Target Australia will no longer stock GTA5

[IceForce]

There's no need to quote me 3 times in a row. I'm pretty sure that counts as spamming, and I've flagged your posts accordingly.

What is your obsession with gamergate?

Because a delicious news story like this reveals them to be the hypocrites that they are.

Watch as none of them seem to be able to see the parallels between:
- Consumers (concerned women) pressuring a private company (Target) to take down something (GTAV).
- Consumers (gamers) pressuring a private company (various gaming sites) to take down something (articles they don't like).

GamerGaters complain about the first point, but are totally okay with the second.

This wasn't a campaign to have the site removed from the internet.

I'll post the same bunch of links I posted to the other guy who claimed the same thing.

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

 

[WhiteNachos]

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 mean just like how GTA5 is freely and legally available at other retailers?

Hell, even if the GTA-is-a-Elliot-Rogers-inclubator crowd targeted every retailer in the country it would still be available for import.

Even if they were to ask or demand that the developer/publisher cease distribution or alter the game's content then the dev/publisher would be free to say "fuck off".

And attacking the advertiser is not the same as trying to get the article pulled. It's not like they're talking to an ISP to get it blocked (which they can do since Net Neutrality isn't a thing).

I don't know if its censorship but it's not a 1:1 comparison.

 

[WhiteNachos]

There's no need to quote me 3 times in a row. I'm pretty sure that counts as spamming, and I've flagged your posts accordingly.

What is your obsession with gamergate?

Because a delicious news story like this reveals them to be the hypocrites that they are.

Watch as none of them seem to be able to see the parallels between:
- Consumers (concerned women) pressuring a private company (Target) to take down something (GTAV).
- Consumers (gamers) pressuring a private company (various gaming sites) to take down something (articles they don't like).

Oh God just stop. You know that's not what's happening. Asking Gawker to post different stuff is not the same as asking Target to remove the game from shelves. It would be akin to asking GTA to make different stuff.

Like I said AGAIN, if an advertiser pulls their support it does not effect anyone's ability to read the content. They can still go to the exact same URL and read it there.

 

[Zhukov]

There's no need to quote me 3 times in a row. I'm pretty sure that counts as spamming, and I've flagged your posts accordingly.

What is your obsession with gamergate?

Because a delicious news story like this reveals them to be the hypocrites that they are.

Watch as none of them seem to be able to see the parallels between:
- Consumers (concerned women) pressuring a private company (Target) to take down something (GTAV).
- Consumers (gamers) pressuring a private company (various gaming sites) to take down something (articles they don't like).

Oh God just stop. You know that's not what's happening. Asking Gawker to post different stuff is not the same as asking Target to remove the game from shelves.

Asking Gawker to stop distributing articles I don't like.

Asking Target to stop distributing a game I don't like.

Totally different.

No comparisons to be made here. No sir. Nope. Not a one.

 

[WhiteNachos]

There's no need to quote me 3 times in a row. I'm pretty sure that counts as spamming, and I've flagged your posts accordingly.

What is your obsession with gamergate?

Because a delicious news story like this reveals them to be the hypocrites that they are.

Watch as none of them seem to be able to see the parallels between:
- Consumers (concerned women) pressuring a private company (Target) to take down something (GTAV).
- Consumers (gamers) pressuring a private company (various gaming sites) to take down something (articles they don't like).

Oh God just stop. You know that's not what's happening. Asking Gawker to post different stuff is not the same as asking Target to remove the game from shelves.

Asking Gawker to stop distributing articles I don't like.

Asking Target to stop distributing a game I don't like.

Totally different.

No comparisons to be made here. No sir. Nope. Not a one.

The equivalent would be asking Time Warner, Comcast or a different ISP to block access to Gawker. So please spare me this false equivalence or at the very least stop repeating yourself and make an argument.

Or do you people really not see the difference between a content maker and a distributor? Do you think Target actually makes any of the games they sell, or that Gawker doesn't write the material on its website?

 

[Zhukov]

There's no need to quote me 3 times in a row. I'm pretty sure that counts as spamming, and I've flagged your posts accordingly.

What is your obsession with gamergate?

Because a delicious news story like this reveals them to be the hypocrites that they are.

Watch as none of them seem to be able to see the parallels between:
- Consumers (concerned women) pressuring a private company (Target) to take down something (GTAV).
- Consumers (gamers) pressuring a private company (various gaming sites) to take down something (articles they don't like).

Oh God just stop. You know that's not what's happening. Asking Gawker to post different stuff is not the same as asking Target to remove the game from shelves.

Asking Gawker to stop distributing articles I don't like.

Asking Target to stop distributing a game I don't like.

Totally different.

No comparisons to be made here. No sir. Nope. Not a one.

The equivalent would be asking Time Warner, Comcast or a different ISP to block access to Gawker. So please spare me this false equivalence or at the very least stop repeating yourself and make an argument.

Or do you people really not see the difference between a content maker and a distributor? Do you think Target actually makes any of the games they sell, or that Gawker doesn't write the material on its website?

Why is that distinction important?

Both scenarios involve seeking to impact or inhibit the distribution of material that the complainer find objectionable. They're arguably just aiming for different links in the chain of distribution.

If Gamergate were targeting individual writers or if the petitioners were targeting Rockstar or 2K I would happily still draw the same comparisons and derive the same amusement from the situation.

I think you are splitting hairs. I'm starting to suspect that you are being disingenuous in doing so.

 

[WhiteNachos]

There's no need to quote me 3 times in a row. I'm pretty sure that counts as spamming, and I've flagged your posts accordingly.

What is your obsession with gamergate?

Because a delicious news story like this reveals them to be the hypocrites that they are.

Watch as none of them seem to be able to see the parallels between:
- Consumers (concerned women) pressuring a private company (Target) to take down something (GTAV).
- Consumers (gamers) pressuring a private company (various gaming sites) to take down something (articles they don't like).

Oh God just stop. You know that's not what's happening. Asking Gawker to post different stuff is not the same as asking Target to remove the game from shelves.

Asking Gawker to stop distributing articles I don't like.

Asking Target to stop distributing a game I don't like.

Totally different.

No comparisons to be made here. No sir. Nope. Not a one.

The equivalent would be asking Time Warner, Comcast or a different ISP to block access to Gawker. So please spare me this false equivalence or at the very least stop repeating yourself and make an argument.

Or do you people really not see the difference between a content maker and a distributor? Do you think Target actually makes any of the games they sell, or that Gawker doesn't write the material on its website?

Why is that distinction important?

Both scenarios involve seeking to impact or inhibit the distribution of material that the complainer find objectionable. They're arguably just aiming for different links in the chain of distribution.

If Gamergate were targeting individual writers or if the petitioners were targeting Rockstar or 2K I would happily still draw the same comparisons and derive the same amusement from the situation.

I think you are splitting hairs. I'm starting to suspect that you are being disingenuous in doing so.

One scenario is asking people to change what they made or not make it again which is just criticism, the other is preventing people from seeing it. If we're being honest then we gotta admit the people who started this petition are trying to prevent as many people from playing it as possible.

And in this case they did it by lying about what was actually in the game. That wouldn't work with the developers

 

[IceForce]

One scenario is asking people to change what they made or not make it again which is just criticism, the other is preventing people from seeing it.

But if you get people to change what they've made or stop making that type of content, you are preventing other people from seeing it, (seeing the content the current way it is, I mean).

Once again, the mental gymnastics here are very impressive.

 

[Zhukov]

If anything, the whole Gamergate fiasco is more retaliation more than anything. It wouldn't be happening in the first place if these people didn't fire the first shots.

Retaliation does not justify hypocrisy in my eyes. Nor does it make said hypocrisy any less funny to me.

In the interests of clarification, exactly what event or actions do you consider to constitute those "first shots"?

One scenario is asking people to change what they made or not make it again which is just criticism, the other is preventing people from seeing it. If we're being honest then we gotta admit they're trying to prevent as many people from playing it as possible.

Oh me, oh my. Once again, those hairs be splitting before the merciless precision of your razor sharp mind.

Tell me, if someone changes what they make or cease making it, does that not prevent people from seeing that which they otherwise would have made? Methinks this particular hair is getting mighty thin.

Also, as I've said several times, the petition does not prevent anyone who wishes to see the wondrous masterpiece that is GTA5 from doing so.

Lastly, and this is something of a tangent, I find it funny that "asking people to change what they made or not make it again which is just criticism" is an accurate description of the work of one Ms Sarkeesian, someone else who is often accused of censorship by the delightful folks of Gamergate and their ilk.

And in this case these people did it by lying about what was actually in the game. That wouldn't work with the developers

Ah yes, yes they did. Shame on them.

Thing is, they really didn't need to. The material in the video they linked, material which is most definitely in game, would have been quite sufficient to convey their message to those receptive to it.

It's a rather poorly worded petition if you ask me. Hell, for a nominal fee I would have happily written them a better one that made the game seem just as bad if not worse without dealing in falsehoods and sketchy understandings of game mechanics.

I personally believe that whoever wrote that petition believed what they were writing, but that is baseless speculation, I could be wrong.

 

[IceForce]

No one said they disagreed wholeheartedly with such tactics, it usually boils down to why someone would use them and whether it's actually true or not.

It's interesting you should use this as a discussion point.

Because there are many people, myself included, who believe that the reasons *why* GamerGate does what it does, is also based on a lot of nonsense and half-truths.

For instance, there are plenty of people who don't believe the "gamers are dead" articles to be the apocalyptically offensive spawns of satan that GamerGaters continually make them out to be.
There are plenty of people who believe that the constant 'he said' 'she said' twitter gossip is exactly that; gossip.

Just as GamerGaters truly believe in their cause and believe it is just, so did the people behind this petition.

If anything, the whole Gamergate fiasco is more retaliation. It wouldn't be happening in the first place if the people from Gawker sites (which they fully support by the way, can't do anything about the perpetrator when the boss actually agrees with them) didn't fire the first shots.

So you finally admit that GamerGate is really just a reactionary lynch mob hell-bent on vengeance and revenge? Maybe we're finally starting to make some progress here.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

On the one hand, it's a tad dishonest to say that GTA-V (or indeed GTA as a whole) is pro-violence against women; it's been my experience that these games have always treated murder as an equal opportunity affair. Bullets do not discriminate in GTA.

On the other, I understand their concern even it is highly misguided. Indeed shit like this is the reason so many of us lobbied for the R18+ rating: so that games could clearly state they were for grown ups and would go to dark and uncomfortable places.


On the whole, it's a crock of shit, but I'm sure JB Hi-Fi, Dick Smith, Big W, EB Games, Gametraders and other electronic and second hand retailers will be more than happy to soak up the users who went to Target for their games. All 50 of them

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Breaking news: Australia is afraid of video games with controversial content.

In other news: Birds sing, the sky is blue and sea water is salty.

Ahem.

Anyway!

Well...that didn't take very long to devolve into another GG/Anti-GG clusterfuck.

You just couldn't resist, could you, IceForce?

Meh.

I'll throw in a few comments for the hell of it and a couple reaction gifs for, er, also the hell of it?

Firstly, echoing the sentiment that's already been expressed. It's a private company, they made their decision, I'm entitled to disagree with it. I do hope this doesn't snowball and I'm not exactly pleased with the precedent, be it for something I 'agree' with or not.

Secondly, I'd like the people in here who are adamantly Anti-GG to cut out the "gotcha" nonsense when they've spent the last few months whining about the boycotting they didn't like...only now it's totally cool and we should all respect the company's wishes when it's something they think said company should have done.

Thirdly, [small]fellow[/small] GG folks? By all means, decry the decision, but claiming the company was "forced" is utter nonsense. Also, failing to adequately frame your argument and, thus, giving the above people (read: Usual Suspects?) easy fodder for more pointless forum drama...? Cut that out.

TL;DR: Everybody's a hypocrite!

All right, let's see what else we've got here before I duck out. I think I saw some interesti-

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.

...

I don't care about cops. I hate cops.

....

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.

.....

[small]Seriously though, when did Suey Park get an Escapist account?[/small]

 

[Loonyyy]

It's a shame none of those things are in any way true or relevant, because they would be awesome points. Alas, this is about how misrepresentation is wrong and that petition is totally not in itself being misrepresented.

Indeed. My favourite part is how the misrepresentation of the petition paints the liars as less hardcore gamers. Don't know about killing prostitutes in GTA, next they'll say that circle strafing is SJW propaganda, that the rocket jump is feminazi rubbish, and that headshots are worthless in Counter Strike. And then presumably pretend that the killing of men in videogames is an issue they care about (But of course, women in games is unrealistic/might as well have some butt floss).

I'd say as a punishment you'd have to be misrepresented, but it looks like some other posters have taken care of that.

The fault was mine. I went looking for internal consistency.

So does it count as time served, or what?

Unfortunately no. Since now we have no reference to reality, nothing means anything, so there's no good reason for punishment, or not punishment, or to consider time served. I guess we can assume that it's a superposition of all states, but then I don't even know if you exist, the escapist exists, or the petition, or indeed the world exists, because apparently we aren't referring to these things anymore. Descartes would be throwing a shit fit.

 

[Loonyyy]

Nice try.

The key word in those definitions isn't "government", it's "remove".

GTA5 has not been removed. I, an Australian, can walk into a video game store right now, legally purchase a copy and revel it all its prostitute-murdering glory.

But let's not let that little fact get in the way, huh?

No Zhukov, don't you understand? The Department of Objectionable Materials has listed it as a prohibited item. They swung around my little brother's house, shot him, and took my copy. Then they went into JB Hi Fi and shot the staff (They're basically Nazi heroin dealers in this scenario), and burned the copies, along with all of the strategy books, singing "Tomorrow Belongs to Me". They then DDoS'd Steam for continuing to host it, and Target forces are currently besieging the local EB. The censorship is so bad, that now my copy of GTA-IV+EFLC has been corrupted, and San Andreas has had all references to prostitution, drugs, gangs, removed, and I'm now on a "Sense Offenders Register".

OH THE CENSORSHIP!

 

[Something Amyss]

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, calling your statement baseless is true. Saying you're lying was one of two possibilities, and that you're misrepresenting me doesn't bode very well.

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

Then you should know that "These stores" collect data through point of sale systems, data they have readily available to them for just this purpose.

See my response to Vault101.

Unless you have some actual facts, then I'm not going to bother. And if you did have facts, you'd be using them, rather than some generic "I worked in retail" line. Yeah, you're not the only one who worked in retail, sorry. That doesn't mean anything here. So I can't imagine you said anything to Vault that was worth a damn.

Indeed. My favourite part is how the misrepresentation of the petition paints the liars as less hardcore gamers. Don't know about killing prostitutes in GTA, next they'll say that circle strafing is SJW propaganda, that the rocket jump is feminazi rubbish, and that headshots are worthless in Counter Strike. And then presumably pretend that the killing of men in videogames is an issue they care about (But of course, women in games is unrealistic/might as well have some butt floss).

But circle strafing is SJW propaganda, rocket jump is feminazi rubbish, and headshots are worthless in counterstrike. I head it in Thunderf00t's new video, "Target petition BUSTED." And he's a bloke, so I'm assuming he's played all these games.

Plus, you know, the other bit's completely different. I mean, killing women in games is just harmless fantasy. But killing men? That's horrible and proves who the real victims in society are.

Unfortunately no. Since now we have no reference to reality, nothing means anything, so there's no good reason for punishment, or not punishment, or to consider time served. I guess we can assume that it's a superposition of all states, but then I don't even know if you exist, the escapist exists, or the petition, or indeed the world exists, because apparently we aren't referring to these things anymore. Descartes would be throwing a shit fit.

Crap. I should have known there was no easy way out.

 

[Here Comes Tomorrow]

Seems like their publicity stunt worked really well.

 

[Ilovechocolatemilk]

Asking Gawker to stop distributing articles I don't like.

Asking Target to stop distributing a game I don't like.

Totally different.

No comparisons to be made here. No sir. Nope. Not a one.

The difference is this: all Operation Disrespectful Nod did was politely inform Gawker's advertisers what kind of articles they were paying for by directly linking to the articles and tweets in question. It was 100% the truth.

Whereas the people who filed this petition lied about the content that GTA V carried. They claimed the game gave the player health points for murdering prostitutes. It was 100% a lie.

 

[DayDark]

Alanah Pearce pretty much says it beautifully. I don't mind that target listens to a worried consumers, but I think it should be based on factual information instead of the misinformed spin of a group of people who had no intention of "consuming" said product in the first place. If target has a problem with violence against people who sometimes will be of female gender, well then there are quite the few products in it's movie and book department that it should consider removing as well.

 

[Zhukov]

Asking Gawker to stop distributing articles I don't like.

Asking Target to stop distributing a game I don't like.

Totally different.

No comparisons to be made here. No sir. Nope. Not a one.

The difference is this: all Operation Disrespectful Nod did was politely inform Gawker's advertisers what kind of articles they were paying for by directly linking to the articles and tweets in question. It was 100% the truth.

Whereas the people who filed this petition lied about the content that GTA V carried. They claimed the game gave the player health points for murdering prostitutes. It was 100% a lie.

Ahhh, so that's the difference now?

So it's only censorship if you misrepresent the thing being censored?

The definition thickens.

...

Tell me:
a) Do you think the inaccuracies in the petition come from a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the game out of general hostility or in a bid to increase the petitions chance of success, or do you think they are the result of a lack of knowledge about the game and games in general?

b) Do you think the petition would have been less successful if it had carried the same meaning and intent but not the inaccuracies?

 

[ToastiestZombie]

It's Target and Kmart's loss in the end, they lose because they've lost the potential sales of the game because they caved into the same arguments everyone hated Jack Thompson for using all those years ago. I bet all the other games companies are enjoying those new customers, I would be.

Also, ever since that Moviebob video "what is censorship" has become the new "are video-games art?". It's silly.