Target Australia will no longer stock GTA5

[144_v1legacy]

[snip]

"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

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

Slotting in a famous quote doesn't make for an instant win. The fact that you used it in the conversation where you did is proof that you had no interest in listening to what anyone else had to say, and entered this thread with an agenda. "I'm going to talk at you guys, and my words won't change regardless of your sense." It's like arguing with a conspiracy theorist. Whose the "they" in this example? The "they" that's metaphorically coming for us? Is it it the government? I think Zhukov's point was that, for once, it wasn't, but rather, a business did this of its own accord. Is it Target? Why would they do this? No. The "They" is, sadly, the consumer. And the reason it makes sense to bring this all back into you seeing you in the GG mindset is that you feel that the gamer has a louder voice than he really does. Frankly, there still aren't enough adult gamers yet. At least, not in Target's mind.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

Slotting in a famous quote doesn't make for an instant win. The fact that you used it in the conversation where you did is proof that you had no interest in listening to what anyone else had to say, and entered this thread with an agenda. "I'm going to talk at you guys, and my words won't change regardless of your sense." It's like arguing with a conspiracy theorist. Whose the "they" in this example? The "they" that's metaphorically coming for us? Is it it the government? I think Zhukov's point was that, for once, it wasn't, but rather, a business did this of its own accord. Is it Target? Why would they do this? No. The "They" is, sadly, the consumer. And the reason it makes sense to bring this all back into you seeing you in the GG mindset is that you feel that the gamer has a louder voice than he really does.

you are putting words in my mouth, what he said boils down to, "it doesnt matter" and "it doesnt affect me", which is an extremely narrow minded point of view

how is the gamer not the loudest voice when it comes to gaming? we are the reason of why this industry exists

but you are right, what im talking about this isnt a slippery slope, oh no, its just one store... oops make it two, Kmart just joined to the shame parade, oh but its just australia right? who cares about australia, oh wait what is this? a group of people in norway trying to do the exact same thing?

http://www.pressfire.no/nyheter/XboxOne/9191/den-norske-kvinnefronten-krever-at-butikker-fjerne-gta-v-fra-hyllene

is the poem i quoted not appropiate here? how many times will you fail to defend people's right to enjoy the games they want, will you wait until its your turn?

 

[144_v1legacy]

Slotting in a famous quote doesn't make for an instant win. The fact that you used it in the conversation where you did is proof that you had no interest in listening to what anyone else had to say, and entered this thread with an agenda. "I'm going to talk at you guys, and my words won't change regardless of your sense." It's like arguing with a conspiracy theorist. Whose the "they" in this example? The "they" that's metaphorically coming for us? Is it it the government? I think Zhukov's point was that, for once, it wasn't, but rather, a business did this of its own accord. Is it Target? Why would they do this? No. The "They" is, sadly, the consumer. And the reason it makes sense to bring this all back into you seeing you in the GG mindset is that you feel that the gamer has a louder voice than he really does.

you are putting words in my mouth, what he said boils down to, "it doesnt matter" and "it doesnt affect me", which is an extremely narrow minded point of view

how is the gamer not the loudest voice when it comes to gaming? we are the reason of why this industry exists

but you are right, what im talking about this isnt a slippery slope, oh no, its just one store... oops make it two, Kmart just joined to the shame parade, oh but its just australia right? who cares about australia, oh wait what is this? a group of people in norway trying to do the exact same thing?

http://www.pressfire.no/nyheter/XboxOne/9191/den-norske-kvinnefronten-krever-at-butikker-fjerne-gta-v-fra-hyllene

is the poem i quoted not appropiate here? how many times will you fail to defend people's right to enjoy the games they want, will you wait until its your turn?

You only think those things because you didn't read his posts carefully enough. Ironic, since that's what I just accused you of. Read them again. And maybe you can figure out what else your opponent might have been implying. But know that at this point, several people in this thread are on your opponent's side. Maybe those people read his posts? Maybe they read them better than you did?

 

[Vault101]

*yawn* so what'd I miss?

snipidy doo-dar-day! Nazis gonna take our games away!

ohhhh looooooorrd....oh oh my sides....

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.

Zhukov has opinions so I don't have too

 

[IceForce]

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.

Actually, I don't think anyone here ever said petitioning and boycotting was wholly a bad thing, they just don't agree with the way it is used in this particular example. Here, the petition is based on a false premise that GTAV "encourages" violence against women when the game doesn't discriminate in who you can kill. With "Operation Disrespectful Nod" it's more Gamergaters are pissed at the "bring back bullying" and other such comments by Gawker employees that have remained in their position without any internal flak whatsoever along with the multitude of "gamers are dead" articles so you can make a fairly reasonable argument for such a movement. So again, these people aren't saying petitions are bad, just that this particular one is stupid since quite frankly unless you're some rabid deluded feminazi you wouldn't reach that conclusion in the first place. The only one I've seen here actively supporting such a thing has been peruvianskys and who comes across as a stereotypical radical feminist with most of their points.

This entire post can be boiled down to "It's different when we do it".

That may as well be GamerGate's motto, right there.

 

[IceForce]

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?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/528.860762.21556822
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/528.860762.21556875
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/528.860762.21610297
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/528.860762.21586020

Tell me again that GamerGate is not trying to shut down a company.

No, please do. I'm quite enjoying this rather impressive display of mental gymnastics.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

Slotting in a famous quote doesn't make for an instant win. The fact that you used it in the conversation where you did is proof that you had no interest in listening to what anyone else had to say, and entered this thread with an agenda. "I'm going to talk at you guys, and my words won't change regardless of your sense." It's like arguing with a conspiracy theorist. Whose the "they" in this example? The "they" that's metaphorically coming for us? Is it it the government? I think Zhukov's point was that, for once, it wasn't, but rather, a business did this of its own accord. Is it Target? Why would they do this? No. The "They" is, sadly, the consumer. And the reason it makes sense to bring this all back into you seeing you in the GG mindset is that you feel that the gamer has a louder voice than he really does.

you are putting words in my mouth, what he said boils down to, "it doesnt matter" and "it doesnt affect me", which is an extremely narrow minded point of view

how is the gamer not the loudest voice when it comes to gaming? we are the reason of why this industry exists

but you are right, what im talking about this isnt a slippery slope, oh no, its just one store... oops make it two, Kmart just joined to the shame parade, oh but its just australia right? who cares about australia, oh wait what is this? a group of people in norway trying to do the exact same thing?

http://www.pressfire.no/nyheter/XboxOne/9191/den-norske-kvinnefronten-krever-at-butikker-fjerne-gta-v-fra-hyllene

is the poem i quoted not appropiate here? how many times will you fail to defend people's right to enjoy the games they want, will you wait until its your turn?

You only think those things because you didn't read his posts carefully enough. Ironic, since that's what I just accused you of. Read them again. And maybe you can figure out what else your opponent might have been implying. But know that at this point, several people in this thread are on your opponent's side. Maybe those people read his posts? Maybe they read them better than you did?

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.

you keep trying to push the idea that this doesnt matter, but the bottom line is, a game was just pulled off the shelves of a retailers under the false argument that it promoted violence agaisnt women

and now make that two retailers

im still baffled by the people who still dont see a problem there

several people on this thread are also NOT on my opponents side, are we now going to assume they are wrong? or that they didnt read his post?

hell your whole premise is that he is right and im wrong and the only reason i keep discusing is because i didnt read his post right, you call this discussing?

 

[Starbird]

How is it a dangerous presedent[footnote]Or even, dangerous prime minester?[/footnote]?

A store has decided not to stock something. That's a very big difference from taking away your precious games or banning things. As Clive Dunn would say, "Don't panic!"

A few more stores get bullied like this. Game companies worry about losing sales and tailor their products accordingly.

 

[WhiteNachos]

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.

No it's still censorship, despite what some people believe, it has a definition that includes more than just government censorship.

"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.

Man it sure is easy to make straw men look like hypocrites, especially when you simplify what some (but not all) of they said.

Have any of them ever bugged a store to stop selling something?

 

[IceForce]

"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.

Man it sure is easy to make straw men look like hypocrites, especially when you simplify what some (but not all) of they said.

Have any of them ever bugged a store to stop selling something?

No, they've bugged certain websites to stop publishing articles and content they don't like.

No wait, scratch that. They've bugged and put pressure on advertisers, as an attempt to manipulate websites into publishing the content they want, and not publishing the content they don't.
So what GamerGate is doing is actually worse.

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.

No it's still censorship, despite what some people believe, it has a definition that includes more than just government censorship.

If that's the case, then what GamerGate is doing also falls under this same "definition".

You can't have it both ways. You can't claim "censorship" here, while at the same time try to manipulate website content or bring down certain websites entirely.
It's hypocrisy of the highest order.

If what you say is true, am I to understand that GamerGate is pro-censorship, then?

 

[Zhukov]

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.

No it's still censorship, despite what some people believe, it has a definition that includes more than just government censorship.

It is entirely legal to own, play, buy and sell GTA5 within Australia. The game's content has not been changed. Anyone who wishes to own and play GTA5 is able to do so.

Thus, not being censored in any way. Despite how comically desperate, how utterly frantic, some folks are to characterise anything they oppose as censorship.

"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.

Man it sure is easy to make straw men look like hypocrites, especially when you simplify what some (but not all) of they said.

Have any of them ever bugged a store to stop selling something?

They bugged news outlets to stop saying things they didn't like. (Gamers be dead, yo.)

They attempted to damage the revenue of news outlets that said things they didn't like.

They are of course allowed to do these things. But I'm going to laugh long and loud when they then start squealing with outrage over others doing the same for their own ends.

 

[WhiteNachos]

"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.

Man it sure is easy to make straw men look like hypocrites, especially when you simplify what some (but not all) of they said.

Have any of them ever bugged a store to stop selling something?

No, they've bugged certain websites to stop publishing articles and content they don't like.

No wait, scratch that. They've bugged and put pressure on advertisers, as an attempt to manipulate websites into publishing the content they want, and not publishing the content they don't.
So what GamerGate is doing is actually worse.

How? If anything this is worse because they are stirring up an outrage by lying about the game. The game never insults them or effects them and the articles they were protesting about probably portrayed them or gamers in an unfairly negative light (knowing the kind of stuff that gets written about them). So you have a game that won't actually hurt anyone vs. slanderous articles.

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.

No it's still censorship, despite what some people believe, it has a definition that includes more than just government censorship.

If that's the case, then what GamerGate is doing also falls under this same "definition".

The article would still be up on the original website even with the advertisers pulling out, plus they aren't pressuring archive.org to remove their archived version of it are they?

You can't have it both ways. You can't claim "censorship" here, while at the same time try to manipulate website content or bring down certain websites entirely.
It's hypocrisy of the highest order.

Who said I was part of gamergate? This what I mean about straw men. It's easy to dismiss people if you can imagine them as hypocrites.

 

[WhiteNachos]

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.

No it's still censorship, despite what some people believe, it has a definition that includes more than just government censorship.

It is entirely legal to own, play, buy and sell GTA5 within Australia. The game's content has not been changed. Anyone who wishes to own and play GTA5 is able to do so.

Thus, not being censored in any way. Despite how comically desperate, how utterly frantic, some folks are to characterise anything they oppose as censorship.

Also comical when people cling to a definition they made up so they can try to manipulate the argument in an underhanded way (see also Xism is prejudice + power). Censorship doesn't have to be from the government. I mean just look at the dictionary definition of censor (scroll down to verb part)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor

You'll notice it doesn't say you have to be part of the government to do it, but hey let's not let facts get in the way.

"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.

Man it sure is easy to make straw men look like hypocrites, especially when you simplify what some (but not all) of they said.

Have any of them ever bugged a store to stop selling something?

They bugged news outlets to stop saying things they didn't like. (Gamers be dead, yo.)

Oh my god you mean they actually complained about stuff they don't like to the people who said it? What a horrible thing to do. /s No one would give a shit if people who don't like GTA complained to Rockstar.

They attempted to damage the revenue of news outlets they didn't like.

That's an underhanded way of saying "news outlets that made biased hit pieces about them", but at least it's something similar.

They are of course allowed to do these things. But I'm going to laugh long and loud when they then start squealing with outrage over others doing the same for their own ends.

Has it ever occurred that "they" are hundreds of different people with differing opinions? That not all of them got involved with the boycotts?

I mean that would be like me using this incident to bash feminists, to say ALL of them are hypocrites, as if all of them supported this.

You were the first one to post and rather than respond to something someone had said you jsut bashed a straw man for being a hypocrite. Couldn't wait to see if anyone actually was being a hypocrite. Maybe next time you could actually contribute something useful to thread.

 

[IceForce]

Man it sure is easy to make straw men look like hypocrites, especially when you simplify what some (but not all) of they said.

Have any of them ever bugged a store to stop selling something?

No, they've bugged certain websites to stop publishing articles and content they don't like.

No wait, scratch that. They've bugged and put pressure on advertisers, as an attempt to manipulate websites into publishing the content they want, and not publishing the content they don't.
So what GamerGate is doing is actually worse.

How? If anything this is worse because they are stirring up an outrage by lying about the game. The game never insults them or effects them and the articles they were protesting about probably portrayed them or gamers in an unfairly negative light (knowing the kind of stuff that gets written about them). So you have a game that won't actually hurt anyone vs. slanderous articles.

Ah I see, silly me. "It's different when GamerGate does it."

Man, you guys should print bumper stickers.

No it's still censorship, despite what some people believe, it has a definition that includes more than just government censorship.

If that's the case, then what GamerGate is doing also falls under this same "definition".

The article would still be up on the original website even with the advertisers pulling out, plus they aren't pressuring archive.org to remove their archived version of it are they?

And what happens when a website's advertising revenue dries up? What happens to the site and its content then? Hmm?

And are you seriously suggesting that as long as something still exists only in an internet archive, then it's perfectly okay to destroy and take down the original site? Wow just wow.

 

[WhiteNachos]

Man it sure is easy to make straw men look like hypocrites, especially when you simplify what some (but not all) of they said.

Have any of them ever bugged a store to stop selling something?

No, they've bugged certain websites to stop publishing articles and content they don't like.

No wait, scratch that. They've bugged and put pressure on advertisers, as an attempt to manipulate websites into publishing the content they want, and not publishing the content they don't.
So what GamerGate is doing is actually worse.

How? If anything this is worse because they are stirring up an outrage by lying about the game. The game never insults them or effects them and the articles they were protesting about probably portrayed them or gamers in an unfairly negative light (knowing the kind of stuff that gets written about them). So you have a game that won't actually hurt anyone vs. slanderous articles.

Ah I see, silly me. "It's different when GamerGate does it."

You ever notice that slander is illegal in the United States, but offensive speech isn't? That's basically the difference we're dealing with here. Lying about someone vs. "I was disgusted by this".

No it's still censorship, despite what some people believe, it has a definition that includes more than just government censorship.

If that's the case, then what GamerGate is doing also falls under this same "definition".

The article would still be up on the original website even with the advertisers pulling out, plus they aren't pressuring archive.org to remove their archived version of it are they?

And what happens when a website's advertising revenue dries up? What happens to the site and its content then? Hmm?

And are you seriously suggesting that as long as something still exists only in an internet archive, then it's perfectly okay to destroy and take down the original site? Wow just wow.

Can you argue without straw manning me. I'm not part of gamer gate, and I never said that.

These people want it removed from everywhere, the other people did not. I'm not saying which one is OK.

 

[IceForce]

Also comical when people cling to a definition they made up so they can try to manipulate the argument in an underhanded way (see also Xism is prejudice + power). Censorship doesn't have to be from the government. I mean just look at the dictionary definition of censor (scroll down to verb part)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor

You'll notice it doesn't say you have to be part of the government to do it, but hey let's not let facts get in the way.

Man, I can't get over the irony and hypocrisy here.

Because this exact link and exact definition was posted at GamerGate supporters (by others, not by me), and they swore blind that pressuring advertisers to manipulate site content, and/or campaigning to have certain websites taken down altogether, wasn't "censorship".

If anyone is guilty of twisting definitions of words to suit them, it's GamerGate supporters.

 

[WhiteNachos]

Also comical when people cling to a definition they made up so they can try to manipulate the argument in an underhanded way (see also Xism is prejudice + power). Censorship doesn't have to be from the government. I mean just look at the dictionary definition of censor (scroll down to verb part)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor

You'll notice it doesn't say you have to be part of the government to do it, but hey let's not let facts get in the way.

Man, I can't get over the irony and hypocrisy here.

Because when this exact link and exact definition was posted at GamerGate supporters, they swore blind that pressuring advertisers to manipulate site content, and/or campaigning to have certain websites taken down altogether, wasn't "censorship".

If anyone is guilty of twisting definitions of words to suit them, it's GamerGate supporters.

So are you saying that the Target thing is censorship or not? Because if you think the target thing isn't censorship then neither is gamergate.

Any you can you people post some links.

 

[WhiteNachos]

Also comical when people cling to a definition they made up so they can try to manipulate the argument in an underhanded way (see also Xism is prejudice + power). Censorship doesn't have to be from the government. I mean just look at the dictionary definition of censor (scroll down to verb part)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor

You'll notice it doesn't say you have to be part of the government to do it, but hey let's not let facts get in the way.

Man, I can't get over the irony and hypocrisy here.

Because when this exact link and exact definition was posted at GamerGate supporters, they swore blind that pressuring advertisers to manipulate site content, and/or campaigning to have certain websites taken down altogether, wasn't "censorship".

If anyone is guilty of twisting definitions of words to suit them, it's GamerGate supporters.

What is your obsession with gamergate? They aren't involved in this, and not all the people giving Target shit for this are even part of gamergate (like me).