were, but the culture at large still doesn't place them in the same camp as other art forms, and a large section of the public would still be on board for using them as scapegoats.

The fact is that the industry still occupies kind of a precarious position; the AAA gaming world is growing increasingly inflated and unstable, and the culture as a whole isn't going to act as a safety net if things start to collapse.

If a bunch of movie studios collapsed tomorrow, there are plenty of people with lots of money who are interested in keeping the art of film alive. If the same thing happened to video games, I fear the powers that be would treat it like a vacuum of power; seldom few of them would have an interest in, say, preserving the master copies of classic niche games for sale later.

Most of what you described is true for music, books and movies, too. Hell, the people in question are often the same people. To argue that there's some different threat for video games seems like special pleading, especially since the folks who wanted Body Count's record pulled for "Cop Killer" are still around and willing to jump at the chance and the NRA is still rallying against movies.

There will always be people "like" Jack Thompson, and there will always be people "like" McCarthy, and there will always be people "like" Torquemada, and there will always be people "like" Vlad the Impaler. It's a fairly useless identifier with no power in the real world, best relegated to conspiracy theories. Without any evidence that such a person provides a real, credible threat, you might as well talk about those others, as well. I mean, we don't have proof that a book burning movement couldn't erupt at any moment, and hostilities rise whenever something like Harry Potter hits the scene.

 

[Darkmantle]

You know, I don't know when censorship was redefined as the government trying to suppress speech and not just any attempt to suppress speech or knowledge.

Was it around the time that the negative connotations of censorship started to be applied to your ideology and, wanting to avoid that stigma, you hide behind a definition of your creation?