Target Australia will no longer stock GTA5

CaitSeith

Formely Gone Gonzo
Legacy
Apr 14, 2020
5,184
173
68
Lovely Mixture said:
Zachary Amaranth said:
Guerilla said:
When you're right, you're right. The transcript is actually much, MUCH worse. I quote it for everyone to witness feminist lunacy that ignores both the big picture and common sense:

Players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters.

It?s a rush streaming from a carefully concocted mix of sexual arousal connected to the act of controlling and punishing representations of female sexuality.
It's only much worse if you're still unconcerned with honesty.

So you failed to back up one claim, and ignored the other two. Can't say I'm exactly surprised.
He provided the quote. He backed up the claim. Address his argument or admit that you were wrong.
This is what I understood:

[ol]
[li]Guerilla said that Anita ignored that you can kill any NPC in Hitman.[/li]

[li]Zachary insinuated that a main point of the video "women as background decorations." was the trends related to the female NPCs[/li]

[li]Guerilla claimed that Anita is a con artist, that she calls the game misogynistic, and that she focus in the awful things you can do to women in the game, ignoring that you can do them to every other NPC.[/li]

[li]Zachary insinuated that wasn't true (which part, I don't know) and called for ethics in journalism?[/li]

[li]Guerilla pointed out the transcript as a proof that Anita said bullshit.[/li]

[li]Zachary stated it doesn't proof she is a con artist or that she calls the game misogynistic. That Guerilla's claim is worthless because it doesn't regard any truth, and that's the way Gamergaters work?[/li]

[li]Guerilla said the transcript puts it worse and cites it.[/li]

[li]Zachary accused Guerilla of failing to proof the first claim and of ignoring the other two? (which two ones? are they talking about the same thing on the first place?)[/li]

[li]Guerilla declared his quote is concrete proof.[/li]

[li]Zachary affirmed the quote was irrelevant to the claims, and that he cares about the truth value of what he says (seriously, are they talking about the same thing?)[/li]

[li]Guerilla gave up (and so do I!)[/li]
[/ol]

The End.
 

generals3

New member
Mar 25, 2009
1,198
0
0
grimner said:
Actually, one could argue that a sex worker has every right in the world to feel more than a bit insulted by a franchise where they're pretty much treated like a mini game and a joke to be exploited. Far more than people who, because they feel offended by some clickbaiting articles, proceeded to systematically validate every fucking single point in them.
So you're saying it's more insulting to see a game about bad guys doing bad stuff if they do bad stuff to fictional characters with the same job as you than having people actually insulting you? Somehow i don't think that's right.

All that said, you GG guys are a bunch of hypocrites. You feel so offended by some articles that you're willing to organize a boycott to put an entire company out of business; you should, by the very same token, be the first ones to understand and empathise with another group of people feeling offended enough by a product that they are taking public action to hurt the company responsible for it. Same. Fucking. Difference.
First of all i'm not a GG'er. I'm just a huge anti-anti-GG'er since anti-GG'ers have continuously proven they're the radical left equivalent of what they claim to hate so much.

And your last sentence assumes the context is the same. And i've already pointed out it's not at all.

And I believe feelings do not determine guilt, facts do. And the fact is that GTA is neither harming/insulting real life people nor is it trying to pretend it's conveying a real life message. It's about bad guys doing bad things, anyone who thinks that somehow those bad actions should be taken seriously needs to have a talk with a specialist.
 

CaitSeith

Formely Gone Gonzo
Legacy
Apr 14, 2020
5,184
173
68
Lovely Mixture said:
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.
And people petitioning usually doesn't either. This one just happened to work. But what can you expect from Australia when it comes to videogames? For what I have heard from some australian gamers, that's the usual crap.
 

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,768
0
0
NuclearKangaroo said:
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
Nope and nope.

I do not know what the majority thinks of department stores in Australia stocking GTA5. Nor do I care in the slightest. I think this is a business decision undertaken after being contacted with a petition signed by about 40,000 individuals. (Assuming that petition link that's been doing the rounds is indeed what prompted this.)

Actually, I vaguely disapprove of the complaint and the action taken. However, since I couldn't give a damn about GTA5 and considering that the game is in no way being censored here, I don't care that much one way or the other. You'll notice a lot of actual Australians, y'know the people presumably affected by this horrific violation of artistic freedoms, shrugging and saying things alone the lines of "Who the fuck buys games from Target anyway?" Department stores in Australia don't do a great deal of business with games. They are generally unable to effectively compete with the dedicated video game stores. For example, you can walk into an EB Games shop, tell them that Target is selling X Game for $Y and they will sell it to you for $Y-5.

However, I am perfectly happy to use this as an opportunity to have a laugh at GG. After all their howling about consumer rights and demanding to be listened and catered to, it's funny to see them outraged over a business listening and catering to the "wrong" consumers.
 

NuclearKangaroo

New member
Feb 7, 2014
1,919
0
0
Zhukov said:
NuclearKangaroo said:
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
Nope and nope.

I do not know what the majority thinks of department stores in Australia stocking GTA5. Nor do I care in the slightest. I think this is a business decision undertaken after being contacted with a petition signed by about 40,000 individuals. (Assuming that petition link that's been doing the rounds is indeed what prompted this.)

Actually, I vaguely disapprove of the complaint and the action taken. However, since I couldn't give a damn about GTA5 and considering that the game is in no way being censored here, I don't care that much one way or the other. You'll notice a lot of actual Australians, y'know the people presumably affected by this horrific violation of artistic freedoms, shrugging and saying things alone the lines of "Who the fuck buys games from Target anyway?" Department stores in Australia don't do a great deal of business with games. They are generally unable to effectively compete with the dedicated video game stores. For example, you can walk into an EB Games shop, tell them that Target is selling X Game for $Y and they will sell it to you for $Y-5.

However, I am perfectly happy to use this as an opportunity to have a laugh at GG. After all their howling about consumer rights and demanding to be listened and catered to, it's funny to see them outraged over a business listening and catering to the "wrong" consumers.
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out?
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out?
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out?
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me?and there was no one left to speak for me."


Zhukov said:
However, I am perfectly happy to use this as an opportunity to have a laugh at GG. After all their howling about consumer rights and demanding to be listened and catered to, it's funny to see them outraged over a business listening and catering to the "wrong" consumers.
yeah you clearly have no idea what you are talking about, this mas been a constant matter of discussion in GG, the idea that social justice advocates are somehow more worth listening to than the general gaming community, this utter lack of communication is what in part spawned things like #notyourshield
 

DataSnake

New member
Aug 5, 2009
467
0
0
peruvianskys said:
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.
So actually listening to women instead of just assuming I know what's best for them is misogyny now? Interesting definition you have.

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.
Why are sex workers more likely to be victimized than other women? I'll give you a hint: it has to do with the fact that they can't go to the police and the fact that society values them even less than other women. Now what do you suppose is the reason for those two facts? I'll give you a hint, it rhymes with "enigma".

And as for the whole "current sex workers matter more than exited women", that's ridiculous.
Women who are no longer sex workers are not personally affected by criminalization. Current sex workers are affected. It stands to reason that the people who are most likely to be fucked over by a bad policy should have more of a say in the formulation of such policy than those with no stake in the matter.
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.
First off, this is a bit of a circular argument. You're claiming that sex work is inherently coercive, then saying that all the statements people who frankly know more about the subject than either of us make to the contrary are invalid because it's coercive. You can't use a statement as evidence for itself. Second, by limiting the discussion to "exited women", you're of course going to find more who found sex work unsatisfying, because those who didn't were less likely to quit. This is the same type of selection bias that allows every insurance company to claim that the people who switched to it saved money.

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?
And yet, few if any people seriously try to make it a criminal offense to shop at Wal-Mart. Hell, many domestic workers are trafficked, but you don't see anyone trying to make it a criminal offense to hire a housecleaner or babysitter.

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?
So what's your plan for the people "reliant on the system"? You want to take away their means to put food on the table and a roof over their head, I'm sure you have a brilliant alternative lined up. Or is that why you don't want them to have a say, because it would be harder to say "got mine, screw you" to an impoverished woman's face?

EDIT: this is getting a bit off topic. If you want to continue this discussion, why not make a thread in R&P?
 
Sep 14, 2009
9,073
0
0
lol in case anyone hasn't seen this:

https://www.change.org/p/target-withdraw-the-holy-bible-this-sickening-book-encourages-readers-to-commit-sexual-violence-and-kill-women

It's a book that encourages readers to murder women for entertainment. The incentive is to commit sexual violence against women, then abuse or kill them to proceed or get 'god' points ? and now Target are stocking it and promoting it for your Xmas stocking.

This is The Holy Bible. This book means that after various sex acts, readers are given options to kill women by stoning her unconscious, Setting them on fire, cutting off their hands, and killing their children!

One of many fan passages on In The Holy Bible depicts woman being set alight for having sex "And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire." (Leviticus 21:9).

Thismisogynistic book literally makes a game of bashing, killing and horrific violence against women. It also links sexual arousal and violence.

I almost hope this succeeds just to prove the point at how silly this all is, but I'm sure there would be riots in the streets over "RELEEGOUSSSS FREEDUMS. MUH BIABLE!!!!!" and we don't need that...

also, man gamergate is the new godwins law of the escapist, this thread quickly turned into a GG/anti-gg thread.
 

Lovely Mixture

New member
Jul 12, 2011
1,474
0
0
grimner said:
Lovely Mixture said:
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.
Yeah, trying to shut down a company sure isn't trying to deprive consumers of their product. Riiiight.
Are you actually suggesting that a boycott is the equivalent of try to shutdown a company?

peruvianskys said:
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.
Are we being trolled?

CaitSeith said:
Yeah it's pretty much the same everytime you try to argue anything with a supporter of Anita's arguments.
 

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,768
0
0
NuclearKangaroo said:
Zhukov said:
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out?
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out?
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out?
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me?and there was no one left to speak for me."


Yes, because Nazi purges and the contents Target's video game department are totally comparable things.

If you were anything other than a gamergater I'd think you were joking and have a good chuckle.

As it is, I shall have a good chuckle anyway.

NuclearKangaroo said:
Zhukov said:
However, I am perfectly happy to use this as an opportunity to have a laugh at GG. After all their howling about consumer rights and demanding to be listened and catered to, it's funny to see them outraged over a business listening and catering to the "wrong" consumers.
yeah you clearly have no idea what you are talking about, this mas been a constant matter of discussion in GG, the idea that social justice advocates are somehow more worth listening to than the general gaming community, this utter lack of communication is what in part spawned things like #notyourshield
Nuh uh, you clearly have have no idea what you are talking about!

Oh man, what a devastating argument! The battlefield of online debate shall cower and fall before its irresistible might.

Like I said, I don't particularly approve of this petition or the reasoning behind it. However, the people behind it are free to ask Target to pull any product and the Target barons are free to respond however they please.

I don't think these particular social justice advocates are more worth listening to than Gamergate. Rather, I think Gamergate is just as unworthy as the dreaded SJW extremists they so vehemently rail against. I find both groups equally odorous and it's highly amusing to see one group get its knickers in a knot over the actions of the other when those actions are so similar to their own.
 

stroopwafel

Elite Member
Apr 29, 2020
3,031
354
88
I think the bigger issue is not that this shitty store won't sell GTA5 b/c of some ridiculous petition, but rather that an extremely vocal minority dictate public discourse with the risk of public opinion swaying in their direction. People are susceptible to absolutist declarations which is the reason why eg Hitler and ISIS got so popular. I'm not lumping them in the same category as a few hysterical housewives with too much time on their hands, but the mechanism is the same.

Espescially countries like Australia and Sweden have become politically correct shitholes where special interest groups beat weak-kneed politicians into submission by relegating any dissenting opinion as either racism or 'misoginy'. It would make me laugh if their real-world implications wouldn't be blatant infringement on free speech and creative freedom.

People's freedoms and the political/legal institutions that should protect them break under pressure so easily, its scary.
 

peruvianskys

New member
Jun 8, 2011
577
0
0
DataSnake said:
So actually listening to women instead of just assuming I know what's best for them is misogyny now? Interesting definition you have.
No, supporting the sale of women's bodies to violent men is misogyny - justifying it by finding a mouthpiece from within the ranks that agrees with you is too, though.

Why are sex workers more likely to be victimized than other women? I'll give you a hint: it has to do with the fact that they can't go to the police and the fact that society values them even less than other women. Now what do you suppose is the reason for those two facts? I'll give you a hint, it rhymes with "enigma".
No, it doesn't. It has to do with the fact that the type of man who kills women is the type of man who buys sex. It has to do with the fact that the sex industry is driven by sexually entitled, violent, misogynistic, abusive men and always will be because sexual entitlement, violence, misogyny, and abuse are necessary psychological traits for one to find purchasing a woman appropriate.

Women who are no longer sex workers are not personally affected by criminalization. Current sex workers are affected. It stands to reason that the people who are most likely to be fucked over by a bad policy should have more of a say in the formulation of such policy than those with no stake in the matter.
First off, *all* women are affected by a decision to view a woman's body as a legitimate thing to sell. But even disregarding that, the fact is that those currently reliant on a system of exploitation often support the continuation of that system of oppression. That's how it works. It was that way with child labor, it was that way with the 14-hour day, it was that way with slavery, it was that way with women in the workforce. In all of those cases, huge numbers - maybe even the majority - of those being oppressed demanded the continuation of their oppression. Not because they're stupid or bad people, but because that's how oppression works - it makes you dependent on it. If we refused to abolish every system wherein those it exploited sometimes protected it, there would be no social justice *ever*.

First off, this is a bit of a circular argument. You're claiming that sex work is inherently coercive, then saying that all the statements people who frankly know more about the subject than either of us make to the contrary are invalid because it's coercive. You can't use a statement as evidence for itself. Second, by limiting the discussion to "exited women", you're of course going to find more who found sex work unsatisfying, because those who didn't were less likely to quit. This is the same type of selection bias that allows every insurance company to claim that the people who switched to it saved money.
These are women who are emerging from the industry suffering rape, abuse, assault, exploitation, and every possible indignity. And you're saying they're leaving because they found it "unsatisfying?" 90% of women in the sex industry do not participate for reasons of satisfaction, buddy - they do it because otherwise they will starve. Is your view of the realities of prostitution really so warped that you think anyone but a small minority of privileged young white women engage for anything other than survival?

And yet, few if any people seriously try to make it a criminal offense to shop at Wal-Mart. Hell, many domestic workers are trafficked, but you don't see anyone trying to make it a criminal offense to hire a housecleaner or babysitter.
If there were laws that were aimed at dismantling Walmart as a company and ending its economic influence, I'd be all for it - as I am also all for the more realistic political project of preventing "domestic labor" immigration programs.

The difference here, of course, is that housecleaning has existed without oppression at some point in time. Find me a society in the world, today or in the past, where the sex industry was not uniformly a misogynistic, abusive system.

So what's your plan for the people "reliant on the system"? You want to take away their means to put food on the table and a roof over their head, I'm sure you have a brilliant alternative lined up. Or is that why you don't want them to have a say, because it would be harder to say "got mine, screw you" to an impoverished woman's face?
Which is why the Nordic Model allocates tens of millions of dollars to exit programs, job skills workshops, and other systems designed to help impoverished women not only escape prostitution but find stable lives outside of it. I must say though, this excuse - those being oppressed really, truly *need* the system of oppression to survive - is one made by literally every absolutely disgusting and indefensible social institution we've ever had.

White southerners by the dozens said, "Oh yes, slavery is certainly rough - but without it, where would the negro go?"

So did the colonists: "Oh yes, our residential schools and reservations are often brutal places to be - but without them, where would the red man go?"

So did the capitalists of the Gilded Age: "Oh yes, our coal mines and textile mills are full of death and misery, but without them, where would the poor folks go?"

In every single other case, it was simply a naked attempt to couch the self-interest of the oppressor class in a false sense of sympathy or concern for their victims. I don't buy it then, I don't buy it now.

EDIT: this is getting a bit off topic. If you want to continue this discussion, why not make a thread in R&P?
Honestly I think it's very on topic, for no other reason than because what "sex work" really *is* is central to the discussion of what depictions are and aren't appropriate in video games. But if you would like to continue this, yes, for sure make a thread.
 

BytByte

New member
Nov 26, 2009
425
0
0
Guys, guys, if Zhukov says something you should really pay attention, guy's smart. Like as in this is the first time I've ever seen him post multiple replies to people on the 8th page no less. Truly a marvel for the modern age.







...Also, he's right, ya know.
 

NiPah

New member
May 8, 2009
1,084
0
0
A few points:

No it isn't government censorship, it's just a store refusing to sell a video game due to feared backlash after a petition accused it of beating up women (which was actually lifted from GTA3 and is outright false in some of it's accusations).

Yes it sucks that a store folded to the bullshit petition.

No it doesn't really matter, most Aussies don't buy games from Target anyway due to high costs.

Even if the guy has a Vivian avatar it's really annoying when you bring up buzz words stereotyped to Gamergate, I mean shit because that happened the thread was horribly derailed before it even started.
 

stroopwafel

Elite Member
Apr 29, 2020
3,031
354
88
peruvianskys said:
No, it doesn't. It has to do with the fact that the type of man who kills women is the type of man who buys sex.
Ridiculous. Women can have abusive boyfriends and female prostitutes can have respectful clients. Where do you draw the line? The only difference is a financial transaction, which says nothing about the personal integrity of the person in question.

Also what about expensive escorts? These girls are just college students and/or have other jobs and are in no way doing it out of lack of options. Instead, they do it for easy money and excitement. I know that probably doesn't fit in your shortsighted worldview of 'every woman is a sweet little princess that must be protected from the filthy man-beasts' but the facts speak for themselves.

You think you speak for all women, yet you speak for no one.
 

peruvianskys

New member
Jun 8, 2011
577
0
0
stroopwafel said:
Ridiculous. Women can have abusive boyfriends and female prostitutes can have respectful clients. Where do you draw the line? The only difference is a financial transaction, which says nothing about the personal integrity of the person in question.
The fact that a man makes the choice to purchase sex from a female stranger says *everything* about his personal integrity.

Also what about expensive escorts? These girls are just college students and/or have other jobs and are in no way doing it out of lack of options. Instead, they do it for easy money and excitement. I know that probably doesn't fit in your shortsighted worldview of 'every woman is a sweet little princess that must be protected from the filthy man-beasts' but the facts speak for themselves.
What about them? They make up less than 15% of women in the sex industry in even the most liberal estimates. The fact that a privileged minority are able to survive without violence doesn't mean the system isn't inherently violent - it just means that white skin, good looks, and some cash are sometimes enough to keep that violence from reaching you.
 

wildstyle96

New member
Oct 7, 2014
14
0
0
peruvianskys said:
kazann said:
Please dont use oppressed like as if they're living in hell and are subjected to an authoritarian treatment. It makes your cause seem pathetic, this isn't the 1970's. Thank god its a small minority that think like you, they just happen to be vocal. I know women that would laugh at what your saying.
Did you know that women in the sex trade have levels of PTSD comparable with soldiers returning from active duty? That over 75% report at least one rape a year?

That's oppression.

Ilovechocolatemilk said:
So you're against free speech. The idea that one person's speech matters more than another's is antithetical to the idea of free speech. Either everyone has it, or it's not free. Some pigs are not more equal than others.
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.

It's shocking to me how someone who says they believe in social justice can be in favor of censorship. Free speech is our main weapon against oppression. How can you not see this? Have you never studied history?
Our main weapon against oppression is resistance. And I have studied history, and I can tell you that feminist activists working to disrupt the production and distribution of woman-hating material is a very effective strategy against male violence.


So let me ask you this, how are you so sure the game encourages violence against women if you haven't even played it? People who have are telling you that's a false charge. What do you have to say about that?
I've seen videos of the behaviors described - in addition, the feature was possible in all GTA games from Vice City up, if I remember correctly.

gmaverick019 said:
see what I mean? There is no issue at all with people not liking something, hell I find GTA extremely boring, none of that shit has ever interested me, but I don't see why I should prevent someone else from being able to play it. Censorship is pretty much bad in all cases, I can't think of anything off the top of my head that actually warrants being outright censored, and sure, not every store has every item stocked in the history of stocking, but they aren't for "i'm offended! I demand to be accustomed to!" reasons, they are for the fact they aren't selling anymore or they can't get ahold of stock for it.
This has nothing to do with women and pro-feminists "not liking something." I don't like Nickelback and I don't like Parmesan cheese. I don't want either of those things removed from stores.

What this has to do with is women who do not want their abuse to be made into a sport for men. It has to do with women's frustrations regarding the way they're portrayed in video games as sex objects, sluts, and targets of scorn and violence. It has to do with, you know, hundreds of years of rape and abuse that women have suffered from men. It's not about taste. It's not about individual preferences. It's about a woman's desire and a woman's right to live in a world where hurting her for being a woman is not a pastime that men like to simulate.

Women can choose to not buy GTA 5 but they *cannot* chose to not live in a world where millions of men find simulations of their rape and murder to be a fun diversion in a video game. This is about the latter, not the former; it's about women who live in a world where *thousands* of men rape, abuse, and murder prostituted women, and how those women want to live in a world where at the very least that violence is not replicated onscreen for the enjoyment of men.
peruvianskys said:
kazann said:
Statistically speaking aren't most gun related deaths men? while yes, those crimes are committed by other men are we gonna play the childish 'its only bad when boys do it not girls'. Bad things happen daily and people die.
And the people behind those deaths are largely men, being responsible for about 80% of violent crimes. Men kill each other a lot and also sometimes women.

Men can choose to not buy GTA 5 but they *cannot* chose to not live in a world where millions of men and women find simulations of their deaths and murder to be a fun diversion in a video game. This is about the latter, not the former; it's about men who live in a world where *thousands* of men rape, abuse, and murder other men, and how those men want to live in a world where at the very least that violence is not replicated onscreen for the enjoyment of men and women.
The *huge* difference is, of course, that it is men doing that killing. If men are so bummed out about male violence, they could stop, you know, killing each other. But women don't have that option.

Is it just the prostitution portion you have an issue with? or women getting killing in GTA 5 in general
I don't care if women are killed as bystanders - there's nothing *inherently* sinful about the idea of killing a woman. What I care about is a very real, very deadly thing - the sex trade - being turned into a fun game.

Like, I don't care that you can shoot black folks who are wandering around as NPCs - but I would care quite a bit if there was a sideplot that had you go out and attempt to specifically murder black folks. See the difference?
Except it isn't a side plot at all, it's just a feature that has been around since the first games. The fact that police will arrest you if you are caught with a prostitute or if you kill her shows this isn't some "rewarding" gameplay.

The fact you don't care about the free speech of "spoiled white men" makes you just as bad as the same same people you've describe who don't care about your opinion.

The fact that GTA is an open world, almost sand box game that allows you to do whatever you want almost immediately leads to these situations. Without meaning to demean the oppression sex workers face in the industry, this game has been sold for a year now. Why has it taken so long for any of these workers to make this happen. And like some have said, people jokingly signed this petition. How trustworthy is an online petition anyone can sign?

The other side of the argument is that these women seem to only have a problem with this GAME, because once again people don't care about the artistic licence of a game developer. The petition ridicules Target for stocking this "shocking" game that reinforces violence against women while not caring about them stocking books (50 shades), movies (wolf of wall street), or any other material that should rightfully be condemned by this group if they have a problem with MEDIA portraying violence against women.

Lastly, this game features torture, animal deaths, rape, violence, swearing, nudity, etc. Many of these acts the characters actually condemn. Trevor even kills a couple of men in a mission for treating women badly. You talk about women not wanting their experiences turned into a "sport", that isn't what is being done here at all. It's the freedom this game gives the player and the CHOICE to do it. The game doesn't tell the player to do these actions, its a choice the player makes. Unlike the torture scene within the game, which the character and story all condemn. This isn't women hating material, in fact the game is anti-men, portraying the main characters as despicable anti-heroes through their actions and reactions by other people within the game; Michael loses his family at one point! |

The game serves as a counterpart to real life, providing social commentary on many aspects of it, much like south park.
You saw some videos of the game but never played it. You're only seeing one side of the story and supporting it fully.

Why attack this game over all the other media available? Because it's a game and people have yet to recognize that games should be allowed the same freedoms as all other media.
 

NuclearKangaroo

New member
Feb 7, 2014
1,919
0
0
Zhukov said:
NuclearKangaroo said:
Zhukov said:
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out?
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out?
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out?
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me?and there was no one left to speak for me."


Yes, because Nazi purges and the contents Target's video game department are totally comparable things.

If you were anything other than a gamergater I'd think you were joking and have a good chuckle.

As it is, I shall have a good chuckle anyway.
its a figure of speech, im not calling anybody a nazi, or even implying this is in any way similar to the nazi regime, what im trying to say is that, the less we stand up to this bullshit, the less ground we will have to defend our hobby the next time someone tries to bully devs into submission or censor things

hell theres people in norway at the moment trying to get GTA5 pulled from shelves there as well


Zhukov said:
NuclearKangaroo said:
Zhukov said:
However, I am perfectly happy to use this as an opportunity to have a laugh at GG. After all their howling about consumer rights and demanding to be listened and catered to, it's funny to see them outraged over a business listening and catering to the "wrong" consumers.
yeah you clearly have no idea what you are talking about, this mas been a constant matter of discussion in GG, the idea that social justice advocates are somehow more worth listening to than the general gaming community, this utter lack of communication is what in part spawned things like #notyourshield
Nuh uh, you clearly have have no idea what you are talking about!

Oh man, what a devastating argument! The battlefield of online debate shall cower and fall before its irresistible might.

Like I said, I don't particularly approve of this petition or the reasoning behind it. However, the people behind it are free to ask Target to pull any product and the Target barons are free to respond however they please.

I don't think these particular social justice advocates are more worth listening to than Gamergate. Rather, I think Gamergate is just as unworthy as the dreaded SJW extremists they so vehemently rail against. I find both groups equally odorous and it's highly amusing to see one group get its knickers in a knot over the actions of the other when those actions are so similar to their own.
you seem utterly unengaged with the debate, why do you get riled up when people tell you you dont know what you are talking about? if you seriously think GG actions are similar to this, you simply DO NOT know what you are talking about