Target Australia will no longer stock GTA5

WhiteNachos

New member
Jul 25, 2014
647
0
0
IceForce said:
And what happens when a website's advertising revenue dries up? What happens to the site and its content then? Hmm?
Then the people who run the site can fund it out of their own pocket (like many people do) or do a pledge drive or some other kind of crowd funding effort.

This wasn't a campaign to have the site removed from the internet. But if you want to insist its censorship then fine, that would also mean these feminists are engaging in censorship.
 

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,768
0
41
WhiteNachos said:
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".

WhiteNachos said:
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. It's really desperate, 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.
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?

WhiteNachos said:
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.
I didn't say it was terrible. In fact, I said they were entirely free to do it, regardless of whether or not I like it.

... and of course that it continues to be profoundly amusing when they rend their garments and tear at their hair when others do the same thing. That being my key point throughout.

WhiteNachos said:
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 pieces about them", but at least it's something similar.
It's a short, simple and accurate way of describing what happened without relying on subjective terms.

News outlets published articles. Some funny people perceived those articles to be biased. They did not like those articles because of that. They "bugged" the writers and outlets of those articles to not write and distribute such articles. They sought to disrupt the revenue of the outlets that published those articles.

Elsewhere, some people made and distributed a game. Some funny people perceived that game to be harmful, obscene and making light of violence against prostitutes. They bugged a retail outlet to not sell the game.

Either both these things constitute censorship or neither of them do. You can bend the definition of the word if you must, word meanings change over time after all, but you don't get to only apply it where it suits you.

Personally I don't regard either of these happenings as censorship, but I do regard both these groups and their actions to be equally unworthy of respect and am thoroughly amusing when one sees fit to condemn the other for actions so similar to their own.
 

IceForce

Is this memes?
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
2,384
16
13
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.
WhiteNachos said:
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.
WhiteNachos said:
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

New member
Jul 25, 2014
647
0
0
Zhukov said:
WhiteNachos said:
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

New member
Jul 25, 2014
647
0
0
IceForce said:
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.
WhiteNachos said:
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

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,768
0
41
WhiteNachos said:
IceForce said:
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.
WhiteNachos said:
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

New member
Jul 25, 2014
647
0
0
Zhukov said:
WhiteNachos said:
IceForce said:
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.
WhiteNachos said:
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

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,768
0
41
WhiteNachos said:
Zhukov said:
WhiteNachos said:
IceForce said:
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.
WhiteNachos said:
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

New member
Jul 25, 2014
647
0
0
Zhukov said:
WhiteNachos said:
Zhukov said:
WhiteNachos said:
IceForce said:
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.
WhiteNachos said:
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

Is this memes?
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
2,384
16
13
WhiteNachos said:
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

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,768
0
41
Nods Respectfully Towards You said:
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"?

WhiteNachos said:
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.

WhiteNachos said:
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

Is this memes?
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
2,384
16
13
Nods Respectfully Towards You said:
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.
Nods Respectfully Towards You said:
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

New member
Aug 22, 2010
2,577
0
0
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 :p
 

Tsun Tzu

Feuer! Sperrfeuer! Los!
Legacy
May 3, 2020
1,620
81
33
Country
Free-Dom
Guilion said:
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-

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.
...
peruvianskys said:
I don't care about cops. I hate cops.
....
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.
.....



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

Loonyyy

New member
Jul 10, 2009
1,292
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
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.