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

[Busard]

When it comes to Gamergate, they sent letters to advertisers because writers were saying offensive things.

Uh huh.

And the petitioners did their thing because GTA5 depicted offensive things.

Other people getting offended: "Hey, don't like it, don't buy it! Grow a thicker skin!"

We get offended: "STOP THE FUCKING PRESSES! Gamers aren't dead! The fire rises!"

Except one group is not actively trying to prevent or deny something others might enjoy. Sure you get trolls who shittalk but it's not banning. They're saying "Don't like it ? Don't buy it" indeed, doesn't mean that the opposing group can't do or buy stuff they like or want to support

The other is actively trying to ban, censor and remove entertainment because it doesn't suit them, too bad for people who actually do and for the developpers who worked on it. What they're saying is "We don't like it, so you can't buy it"

I don't see how that's not stupidly obvious by now

And it doesn't matter if it's just "a few stores no one cares about". Seeing as since they're actively trying to do it to more stores and that this kind of thing is now spreading, based on studies that people as whole claimed to be bullshit before, weirldy (the "Games make people violent", remember that ? Oh suddenly we believe it because it helps our agenda ? That's great !)

 

[Something Amyss]

Except one group is not actively trying to prevent or deny something others might enjoy.

Gamergate has boycotted material I personally enjoy to prevent it or change it. They're botching about and protesting "SJW" content that people do actually enjoy.

The only way what you're saying is true is if you discount people who don't share your opinion on the materials they're boycotting and trying to shut down.

The other is actively trying to ban, censor and remove entertainment because it doesn't suit them, too bad for people who actually do and for the developpers who worked on it. What they're saying is "We don't like it, so you can't buy it"

Change a couple of words, and you have Gamergate. Hold on for a second.

The other is actively trying to ban, censor and remove entertainment media because it doesn't suit them, too bad for people who actually do and for the developpers content creators who worked on it. What they're saying is "We don't like it, so you can't buy consume it"

I don't see how that's not stupidly obvious by now

Ditto.

Oh I don't disagree with you that Gamergate overreacted, but I think the distinction here is that GTA V's "misogyny" or "encouragement of violence" is very open to interpretation, while journalists encouraging the bullying and harassment of their critics is done in spite no matter how you interpret it.

The issue isn't that bullying and harassment done in spite is wrong, it's that the claims are routinely bullshit that's at issue.

The only distinction here seems to be that when Gamergate lies, it's okay, but when someone who doesn't like video games lies, it's wrong/debatable.

It's this kind of arrogance and entitlement that is giving social justice such a bad name.

You literally stand up for people who lie and bully others. Does that mean that you give your causes a bad name, or is that also different?

 

[Dizchu]

You literally stand up for people who lie and bully others. Does that mean that you give your causes a bad name, or is that also different?

Do I? I was unaware of this. I'm pretty sure I have condemned harassment and bullying at every opportunity. I have also not supported any individuals that have added additional toxicity into the situation (for example Milo Yiannopoulos and Adam Baldwin, and yeah I knew he coined the hashtag but the whole backlash was already in full-swing before it had an "official name").

The point is, I don't like it when people that mean absolutely no harm get harassed. I didn't like it when Felicia Day, Anita Sarkeesian, etc. got harassed nor do I like it when people assume that anyone that uses the hashtag is a misogynist therefore any harassment dealt unto them is apparently acceptable. I stand up for the collective as a whole because I feel they have a right to express their concerns and if individuals do shitty things I exclude them from the rest. Maybe I'm just a naive idiot that gives people the benefit of the doubt, I dunno.

 

[Busard]

Except one group is not actively trying to prevent or deny something others might enjoy.

Gamergate has boycotted material I personally enjoy to prevent it or change it. They're botching about and protesting "SJW" content that people do actually enjoy.


The only way what you're saying is true is if you discount people who don't share your opinion on the materials they're boycotting and trying to shut down.

The other is actively trying to ban, censor and remove entertainment because it doesn't suit them, too bad for people who actually do and for the developpers who worked on it. What they're saying is "We don't like it, so you can't buy it"

Change a couple of words, and you have Gamergate. Hold on for a second.

The other is actively trying to ban, censor and remove entertainment media because it doesn't suit them, too bad for people who actually do and for the developpers content creators who worked on it. What they're saying is "We don't like it, so you can't buy consume it"

I don't see how that's not stupidly obvious by now

Ditto.

Disclaimer first off: I stopped caring about gamergate and I thought many of the acts of some in that group were reprehensible or downright too disorganized or confused to take part of.

First off, point to me to content that Gamergate has actively shut down that you enjoy ? Or is trying to now ? If yes, please point to it and i'll rescind. But if I recall, they were mostly trying to dig up information and hold people accountable for their actions rather than just "shutting down", with the ways they had at hand (some were not good ways)
As far as media website went, as far as I was aware at the time, a lot of gamergaters didn't want to "shut down media sites" but they wanted to hold some media sites accountable for actions they thought reprehensible (slandering, fabrication of fake news, rampant nepotism between journalists and developpers). These were either discredited or not pursued, but I don't think it was just "to shut down because they didn't like it". Did some tried to do that by petitionning ? Sure, but then we fall into the problem that gamergate ran into as a whole later on with how it was represented and who were it's actors

That was at the beginning at least, then it spiraled out of control, and of course there were the threats that were inexcusable

But on the other hand, you have this group (I dunno if they are feminists or soccer moms but looking at the rhetoric, seems more like the former) who straight goes for censorship and bans. It's not about dialogue, or questionning the devs, it's about "We don't like it, you can't have it",which is not the same of "Don't like it, don't buy it". I personally think there's a crucial difference in the gripes of both group at the core here.

Also, according to you at least, you think that both groups use the same shitty tactics which i can agree on then. But why is it okay for one to get away with it and not the other then ? Yeah, some gamergaters used that to try and take down website. You do paraphrase me and use my example against me. But basically that doesn't invalidate my point. So how does it make it okay for that group to do it then ?

 

[Alex1508]

It still amuses me to see Gamergaters getting pissed off by this.

"We use letter writing campaigns to influence the actions of news outlets hardly any of us frequented but which offended us with their sensibilities?"
"Whoo, yeah! Consumer power baby! I am Gamer, hear me type!"

"A bunch of busybody think-of-the-children types used a letter writing campaign to influence the actions of a business stocking a product hardly any of them were going to buy but which offended their sensibilities?"
"WHOA! Whoa. Can of worms, man! Dangerous precedent right there! Why, it's practically censorship! Domestic terrorism even!"

If you can't see a difference between letterwriting campaigns against yellow journalism and websites that insult their own readers, and getting products pulled from shelves because they might offend someone, then that's your problem.

So letterwritting and campaigns against journalists and websites that offend you and censoring said articles that offended you alongside the firing of the writers that offended you is not the same as getting an R18+ rate product pulled from the shelves of a family oriented store because a group of consumers are offended by it being sold there.

Okay. Sure.

 

[Alex1508]

When it comes to Gamergate, they sent letters to advertisers because writers were saying offensive things. "Bring back bullying", "I can't stand these hood men", "you've made your bed now get f*cked in it". These are supposedly "professionals" and they are lashing out at people, encouraging doxxing etc. Now to be fair I think at least some of them are just being snarky assholes rather than actually encouraging harm.

GTA V is a game that has a huge audience, criticisms come primarily from fanatical, "authoritarian" right wingers and left wingers (though they have mostly come from the right).

Same situation really, a side was offended by a product (game, articles/tweets) and through letterwritting and pressure they tried to achieve their goals, with both groups getting results. Calling one of the groups fanatical, authoritarian, etc and pointing out that GTA has huge audience doesn't change that.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Or even better why not have 3D alignment graph?

5D alignment so it can't be visualised by anyone except theoretical mathematicians and quantum physicists without getting a splitting headache halfway and giving up.

 

[Something Amyss]

First off, point to me to content that Gamergate has actively shut down that you enjoy ? Or is trying to now ?

Um, The escapist is one of the targets of their little hate campaign. This site right here. With a bunch of content I enjoy. It has been in the past, too. They organised a large boycott over "unethical" behaviour, most of which seems to revolver around "people I disagree with." That it was supposedly about things like the "Gamers are dead" articles but didn't limit itself to those publications should have been a clue.

Furthermore, if you stopped caring about something to the point that you don't know what's going on, don't tell people who have paid attention what the "difference" is. There have been campaigns and even specific adblock filters dedicated to "SJW" sites.

As far as media website went, as far as I was aware at the time, a lot of gamergaters didn't want to "shut down media sites" but they wanted to hold some media sites accountable for actions they thought reprehensible (slandering, fabrication of fake news, rampant nepotism between journalists and developpers).

A shame that these weren't really true, then, and looked like nothing more than a hollow facade.

But on the other hand, you have this group (I dunno if they are feminists or soccer moms but looking at the rhetoric, seems more like the former) who straight goes for censorship and bans. It's not about dialogue, or questionning the devs, it's about "We don't like it, you can't have it",which is not the same of "Don't like it, don't buy it". I personally think there's a crucial difference in the gripes of both group at the core here.

So why doesn't "Don't like it, don't buy it" apply to The Escapist, rather than people hoping to get Bob Chipman or Greg Tito or Jim Sterling fired? Why the Escapist, which bowed to the angry mob and revised its policies, which hosted the Gamergate discussion when everyone else was shutting it down? Hell, why are the Gamergate voices silent when The Escapist editorialises on this topic, if what they want is ethics and not people who agree with them? It's only when someone says something they don't like that the ethics complaints come out, and that's exactly why Escapist has been a target. They can't simply not watch MovieBob. Hell, they can't simply not go to Kotaku or Gawker or whatever other site has been deemed "SJW." They have to lash out.

Which is exactly what these people have done with Target.

But why is it okay for one to get away with it and not the other then ?

No, that was my point. You were the one arguing that there was a difference. I'm arguing for consistency. The Target threads have been full of Gamergaters insisting how this is different, whereas my only position on the matter is "sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." The fact is, you have Gamergate supporters on here (and even in this very thread) who are all "freaking SJW feminazi bitches trying to ruin our games by telling us what content we can and can't access" and when someone brings up Gamergate's own boycotts they will defend it as completely different.

Or, to borrow from Zhukov:

It still amuses me to see Gamergaters getting pissed off by this.

"We use letter writing campaigns to influence the actions of news outlets hardly any of us frequented but which offended us with their sensibilities?"
"Whoo, yeah! Consumer power baby! I am Gamer, hear me type!"

"A bunch of busybody think-of-the-children types used a letter writing campaign to influence the actions of a business stocking a product hardly any of them were going to buy but which offended their sensibilities?"
"WHOA! Whoa. Can of worms, man! Dangerous precedent right there! Why, it's practically censorship! Domestic terrorism even!"

 

[blackrave]

Or even better why not have 3D alignment graph?

5D alignment so it can't be visualized by anyone except theoretical mathematicians and quantum physicists without getting a splitting headache halfway and giving up.

Heh, I doubt even those can visualize something like that.
Best human can achieve is theoretically understand anything beyond 4D.
I blame our limited brains.