Target Australia will no longer stock GTA5

DataSnake

New member
Aug 5, 2009
467
0
0
peruvianskys said:
The point is that women aren't complaining because they "don't like it" - they're complaining because the actions being simulated happen *every goddamn day* and it's insensitive and shitty for men to derive enjoyment from simulating them while men are also going out and doing the actual violence.
This is a bit off-topic, but I noticed you using the phrase "prostituted women" to describe sex workers and I had to say: Do you know why sex workers get such a raw deal from society? Because of the stigma associated with their profession. Stigma that comes not only from conservative moral guardians, but just as much if not more from self-described "feminists" who assume all sex work is coerced and refuse to listen to actual sex workers who say otherwise. In many countries, if an escort is assaulted, she can't go to the cops or she'll be arrested "rescued". Even in countries with the "end demand" model where only clients are at risk of arrest, if an escort asks a prospective client for ID so she can screen him, or even tries to spell out what services she will or won't provide, he'll quite likely assume she's an undercover cop and break off contact. If you actually care about these people, you should probably think carefully about the actual effects of SWERF policies on the people they're supposedly trying to protect.

OT: Target is a privately owned company. Private companies don't have to sell literally everything; they can refuse to stock whatever they want, for whatever reason they want. That's how free enterprise works. If you don't believe me, go to McDonald's and ask for a pizza and see what happens.
 

IceForce

Is this memes?
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
2,384
16
13
Lovely Mixture said:
People defending this is pretty amusing.
"They weren't forced into not selling it, they just responded to a petition"
"They listened to their customers, it's a good thing right?"
"It's not censorship, it's a business decision"
"We shouldn't promote violence against women"

Amazing.
I assume you want/believe the opposite of these quotes you posted here, which would imply you WANT to promote violence against women.

Well, you get a point for honesty, I guess.
Lovely Mixture said:
IceForce said:
- Don't like a website, don't visit it.
Sure. But I'm not gonna prevent other people from visiting it.
Uhh, you sure about that?

Let's not be disingenuous here, the purpose of GamerGate's emailing operation is to sever the supply lines of income to the websites that they don't like, with the endgame being that these sites finally cave to pressure and change the way they write their articles and take down the 'bad' articles (thereby preventing other people from visiting them), or until the site goes out of business altogether (thereby preventing other people from visiting them).

And that is where the blatant hypocrisy enters the equation.
Lovely Mixture said:
IceForce said:
- Want more articles that cater to your taste, write them yourself.
If your viewers want better researched articles (that are otherwise flat-out wrong since they are supposed to be representative of actual events), then your first response shouldn't be to alienate your audience....Cause
"Just make your own games" is a cop-out argument, and always has been.
This is because the barrier-to-entry for video game development is extremely high.

Conversely, the barrier-to-entry to write your own video game commentary is extremely low. Anyone can make their own website or host their own blog.
If your audience likes you, a lot, and you get exposure, you'll become popular and successful. That's how these "gamers are dead" sites took off in the first place, remember.

In addition, journalism of every flavor is extremely competitive. If GamerGate truly believes there's a large market for *its* type of articles and video game commentary, then there's nothing stopping them from writing these things themselves.

Who knows, they may even make a killing.
Lovely Mixture said:
IceForce said:
- Are you offended, grow up. (Especially if you get called "dead")
...it looks unprofessional.
Who cares? If you're not a consumer of the site, how does it affect you?

Furthermore, those "gamers are dead" articles weren't news bulletins or investigative pieces. They were opinion pieces, nothing more, nothing less.
 

mxc2012

New member
Jan 9, 2010
29
0
0
DataSnake said:
OT: Target is a privately owned company. Private companies don't have to sell literally everything; they can refuse to stock whatever they want, for whatever reason they want. That's how free enterprise works. If you don't believe me, go to McDonald's and ask for a pizza and see what happens.
Nobody is saying they shouldn't be able to refuse to stock an item. The problem is with the reason why they are doing it.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
It's amazing, the poster who has been as obnoxiously ambiguous, not explaining how or why the exact thing I said and then quoted from a transcript Sarkeesian herself provides in her site ISN'T proven, is accusing me of mental gymnastics. I'm done with this so called discussion.[/quote]

Except it wasn't the exact thing. You said:

Guerilla said:
You must be confused, it's actually "how dare the con artist call a game misogynistic and accuse gamers of deriving pleasure from manhandling a dead stripper when in reality you can do the same with any other NPC in the game"
Your quote doesn't address:

-whether or not she's a con artist
-calling gamers misogynists
-gamers actually deriving pleasure

0/3.

Lovely Mixture said:
He provided the quote. He backed up the claim. Address his argument or admit that you were wrong.
He provided the quote. He did not back up the claim. Don't be dishonest or don't bother replying to me.
 

Lovely Mixture

New member
Jul 12, 2011
1,474
0
0
IceForce said:
Lovely Mixture said:
People defending this is pretty amusing.
"They weren't forced into not selling it, they just responded to a petition"
"They listened to their customers, it's a good thing right?"
"It's not censorship, it's a business decision"
"We shouldn't promote violence against women"

Amazing.
I assume you want/believe the opposite of these quotes you posted here, which would imply you WANT to promote violence against women.

Well, you get a point for honesty, I guess.
...Or that people are ridiculous for implying that videogames promote violence against women. Which they are.

IceForce said:
Lovely Mixture said:
IceForce said:
- Don't like a website, don't visit it.
Sure. But I'm not gonna prevent other people from visiting it.
Uhh, you sure about that?

Let's not be disingenuous here, the purpose of GamerGate's emailing operation is to sever the supply lines of income to the websites that they don't like, with the endgame being that these sites finally cave to pressure and change the way they write their articles and take down the 'bad' articles (thereby preventing other people from visiting them), or until the site goes out of business altogether (thereby preventing other people from visiting them).
One is people saying. "I feel these people are treating me like shit, could you reconsider supporting them?"
If the "journalists" didn't act like such pompous assholes online then GamerGate would have no ammunition.

The other is people saying: "don't sell this thing cause it offends me."
Ok the game offends you, but did Rockstar DO anything to you that makes this worthy of concern?

IceForce said:
"Just make your own games" is a cop-out argument, and always has been.
This is because the barrier-to-entry for video game development is extremely high.
I'm not really engaging in that argument, I'm more pointing out the false equivalency.

Both careers demand professionalism.

IceForce said:
Conversely, the barrier-to-entry to write your own video game commentary is extremely low. Anyone can make their own website or host their own blog.

If your audience likes you, a lot, and you get exposure, you'll become popular and successful. That's how these "gamers are dead" sites took off in the first place, remember.
And now their audience is rather annoyed. Their audience is critical of them. Don't they have that right? Can't they hold them to some standards?

IceForce said:
In addition, journalism of every flavor is extremely competitive.
Ah huh.

IceForce said:
If GamerGate truly believes there's a large market for *its* type of articles and video game commentary, then there's nothing stopping them from writing these things themselves.

Who knows, they may even make a killing.
Those sites with those articles do exist (from before GamerGate even).

IceForce said:
Furthermore, those "gamers are dead" articles weren't news bulletins or investigative pieces. They were opinion pieces, nothing more, nothing less.
It must not be a very competitive industry if a bunch of writers wrote things with the same opinion. Almost as if they had a email group that decided on what they should publish instead of doing their own thing.
 

Signa

Noisy Lurker
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
4,742
0
41
Country
USA
Zachary Amaranth said:
Signa said:
Well, in that case, I'm calling bullshit on you. Your position requires just as many facts as mine does.
My position is simply that you don't have the facts. My point was and can be summarised thusly:

Why would we assume otherwise without evidence?
I did not take the position that they did do their homework, only that it's ridiculous to assume they didn't without evidence. I would add that since they do collect and use data on sales, which doesn't particularly support your assumption.

Either you don't understand burden of proof or you're lying. I'm just not sure which.
How would lying help anything here? What the fuck man?! Are you trying to start a fight by calling my argument baseless and then attacking me as a "liar"?

No, I have retail experience. That is enough to know how these stores work. See my response to Vault101.
 

peruvianskys

New member
Jun 8, 2011
577
0
0
DataSnake said:
This is a bit off-topic, but I noticed you using the phrase "prostituted women" to describe sex workers and I had to say: Do you know why sex workers get such a raw deal from society? Because of the stigma associated with their profession. Stigma that comes not only from conservative moral guardians, but just as much if not more from self-described "feminists" who assume all sex work is coerced and refuse to listen to actual sex workers who say otherwise. In many countries, if an escort is assaulted, she can't go to the cops or she'll be arrested "rescued". Even in countries with the "end demand" model where only clients are at risk of arrest, if an escort asks a prospective client for ID so she can screen him, or even tries to spell out what services she will or won't provide, he'll quite likely assume she's an undercover cop and break off contact. If you actually care about these people, you should probably think carefully about the actual effects of SWERF policies on the people they're supposedly trying to protect.
Actually prostituted women get a "raw deal" because men continue to rape, batter, abuse, and murder them. Stigma never wrapped its hands around a woman's neck and squeezed.

The Nordic Model has been overwhelmingly successful in reducing the incidence of prostituted women and allowing for escape from the industry.

http://feministcurrent.com/9365/actual-evidence-shows-the-nordic-model-works/

http://feministcurrent.com/7401/the-nordic-model-is-the-only-model-that-actually-works-duh-says-sweden/

As for the whole "Listen to sex workers" thing, you know I've been to conferences with literally hundreds of survivors who all say that the industry must be dismantled immediately. There are a lot of women in the sex industry, you know - telling me to "listen" to them usually just means "listen to the ones who agree with me." And considering that those most likely to be harmed by the sex industry are racialized, aboriginal, disabled, and economically disenfranchised folks, I don't take the word of a few privileged "escorts" as a meaningful evidence of prostitution's benevolence.
 

NuclearKangaroo

New member
Feb 7, 2014
1,919
0
0
Zhukov said:
OMG, IT'S CENSORSH...

No, hang on, it's a business responding to customer feedback and choosing not to sell a specific product that is still freely available to anyone who wishes to buy it.

"We are your customers, listen to our feedback! Hear our voices! Obey our comm... whoa, whoa, don't listen to those customers, they're feminazi SJW marxists!"

Heh. I love you all. I really do.
you are implying this is somehow the mayority, and that the fear of being called "misogynist" isnt enough to drive some business away

you are also implying this stupid complain was justified in any way shape or form
 

Lovely Mixture

New member
Jul 12, 2011
1,474
0
0
grimner said:
So, people petitioning for a store not to sell a game? Horrendous, a case of bullying the corporations and they shamelessly giving in to the demands of idiots.

people organizing boycotts for companies to pull out advertising? All about the integrity and the greater good.

Because, you know, logic.
Notice that only one of these is actually depriving the consumer of a product that they might want.

Organizing a boycott doesn't remove a product.
 

DataSnake

New member
Aug 5, 2009
467
0
0
peruvianskys said:
First off, here [http://www.nswp.org/sites/nswp.org/files/Criminalisation%20of%20Clients-c.pdf]'s a link to a page listing some of the effects the Swedish model actually has on sex workers. It's not a pretty picture. Second, since I didn't want to presume to talk over actual sex workers, I asked one on twitter for her thoughts. Here they are:

 

generals3

New member
Mar 25, 2009
1,198
0
0
Signa said:
generals3 said:
Signa said:
I'll answer for him. What world would be be living in where everyone who wants GTA V in their collection would say "I like this game, but I'm going to make sure that Target isn't selling it to anyone, so I will sign this petition"?

Seriously, if there are people that are that contrary or stupid to get something they want off the shelves of a store, then why are we even listening to them in the first place. They don't even know what they want!

The people who signed this were not going to buy GTA V, period. Anyone who didn't want to buy it has no right to say that no one else should be able to buy it either. It's not like people are buying it who didn't want it. That leaves only one conclusion: If you don't like it, don't buy it, and let the actual customers of the product decide who gets to take it home.
This must be the new kind of entitlement. It's not only about having what you want but also ensuring others don't have what you don't like. I'll be off making petitions to all stores selling apple products because i don't like Apple. Entitlement: Olympic Platina.
I hope you're not calling me entitled. I'm not sure what I said to make you think that.
My apologies if it wasn't clear but I was referring to those who feel they have the right to prevent others to buy something because they don't want to.
 

Signa

Noisy Lurker
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
4,742
0
41
Country
USA
generals3 said:
Signa said:
generals3 said:
Signa said:
I'll answer for him. What world would be be living in where everyone who wants GTA V in their collection would say "I like this game, but I'm going to make sure that Target isn't selling it to anyone, so I will sign this petition"?

Seriously, if there are people that are that contrary or stupid to get something they want off the shelves of a store, then why are we even listening to them in the first place. They don't even know what they want!

The people who signed this were not going to buy GTA V, period. Anyone who didn't want to buy it has no right to say that no one else should be able to buy it either. It's not like people are buying it who didn't want it. That leaves only one conclusion: If you don't like it, don't buy it, and let the actual customers of the product decide who gets to take it home.
This must be the new kind of entitlement. It's not only about having what you want but also ensuring others don't have what you don't like. I'll be off making petitions to all stores selling apple products because i don't like Apple. Entitlement: Olympic Platina.
I hope you're not calling me entitled. I'm not sure what I said to make you think that.
My apologies if it wasn't clear but I was referring to those who feel they have the right to prevent others to buy something because they don't want to.
Ok, good. I was worried you mistook what I was saying.
 

generals3

New member
Mar 25, 2009
1,198
0
0
grimner said:
So, people petitioning for a store not to sell a game? Horrendous, a case of bullying the corporations and they shamelessly giving in to the demands of idiots.

people organizing boycotts for companies to pull out advertising? All about the integrity and the greater good.

Because, you know, logic.
Actually you forgot "context". The game is in no way harming any real person nor is it trying to demonize anyone or anything like that. That's quite different from telling advertisers that a certain website is actually actively insulting their consumers, which they did. If GTAV had insults towards those all over it than it would have been equivalent, but it isn't the case. The game is about fictional characters doing stuff in a fictional world and to other fictional characters and is in no conceivable way trying to convey anything about real people.
 

faeshadow

New member
Feb 4, 2008
60
0
0
peruvianskys said:
I support the free speech of women, racialized folks, and other oppressed groups. I don't give a shit about the free speech of spoiled white dudes.
Then you do not support free speech. Restricting the speech of one group based purely on their skin color and gender is not free speech.
 

peruvianskys

New member
Jun 8, 2011
577
0
0
DataSnake said:
peruvianskys said:
First off, here [http://www.nswp.org/sites/nswp.org/files/Criminalisation%20of%20Clients-c.pdf]'s a link to a page listing some of the effects the Swedish model actually has on sex workers. It's not a pretty picture. Second, since I didn't want to presume to talk over actual sex workers, I asked one on twitter for her thoughts. Here they are:

Lol what is that supposed to prove? I could find you a dozen "sex workers" who would tell you the opposite. If you'd like, I could easily round up a few abolitionist friends of mine and get them to tell you that you're an asshole. Luckily, I'm not silly enough to think that "Hey, I got one to take my side!" is a reasonable debate tactic.

Try harder to justify your misogyny, please.

EDIT: Reading over these again I just find it astounding how the violence that prostituted women experience is chalked up to literally *anything* except violent men. Laws, stigma, whatever - none of that shit would matter if it wasn't for the fact that MEN murder, abuse, and rape prostituted women. Name the fucking problem. It's men. Like Rachel Moran says, stigma never wrapped its hands around her neck and squeezed.

And as for the whole "current sex workers matter more than exited women", that's ridiculous. Do women inside abusive relationships have a better understanding of the dynamics of abuse than women who were in them and then got out? That's a ridiculous argument - those inside a system of oppression, especially one that is known for psychological abuse and manipulation, can't trump those who have gone through the experience and come out the other end.

Do workers at Walmart know best whether or not to dismantle capitalism? I imagine if you asked them, the majority would say they really want to keep their jobs. Does that mean capitalism is great now?

Every oppressive system has individuals inside it that rely on and hope for its perpetuation - that's how oppression works. If a system didn't make those it exploits reliant on it, it would collapse immediately. Jesus, this is such simple stuff. Why don't you get it?

faeshadow said:
Then you do not support free speech. Restricting the speech of one group based purely on their skin color and gender is not free speech.
Um..

Okay then. The term "free speech" comes from a document written by rapists and slave-owners. I couldn't care less whether or not I align with their vision.