Target Aus Pulls GTA V From Shelves, For Its "Violence Against Women" - Update

Zealous

New member
Mar 24, 2009
375
0
0
NuclearKangaroo said:
no i did mean her, my point was that, while anita didnt get GTA5 banned, people who think like her did
Gonna have to stop you there, GTA5 wasn't banned. Two retailers acting as providers of public goods evaluated public interest and decided that they, as owners of a business, did not want to stock a particular product.

There is no censorship there. At all.
 

bossfight1

New member
Apr 23, 2009
398
0
0
The "feminists want to wake our games away" angle doesn't really sit right with me on this. Even if the people who petitioned to have the game pulled DID identify as feminists, I'd think they were piss-poor representation of them. In my eyes, feminists aren't a "Female Supremacy" thing but just people who want less inequality bullshit, and, in terms of video games, are sick of the fact that the only real option for female character design is "no more than 20% of body covered by clothing/armor". And I totally would welcome games where a female character interests me with her personality/depth/development, rather than her badonkadonk.

THESE people, on the other hand, are knee-jerking idiots who, like many of the anti-fun brigade, refuse to see anything in the game other than the one thing that offends them. Any violence against women in the game itself is almost always in the control of the player; when player interaction is involved, you don't blame the game itself just because the player had that freedom.

And seriously... Australia needs to lighten up with M-rated games. Why do people still fail to see that M-rated games, content-wise, are the equivalent of R-rated movies? And that if you don't want your child to see it, maybe you should... be a fucking PARENT?
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
10,845
1
3
Country
United States
NuclearKangaroo said:
remember when THAT PERSON said they wouldnt take away our games?

and you guys actually believed that? i dont want to tell you i told you so, but i told you so

btw from what i understand, only a single women dies in the story of the game, you are not forced to kill any women
One store in one country deciding not to sell one game is not "Taking away your games"

Besides, this has nothing to do with "That person" so put away your "I told you so."
 

Bat Vader

New member
Mar 11, 2009
4,996
0
0
Mr Cwtchy said:
Remember guys, they aren't trying to take away your video games. They just want more female representation in video games.

They say as a video game is *literally* pulled off the shelves due to asinine bitching.
Who is they? It sounds like you are generalizing all anti-GG people. I can pretty much guarantee that just as many anti-GG people find this just as dumb as you guys do.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Is there no violence against men in the game? Do we only care about the violence committed against women? Nice to know that entire governments are sexist and feel like women are weaker frail victims of society that need to be protected. Interesting.
 

Signa

Noisy Lurker
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
4,742
0
41
Country
USA
When did this thread change to a discussion about Gamergate? I thought we were talking about Target selling a game and whether or not they should have catered to the watchdog group.
 

one squirrel

New member
Aug 11, 2014
119
0
0
erttheking said:
NuclearKangaroo said:
remember when THAT PERSON said they wouldnt take away our games?

and you guys actually believed that? i dont want to tell you i told you so, but i told you so

btw from what i understand, only a single women dies in the story of the game, you are not forced to kill any women
One store in one country deciding not to sell one game is not "Taking away your games"

Besides, this has nothing to do with "That person" so put away your "I told you so."
It's the same ideology, the same goals and the same tactics. Virtually indistinguishable. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... you know?
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Signa said:
When did this thread change to a discussion about Gamergate? I thought we were talking about Target selling a game and whether or not they should have catered to the watchdog group.
When the game got censored, I suppose.
 

NuclearKangaroo

New member
Feb 7, 2014
1,919
0
0
Hunter85792 said:
NuclearKangaroo said:
no i did mean her, my point was that, while anita didnt get GTA5 banned, people who think like her did
Gonna have to stop you there, GTA5 wasn't banned. Two retailers acting as providers of public goods evaluated public interest and decided that they, as owners of a business, did not want to stock a particular product.

There is no censorship there. At all.
self censorship is still censorship, particulary when people use shame and slander to get people to censor themselves
 

garjian

New member
Mar 25, 2009
1,013
0
0
IceForce said:
People are seriously making comparisons with CoD?

It would seem there are too many people in this thread who can't tell the difference between:
- Killing a scantly-clad unarmed female prostitute moments after having sex with her.
- Killing a fully-clothed, fully-armed, fully-armored male enemy combatant before he kills you first.

Because these two things are completely comparable. /sarcasm
Did you know that GTA features quite a substantial amount of non-fully-clothed, non-armed, non-armoured males?
 

NuclearKangaroo

New member
Feb 7, 2014
1,919
0
0
erttheking said:
NuclearKangaroo said:
remember when THAT PERSON said they wouldnt take away our games?

and you guys actually believed that? i dont want to tell you i told you so, but i told you so

btw from what i understand, only a single women dies in the story of the game, you are not forced to kill any women
One store in one country deciding not to sell one game is not "Taking away your games"

Besides, this has nothing to do with "That person" so put away your "I told you so."
now its 2 stores, inch by inch they take a mile, by this point i think theres a real threat of devs being censored in the name of "political correctness"

certainly this has nothing to do with that person, i just find it hilarious that after being assured criticisms like her's wouldnt deny us our games... we find ourselfs being denied our games, in the name of arguments like the ones she pushed foward

games like GTA5 have the right to exist and developers and distribuitors shouldnt be bullied to submission
 

Signa

Noisy Lurker
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
4,742
0
41
Country
USA
Lightknight said:
Signa said:
When did this thread change to a discussion about Gamergate? I thought we were talking about Target selling a game and whether or not they should have catered to the watchdog group.
When the game got censored, I suppose.
I guess that means I'm out then.

No one ever bothers to keep a level head when ***HASHTAG GAMERGATE*** is being thrown around.
 

NuclearKangaroo

New member
Feb 7, 2014
1,919
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
NuclearKangaroo said:
no i did mean her, my point was that, while anita didnt get GTA5 banned, people who think like her did
But she didn't take our games away, making your sentiment the usual BS.

Nor did anyone get anything "banned." Honestly, that you have to remix everything just to make an argument should tell you something.
my point was that people like her got the game pulled from 2 stores, if you dont see the slippery slope here i dont know what to tell you


Zachary Amaranth said:
hell for people who call themselves "progressive" they seem to be still stuck back in 30s
For someone who doesn't like stereotyping, you sure do a lot of it. "Do as I say, not as I do?"
let me see, anita sees someonething like GTA immoral, her producer also does and does not oppose GTA 5 being pulled from stores

no im not stereotyping im telling it like it is, this is the inevitable result of this way of thinking, the extremist defenders of political correctness
 

Raziel

New member
Jul 20, 2013
243
0
0
Zontar said:
They aren't coming for out games, they said. No one's trying to censor anything, they said. Man this was upsetting, not for the fact that a company I hate caved in, but because this sets a precedent, and a particularly bad one at that.
NO it doesn't. Its following the same pattern all companies do. Caving into negative consumer pressure. This is why people call advertisers whenever they don't like someone is saying on tv or radio. Target Australia is not Rockstar. They have no horse in this race. Why in the world would they alienate their consumer base to keep selling 1 game they make $5 or whatever when it sells?

And its not censorship. No one is stopping Rockstar from saying what they want. They are simply not giving them a space to sell their product in their store. In some countries there is the right to free speech. But there is no right to sell your product everywhere.

NuclearKangaroo said:
Hunter85792 said:
NuclearKangaroo said:
no i did mean her, my point was that, while anita didnt get GTA5 banned, people who think like her did
Gonna have to stop you there, GTA5 wasn't banned. Two retailers acting as providers of public goods evaluated public interest and decided that they, as owners of a business, did not want to stock a particular product.

There is no censorship there. At all.
self censorship is still censorship, particulary when people use shame and slander to get people to censor themselves
Well welcome to civilization. Everything you and everyone else does is shaped by that same pressure. Why in the world should this one for PROFIT product be exempt? Why aren't you up in arms Target doesn't sell porn either or pro KKK media? There is more than enough material in GTA 5 that ANY reasonable person MIGHT object to it. Target is free to choose not to sell it the same way anyone is free to choose not to buy it. And why in the world should they take a stand against an organized group of their customers to defend it? What would that get them?
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Signa said:
Lightknight said:
Signa said:
When did this thread change to a discussion about Gamergate? I thought we were talking about Target selling a game and whether or not they should have catered to the watchdog group.
When the game got censored, I suppose.
I guess that means I'm out then.

No one ever bothers to keep a level head when ***HASHTAG GAMERGATE*** is being thrown around.
Eh, a topic on groups of people being able to control the gaming industry to force their own sensibilities on the industry and consumers is a fairly important topic. Just because it is a problem that gamergate aligns with shouldn't dissuade you from having a legitimate discussion about the matter.

The very fact that governments dropped it due to "violence against women" rather than "violence" should be insulting to people. Feminists should see it as governments assuming that women are weaker and more in need of special protection. Humanists should see the inequality and inherent sexism in that rationale. Don't you agree? Could you try to discuss this with individuals who treat you with civility? If not, it's entirely you prerogative to stereotype the entire group and dismiss all individuals as you wish. Just remember that bigotry is defined as being intolerant of those who have different opinions from your own.
 

NuclearKangaroo

New member
Feb 7, 2014
1,919
0
0
IceForce said:
People are seriously making comparisons with CoD?

It would seem there are too many people in this thread who can't tell the difference between:
- Killing a scantly-clad unarmed female prostitute moments after having sex with her.
- Killing a fully-clothed, fully-armed, fully-armored male enemy combatant before he kills you first.

Because these two things are completely comparable. /sarcasm
sexual workers should be invincible

equality means certain people get special rules applied to them

why yes this makes perfect fucking sense

does the game force you to kill prostitutes? because i cant recall a GTA game in which you HAD to kill prostitutes

also, if we are going down the path of what is "right" and "wrong" in a fucking video game, may i ask you why the fuck killing prostitutes matters when we have a video games in which you can go in a busy streets and mow down innocent pedestrians

i cant believe the amount of double thinking it takes to find killing prostitutes wrong but mowing down civillians ok, its a freakin' video game, it doesnt matter, its entertainment, fantasy, fiction, non-reality
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
10,845
1
3
Country
United States
one squirrel said:
erttheking said:
NuclearKangaroo said:
remember when THAT PERSON said they wouldnt take away our games?

and you guys actually believed that? i dont want to tell you i told you so, but i told you so

btw from what i understand, only a single women dies in the story of the game, you are not forced to kill any women
One store in one country deciding not to sell one game is not "Taking away your games"

Besides, this has nothing to do with "That person" so put away your "I told you so."
It's the same ideology, the same goals and the same tactics. Virtually indistinguishable. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... you know?
That is an extremly oversimplified viewpoint. Then again half the problems with internet debates are that too many people see things in black and white.

Seriously, if you do this you're basically shooting the conversation in the foot before it even starts.

But what do I know? I'm supposed to be effing myself right now.
 

NuclearKangaroo

New member
Feb 7, 2014
1,919
0
0
Lightknight said:
Signa said:
Lightknight said:
Signa said:
When did this thread change to a discussion about Gamergate? I thought we were talking about Target selling a game and whether or not they should have catered to the watchdog group.
When the game got censored, I suppose.
I guess that means I'm out then.

No one ever bothers to keep a level head when ***HASHTAG GAMERGATE*** is being thrown around.
Eh, a topic on groups of people being able to control the gaming industry to force their own sensibilities on the industry and consumers is a fairly important topic.

The very fact that governments dropped it due to "violence against women" rather than "violence" should be insulting to people. Don't you agree?
hell i would be mighty pissed if that was the case, but im even more pissed now because this is a dammed lie, a scam, the game doesnt encourage violence agaisnt women more than it encourages violence agaisnt everyone else
 

NuclearKangaroo

New member
Feb 7, 2014
1,919
0
0
erttheking said:
one squirrel said:
erttheking said:
NuclearKangaroo said:
remember when THAT PERSON said they wouldnt take away our games?

and you guys actually believed that? i dont want to tell you i told you so, but i told you so

btw from what i understand, only a single women dies in the story of the game, you are not forced to kill any women
One store in one country deciding not to sell one game is not "Taking away your games"

Besides, this has nothing to do with "That person" so put away your "I told you so."
It's the same ideology, the same goals and the same tactics. Virtually indistinguishable. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... you know?
That is an extremly oversimplified viewpoint. Then again half the problems with internet debates are that too many people see things in black and white.

Seriously, if you do this you're basically shooting the conversation in the foot before it even starts.

But what do I know? I'm supposed to be effing myself right now.
look king the problem is that these people see even REMOTELY "racist", "sexist" and "homophobic" games -sustained by the flimsiest of evidence- as something degenerate, something that doesnt deserve to exist, the end result will always be this

believe me if the message was make more "inclusive" game the result would be very different, instead of people signing petitions to pull games they dont like off the shelves, we would be seeing fresh artists and programmers making games in which prostitutes are invincible or something, people supporting these creators via kickstarter or something like that

if the message was "make more of this" that would be the result, but instead the message is "make less of that"
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
NuclearKangaroo said:
Lightknight said:
Signa said:
Lightknight said:
Signa said:
When did this thread change to a discussion about Gamergate? I thought we were talking about Target selling a game and whether or not they should have catered to the watchdog group.
When the game got censored, I suppose.
I guess that means I'm out then.

No one ever bothers to keep a level head when ***HASHTAG GAMERGATE*** is being thrown around.
Eh, a topic on groups of people being able to control the gaming industry to force their own sensibilities on the industry and consumers is a fairly important topic.

The very fact that governments dropped it due to "violence against women" rather than "violence" should be insulting to people. Don't you agree?
hell i would be mighty pissed if that was the case, but im even more pissed now because this is a dammed lie, a scam, the game doesnt encourage violence agaisnt women more than it encourages violence agaisnt everyone else
Yes, that's exactly what I mean. That in claiming that these games which depict violence against all genders shouldn't be sold due to violence against women (companies are saying this, not governments, my bad), they are making a sexist statement. Sexism against women who believe they aren't weaker than men or more vulnerable, sexist against men who have every bit as much of a right to not receive violence as women do.