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

[Alatar The Red]

I'm going to post this here as well since it seems to be relevant.

I wrote in the other thread in reply to someone saying that this isn't censorship and is perfectly legal:

"Tell that to the film directors directing NC17 movies.

We know that it's perfectly legal to do this. But something being legal doesn't mean that it isn't a problem or dangerous. I'd be really careful about being even slightly supportive of moves like this. Do we really want to go down a path where some products are only sold in some outlets due to the political beliefs of the owners of those outlets? Do we really want a situation where people are forced to step down (fired) for their political beliefs? Do we want a situation where in order to get your game (or any other product) sold by all major retailers you have to not even accidentally offend any of the owners or activist groups? No I'm pretty sure we don't want any of that, but that's what a lot of people seem to be okay with.

Again, NC17 movies. Yeah it's legal that most places don't show them or carry them. All that happened was that most big movies are purposefully cut and neutered by directors to avoid getting hit with the legal yet extremely harmful banning by most companies. And it doesn't even matter if you're not in the states, the movies will still be dumbed down.

You know what would be good for artistic expression and diversity of thoughts and ideas? Stopping shit like this. Stopping shit like gamergate's "let's email advertisers". Stopping the shaming of people who create certain kinds of art (and yes that includes my little pony as well as driving over hookers after you got a BJ from them in GTAV). I think that's something that we should as a society work towards no?

It almost seems like people these days don't know how to live and let live. And are actually campaigning actively against that mentality.

Yes all this stuff is legal. But I sure as hell will not in any way show support for it because these things happening on a big scale have clearly affected (negatively) the artistic freedom and creativity of certain forms of media."

linky to original post: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.866306-Target-Australia-will-no-longer-stock-GTA5?page=5#21658686


But yeah, I'm not surprised to see the most prominent "feminists", and people who complain about social issues, and society in general here just trotting out the "it's legal so deal with it" line. How hypocritical can you get? Just because something is legal does not mean that it's not an issue in society and does not mean that it's not harmful. And as we all know things like this are harmful. Maybe not in this specific instance (because GTA always thrives off this kind of thing) but on a more general level all this kind of thing will do is stifle creativity and diversity of opinions.

 

[Baresark]

Well, I don't have anything to say about this. It's their stores I guess. I don't think I have ever bought a game there myself. It's not censorship if they choose to not sell it because people ask them to stop selling it. They caved in to some crazy women who only choose to see the things they want to see, which is not actually reality.

 

[Zontar]

I know "they" don't because I am among this oh so horrifying "them." I am the feminisms Zontar. I am after your misogenies. And I have no desire to ban games. So I in no way appreciate when you claim that I and all feminists desire to ban games or censor anything. That is not, in any way, my fucking intent.

I'd like to know where I used the term 'Feminists' in my comments. I'm aware not all feminists want to censor games, hell because of how broad and wide the movement is there's pretty much nothing one can argue all feminists agree on except for the vauge, undefined notion of equality. The ones I take issue with are the ones who want things to be censored because they don't like. I'll admit I'm a bit of a radical when it comes to anti-censorship, but I place "complaining about something" and "trying to have something made inaccessible to people because you don't like it" on different levels.

It's idiots being fucking idiots. I'm sorry, did I have to start defending idiots who agreed with me? Do I have to defend the worst of my movement to be a part of it? Because I sure as hell doubt I'll have as hard of a time defending this as you will have defending the fucking Nazi's who represent the worst of your's, which I do not think you should have to. And go ahead, make this about rhetoric, make this about how they are just seeing my ideas to their logical conclusion. I'll just fucking remember it for next time, because that line of argument is just as worthless and just as easily twisted around.

Again, at what point did I imply that this was anything other then the actions of radicals? I never said all feminists where like this, or that a significant number where, the only thing I name-dropped was Social Justice Warriors, who are generally agreed upon as being a radical subset of the anti-sex side of feminism, which is itself a radical part of feminism, though much less so then SJWs. You don't have to defend their actions, unless you, like them, believe that these types of games should not be allowed to exist and want the ability of people to either make and/or buy them harder or impossible.

 

[octafish]

Why is it a nation founded by the criminal refuse of Britain has such a hard on for censorship?

I REALLY do not 'get' the Australian, government, mindset.

It's...it's like The Tea Baggers of America, minus their love of guns, landed there and took over.

Beyond me, completely beyond me.

Just so you know. Australia is not run by Target or Kmart...at least not overtly.

Whatever. I didn't know Target and Kmart still stocked games. I do know they don't stock PC games, well maybe the Sims.

 

[Revolutionary]

I really hate this country sometimes, I don't wanna' get the whammy for a low content post but there's nothing else to say. Oh and who even shops at Kmart anymore? maybe it's because I've never lived near one but....seriously? Kmart? Whatever, those stores games departments are so irrelevant that it's a token gesture anyway. Most people get it from EB games or JB hifi.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

Okay. If their Targets are anything like the Targets here in the U.S., video games don't make up that big of the sales portion. Most people who want to buy a game from Target get it in the first few days of release and then it just sits there. There are also plenty of other places to buy the game at I'm sure. Just go to Target to get your other stuff and go somewhere else for the game. No big loss. Considering moms make up a huge portion of sales here in the U.S., I can see why the big suits decided to give in.

 

[Baresark]

IF WE DON'T STOP THE SJWS SOON NONE OF US WILL BE ABLE TO GET GAMES FROM TARGET!

I'm counting down until someone posts the "First they came for the communists and I said nothing" quote in a serious manner.

Haha, I'm pretty sure someone already did on the first page, though it may have been ironically used.

 

[silver wolf009]

My god... It's actually happening...


How could we have been so blind. They're coming for us now, and we've left ourselves open. We saw the signs, and we did NOTHING DAMN IT! We have failed video germs.

Seriously though, this is stupid on both sides. Target may not be renowned for video games, but come on, Christmas is right around the corner. Someone's gonna be running late for getting someone a present, and if they reach out and grab a copy of GTA 5, that's a sale in your pockets.

 

[AntiChri5]

As an Australian, i gotta say this is pretty fucking hilarious. Target won't stock GTA? Oh noez, the horror! That might mildly inconvenience the three people who buy games there! Meanwhile, games i want to play actually do get censored, resulting in a country wide inferior product and experience.

But no, Gamergate, feel free to shit yourself over this. If you don't, the femininazi's and SJW's might win.

 

[Karadalis]

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!"

You really dont get the difference?

One is writing a letter saying "I dont support this website and its affiliates because they personaly insult and attack my identity and you should take a look at their articles before you do any more business with them"

The other is

"OMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN! This is so monstrous! You "can" harm WOMENZ in this game! It drives people to violence despite not a single study comfirming this! THINK OF THE WOMENZ! We know because we are women! Not because we actually commited any study ourselfes but because we say so and because we are offended over nothing! And if you dont comply we will brand you as misoginistic and sexist in the public eye, cause you know.. the press is on our side!"

Sorry but your girlish glee about this suposedly "gamergate slipup" is sorely misplaced. Comparing apples and oranges here

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

if they reach out and grab a copy of GTA 5

In South Australia they'd break their fingers on the lead-lined sarcophagus all R rated media is required to be stored in.

 

[silver wolf009]

if they reach out and grab a copy of GTA 5

In South Australia they'd break their fingers on the lead-lined sarcophagus all R rated media is required to be stored in.

It's like razors here in America. Constantly child and adult locked. You are not allowed to touch.

 

[Anomynous 167]

What puzzles me about this article is that it implies that their aren't any Target stores outside of Australia. If they aren't any Target stores out of Australia then how could Unskippable reference it?

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

I know "they" don't because I am among this oh so horrifying "them." I am the feminisms Zontar. I am after your misogenies. And I have no desire to ban games. So I in no way appreciate when you claim that I and all feminists desire to ban games or censor anything. That is not, in any way, my fucking intent.

I'd like to know where I used the term 'Feminists' in my comments. I'm aware not all feminists want to censor games, hell because of how broad and wide the movement is there's pretty much nothing one can argue all feminists agree on except for the vauge, undefined notion of equality. The ones I take issue with are the ones who want things to be censored because they don't like. I'll admit I'm a bit of a radical when it comes to anti-censorship, but I place "complaining about something" and "trying to have something made inaccessible to people because you don't like it" on different levels.

And the people who say that they aren't trying to censor anything aren't fucking trying to censor anything. They really are just trying to argue that this kind of stuff is "harmful" (in that it's message is bad, it's purpose is at best non-existent, and it's effect on consumers is more likely than not largely negative) and trying to get people to realize just how bad that it is. So, who were you talking about in your original post? The people who really are just calling a spade a spade and leaving it at that who are the ones that actually say the things you mentioned, or the people who are actually fucking nuts who did not say these kinds of things.

It's idiots being fucking idiots. I'm sorry, did I have to start defending idiots who agreed with me? Do I have to defend the worst of my movement to be a part of it? Because I sure as hell doubt I'll have as hard of a time defending this as you will have defending the fucking Nazi's who represent the worst of your's, which I do not think you should have to. And go ahead, make this about rhetoric, make this about how they are just seeing my ideas to their logical conclusion. I'll just fucking remember it for next time, because that line of argument is just as worthless and just as easily twisted around.

Again, at what point did I imply that this was anything other then the actions of radicals? I never said all feminists where like this, or that a significant number where, the only thing I name-dropped was Social Justice Warriors, who are generally agreed upon as being a radical subset of the anti-sex side of feminism, which is itself a radical part of feminism, though much less so then SJWs. You don't have to defend their actions, unless you, like them, believe that these types of games should not be allowed to exist and want the ability of people to either make and/or buy them harder or impossible.

And I, as far as half of the people who actually pay attention to my posts are concerned, am exactly that kind of person. I am the radical feminist social justice warrior progressive cultural marxist, and why I may not be anti-sex, I significantly doubt the people who actually made this are either, considering they claim to be sex workers.[footnote]Then again, they might be, assuming they are former workers who wound up taking the stance they do because of the abuses they suffered in the industry, but that is honestly not something I am prepared to hold against them. [/footnote] And while I may not want to disallow these kinds of games, I certainly think the world would be better off without them, considering that GTA is nihilistic, poorly made, perpetuates terrible design philosophies, and revels in purposeless debauchery like an "edgy" middle schooler.

But you know what, fine. If you're willing to not try and throw this around as ammunition, fine. If the only people you actually take issue with are those who are actively advocating censorship, go ahead. I doubt that those are the people who claim that nobody is trying to censor anything, but go ahead.

 

[Zontar]

And the people who say that they aren't trying to censor anything aren't fucking trying to censor anything. They really are just trying to argue that this kind of stuff is "harmful" (in that it's message is bad, it's purpose is at best non-existent, and it's effect on consumers is more likely than not largely negative) and trying to get people to realize just how bad that it is. So, who were you talking about in your original post? The people who really are just calling a spade a spade and leaving it at that who are the ones that actually say the things you mentioned, or the people who are actually fucking nuts who did not say these kinds of things.

Sorry, but if you're the type of person who looks at how women are treated in GTA V and say it's a problem because of how it effects people, then you aren't calling a spade a spade, you're actively denying dozens of studies on the subject. The issue I have is that the prominent personalities which push this ideological drivel are pushing for censorship, as are far too many of those who follow them for it to be dismissed as the exception. If you want to talk about it as being a problem without it being one which needs to be removed and blocked, then you are an exception to the rule, not the norm.

And I, as far as half of the people who actually pay attention to my posts are concerned, am exactly that kind of person. I am the radical feminist social justice warrior progressive cultural marxist, and why I may not be anti-sex, I significantly doubt the people who actually made this are either, considering they claim to be sex workers.[footnote]Then again, they might be, assuming they are former workers who wound up taking the stance they do because of the abuses they suffered in the industry, but that is honestly not something I am prepared to hold against them. [/footnote] And while I may not want to disallow these kinds of games, I certainly think the world would be better off without them, considering that GTA is nihilistic, poorly made, perpetuates terrible design philosophies, and revels in purposeless debauchery like an "edgy" middle schooler.

Having a distaste for these games and wanting to see them banned have a very clear line between them. If you are on the side where youu only dislike them, I have no problem, if you are on the side which wishes to see them removed, then we do. That's all I can say about that, and no ammount of argument will change that since it means you either hold a position I am apathetic towards or one which I am incapable of compromising with.

But you know what, fine. If you're willing to not try and throw this around as ammunition, fine. If the only people you actually take issue with are those who are actively advocating censorship, go ahead. I doubt that those are the people who claim that nobody is trying to censor anything, but go ahead.

We have plenty of examples of prominent members of radicals who do claim that nobody is trying to censor anything while simultaneously trying to do so, they simply try (and fail) to argue that it isn't censorship because it's private entitled, using the outdated and long out of use definition of the word at its most literal, despite only weeks ago using it in similar context themselves.

 

[Thaluikhain]

What puzzles me about this article is that it implies that their aren't any Target stores outside of Australia. If they aren't any Target stores out of Australia then how could Unskippable reference it?

Okay. If their Targets are anything like the Targets here in the U.S.,

Target Australia, an offshoot of America's Target

Two different companies, with no relation beyond same name and similar logo.

Spoiler

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Target_Australia

"Rights to the Target logo and name were granted to Myer Emporium Ltd. (later Coles Group), by the Dayton Hudson Corporation (now known as Target Corporation); aside from this, the two companies are unrelated.[3]"

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

And the people who say that they aren't trying to censor anything aren't fucking trying to censor anything. They really are just trying to argue that this kind of stuff is "harmful" (in that it's message is bad, it's purpose is at best non-existent, and it's effect on consumers is more likely than not largely negative) and trying to get people to realize just how bad that it is. So, who were you talking about in your original post? The people who really are just calling a spade a spade and leaving it at that who are the ones that actually say the things you mentioned, or the people who are actually fucking nuts who did not say these kinds of things.

Sorry, but if you're the type of person who looks at how women are treated in GTA V and say it's a problem because of how it effects people, then you aren't calling a spade a spade, you're actively denying dozens of studies on the subject. The issue I have is that the prominent personalities which push this ideological drivel are pushing for censorship, as are far too many of those who follow them for it to be dismissed as the exception. If you want to talk about it as being a problem without it being one which needs to be removed and blocked, then you are an exception to the rule, not the norm.

So the media you consume does not in any way effect you? Because I seriously doubt that. And there have been studies saying otherwise too. I remember those as well. The way that media effects us is quite complicated. However, the issue is that whatever effect GTA is having, it is probably bad, since the game certainly is not trying to reinforce any positive human actions.

And if you want to just blame these strange censoring types, go ahead, but I sure hope you stick to that.

And I, as far as half of the people who actually pay attention to my posts are concerned, am exactly that kind of person. I am the radical feminist social justice warrior progressive cultural marxist, and why I may not be anti-sex, I significantly doubt the people who actually made this are either, considering they claim to be sex workers.[footnote]Then again, they might be, assuming they are former workers who wound up taking the stance they do because of the abuses they suffered in the industry, but that is honestly not something I am prepared to hold against them. [/footnote] And while I may not want to disallow these kinds of games, I certainly think the world would be better off without them, considering that GTA is nihilistic, poorly made, perpetuates terrible design philosophies, and revels in purposeless debauchery like an "edgy" middle schooler.

Having a distaste for these games and wanting to see them banned have a very clear line between them. If you are on the side where youu only dislike them, I have no problem, if you are on the side which wishes to see them removed, then we do. That's all I can say about that, and no ammount of argument will change that since it means you either hold a position I am apathetic towards or one which I am incapable of compromising with.

Yeah, I'm so happy to hear you are apathetic about the shittyness of games and "games culture." Hearing you say that after saying I'm not one of the people you are against leaves a bad taste in my mouth, because apathy towards the massive issues going on in the medium I love is something I take issue with.

But you know what, fine. If you're willing to not try and throw this around as ammunition, fine. If the only people you actually take issue with are those who are actively advocating censorship, go ahead. I doubt that those are the people who claim that nobody is trying to censor anything, but go ahead.

We have plenty of examples of prominent members of radicals who do claim that nobody is trying to censor anything while simultaneously trying to do so, they simply try (and fail) to argue that it isn't censorship because it's private entitled, using the outdated and long out of use definition of the word at its most literal, despite only weeks ago using it in similar context themselves.

Well, a lot of the time it isn't censorship. You really aren't entitled to a platform. Nobody has to listen to you on Twitter or YouTube. Nobody has to debate you or let you talk about shit they disagree with on their site. That isn't censorship. And I don't care about claims of hypocrisy. They are almost always based on the worst interpretation of what somebody said and amount to little more than an evasion of a person's current arguments. A waste of time really.

 

[Fox12]

Meanwhile, Gamestop stocks akibastrip.

Does anyone even buy games from Target anymore? This is sad, I guess, the company should have known better. Oh well, I don't buy from major chains anyway, since they don't stock the games I like. This is a little bit worrying, though. The last thing we need is another wave of government censorship. Of course, the censorship never really goes away, I guess.

 

[Zontar]

So the media you consume does not in any way effect you? Because I seriously doubt that. And there have been studies saying otherwise too. I remember those as well. The way that media effects us is quite complicated. However, the issue is that whatever effect GTA is having, it is probably bad, since the game certainly is not trying to reinforce any positive human actions.

And if you want to just blame these strange censoring types, go ahead, but I sure hope you stick to that.

Media does effect us, but not in the way those calling for censorship claim. No study supports the claim that media will make one either violent or sexist. None which has survived peer review anyway.

Yeah, I'm so happy to hear you are apathetic about the shittyness of games and "games culture." Hearing you say that after saying I'm not one of the people you are against leaves a bad taste in my mouth, because apathy towards the massive issues going on in the medium I love is something I take issue with.

I said I'm apathetic towards you, not the issue your talking about. Don't try to conflate the two. I'm all for the discussion of issues in games and gaming culture, hell I'm all for the discussion of new ideas and throwing them into the fireplace of criticism and discussion. The problem is that those claiming to be trying to push the discussion forward simply speak and rarely let their ideas be put under even basic scrutiny and dismiss it as harassment or misogyny out of hand. When someone says they want to talk about women in gaming, it's rare that I see then say anything other then generic talking points, not give any new ideas of their own, and not say anything about how to fix the perceived issues other then making less of what they don't like. And those are typically the good ones, the worst ones simply stated things they hate and that people who like them are terrible people.

With most of these people, there is no discussion, only they talk and we listen. It's why we don't respect them, they'e done nothing to earn it and everything to lose it. They talk about getting women into gaming, while we are insulted as misogynists while we actually act to make gaming and game development accessible to them. It's disgusting.

Well, a lot of the time it isn't censorship. You really aren't entitled to a platform. Nobody has to listen to you on Twitter or YouTube. Nobody has to debate you or let you talk about shit they disagree with on their site. That isn't censorship. And I don't care about claims of hypocrisy. They are almost always based on the worst interpretation of what somebody said and amount to little more than an evasion of a person's current arguments. A waste of time really.

Actually you ARE entitled to a platform, the platform is your ability to speak. You're right about no one having to listen to you on Twitter or YouTube, but that is not even part of the discussion. Censorship is, in modern parlance, the attempt to stop someone from being capable of having their voice thrown out into the court of ideas. On the internet that means having people capable of voicing their thoughts.

In the literal sense an ISP preventing someone from ever commenting on anything on the internet isn't censorship, but in action it is. Having forums remove such voices because they don't like it is within their right, but if it is simply for the message and not the means by which said message is delivered then it reflects poorly on the site because it means those who run it are not willing to allow decent in opinion. (though there are cases where it actually IS illegal, such as false DMCA claims)

There are rules I live by when it comes to interacting with people, one of the top ones is that anyone unwilling to debate their beliefs is worthy of neither praise nor respect. If a YouTube channel closes it's comments, then the opinions of the poster are not worth discussion.