Target Australia will no longer stock GTA5

Loonyyy

New member
Jul 10, 2009
1,292
0
0
Zhukov said:
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

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Signa said:
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.

Loonyyy said:
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.
 

Ilovechocolatemilk

New member
Mar 26, 2009
138
0
0
Zhukov said:
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

New member
Oct 31, 2007
657
0
0

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

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,768
0
0
Ilovechocolatemilk said:
Zhukov said:
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

Don't worry. Be happy!
Mar 21, 2011
3,691
0
0
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.
 

Ilovechocolatemilk

New member
Mar 26, 2009
138
0
0
Zhukov said:
Ahhh, so that's the difference now?
It's not the only difference, but it's the most important one. It's like claiming the Nazis and Allies are equal because both have murdered people in cold blood. The difference is one advocates genocide while the other does not.

If truth and fairness is not everyone's goal, then communication is pointless. This is especially true for a medium such as games journalism, whose entire business is commuication.

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?
I would not write off a) since I've seen worse happen for less. Special interest groups are just as Machiavellian as any other political body.

As for b), yes. Australia has laws prohibiting sexual violence in media and this misrepresentation of content in GTA V triggered those alarms.
 

linwolf

New member
Jan 9, 2010
1,227
0
0
I got to say I am really weird out that games defend a game being pull, especially for reasons that anyone that know about the game know are not true.
 

WhiteNachos

New member
Jul 25, 2014
647
0
0
IceForce said:
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.
In a broad sense yes. But only in a broad sense, in the same broad sense that birth control is like abortion. Just like if someone chose to make something else with no outside influence then it prevents people from seeing what they could've made.

Man the mental gymnastics to pretend that distributors are the same as content creators is impressive.
 

JohnFei

New member
Sep 25, 2014
40
0
0
Then:
Hitman encourages the player to kill female characters!

Now:
GTA V encourages the player to kill female characters!

Same bald-faced lie, same shaming tactic. Same hypocrites and useful idiots whose kneejerk response is to defend liars. IIRC that petition site even asks you to donate too. Probably didn't make it up to $160k though eh?

And if the previous comparison is not enough, there's of course everybody's favorite uncle Jack Thompson. How in hells name did our liberals end up agreeing with an authoritarian nutjob like that, and even drive past him to the point he's going WOAH slow the fuck down ladies. That is the fucking question.
 

WhiteNachos

New member
Jul 25, 2014
647
0
0
Zhukov said:
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.
You remind me of this person I saw who tried to argue that abortion was just as bad as birth control or pulling out because they both prevent babies from being formed.

Look I shouldn't have said it's like asking them to change the game they already made, that is censorship, but asking them to not make another GTA game? That's not censorship by any stretch, and I REALLY hope I don't have to explain the difference between that and trying to censor existing content.

Zhukov said:
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.
No it doesn't, but not because of a lack of trying. Do you really think they're going to be satisfied with JUST Target and K-mart? That they only care if those stores sell them and no one else?

Zhukov said:
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? Did you assume I would defend their position for some reason? That I can't admit that an alleged gamegater might be wrong about something? I'm not part of gamergate and I've never said that Anita is trying to censor video games.


WhiteNachos said:
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.
Because it's something taken out of context. They pretend like the game encourages players to commit violence against women and showed a clip of someone committing violence against women. If IIRC what it doesn't show is that violence against men is treated the same way and that there are sometimes consequences for mudering civilians.

WhiteNachos said:
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.
So you think the game actually does encourage violence against women and all that jazz?

WhiteNachos said:
I personally believe that whoever wrote that petition believed what they were writing, but that is baseless speculation, I could be wrong.
A news article actually pointed out that it's just as violent against men and they still wouldn't concede to being wrong using some of the weakest logic I've ever seen. They probably did get their info wrong and now refuse to back down because it'd mean a large amount of humble pie after the fuss they kicked up.
 

Leoofmoon

New member
Aug 14, 2008
391
0
0
Zhukov said:
OMG, IT'S CENSORSH...

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

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

Heh. I love you all. I really do.
If you read the petition which I see you didn't you will see its really full of a bunch of lies, saying the game shows violent sexual actions being commuted on women and that they game encourages the player to kill this women. In the game the player can never rape someone so bingo boingo the sexual part is very much a lie in the game you can do as much violent acts as you want but the naughty bits of the fucker meeting the end of Mr. shorty Mc bang bang is not really counted. Not to mention it keeps saying the people effected by this are boys little kids who play it yet the game already had a +18 rating and thus was a target for adults.

So in short I think all of this was both parties taking a bucket over there head and fingering there own assholes.
 

Signa

Noisy Lurker
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
4,742
0
41
Country
USA
Zachary Amaranth said:
Look Zach,

I know you LOVE to argue, every time you dissect someone's post line-by-line shows this. You're going to need better ammo on this one than "Your experience doesn't count, and since I don't need facts to be right, you lose."

You're not even trying to argue, I think you're trying to piss me off by calling me a liar or irrelevant.
 

WhiteNachos

New member
Jul 25, 2014
647
0
0
JohnFei said:
Then:
Hitman encourages the player to kill female characters!

Now:
GTA V encourages the player to kill female characters!

Same bald-faced lie, same shaming tactic. Same hypocrites and useful idiots whose kneejerk response is to defend liars.
It seems strange how some people's first response is to nitpick over whether this is censorship. We all know what's happening, saying whether it fits the definition is just semantics. That or they'll defend the store's right to do this as if anyone suggested that the stores should be forced by law to carry the game.

As someone from a country with really broad definitions of free speech, I can safely say that just because it's legal to do something doesn't mean you can't be an asshole for doing it.

Beyond that I haven't seen anyone defend the petition makers, although their silence in condemning them is telling.
This is the same bullcrap that the mainstream media flung at GTA back in the Jack Thompson era. They'll act like the game is somehow anti-prostitute because they're not invulnerable and because you can have sex them, and then they'll theorize about the real life violence it'll cause.
 

WhiteNachos

New member
Jul 25, 2014
647
0
0
Loonyyy said:
Zachary Amaranth said:
Loonyyy said:
Don't you know, they're completely misrepresenting the game. THE HUMANITY.
Oh crap, you're right. I forgot that it was totally different now that it was something I cared about being misrepresented.
See, for that the punishment is severe. Misrepresentation is the worst.

Because none of us have ever heard of having sex with prostitutes in GTA and killing them to save money. Nope. Gamers have never heard of that, never done that. And because the game definitely doesn't implicitly endorse it
So allowing you to do something in a game is implicitly endorsing it?

Under this logic Rollercoaster Tycoon encourages you to build unsafe theme park rides and drown people, and SimCity encourages genocide.

Loonyyy said:
, considering it's been present in numerous installments, and because the game(Especially not GTA V) definitely doesn't encourage you to keep money and not lose it. Definitely not.
Have you ever played GTA? Because if you kill people enough the cops will come after you and dealing with them more than makes up for the petty cash a civilian might drop.


Loonyyy said:
But everything that's said in the petition is a lie
No one said everything in the petition is a lie, I mean they are correct in that GTA V is a game.
But seriously their most sensationalist/relevant claims definitely are lies so why are you defending them?

Loonyyy said:
so it's definitely not people being "Professional Victims" and pretending to be offended)
I'm sorry how is anyone making money or getting more publicity from being offended at this?

Do you even know why people call others professional victims, because it sounds like you just realize the term is a bad thing and are making up reasons to call other people it.
 

WhiteNachos

New member
Jul 25, 2014
647
0
0
Loonyyy said:
Zachary Amaranth said:
Thorn14 said:
Grisly detailed torture of a man? Eh.
Funny how when that was brought up by people, it was shouted down.

Vast majority of cops and other enemies you kill are men? Eh.
Funny how when that was brought up, it was also shouted down.

Actually, that's been one of the longest running critiques against the series.

But acknowledging these things would probably make it a lot harder to reframe things in a convenient fashion.

totheendofsin said:
They mentioned the games 'depictions of violence against women' now it's been a while since I've played it but I don't recall any violence against women in the game, unless they are talking about how you are capable of killing female NPCs IN THE SAME WAY YOU CAN KILL MALE NPCs!
You can kill men after hiring them for sex? Must have missed that part. Can you tell me how to hire male prostitutes?
Don't you know, they're completely misrepresenting the game. THE HUMANITY.
So if someone said that games you enjoy playing are all about being a misogynist and encouraging you to kill women and that those games make you more likely to kill women in real life you'd be totally OK with this?
 

WhiteNachos

New member
Jul 25, 2014
647
0
0
IceForce said:
Lovely Mixture said:
People defending this is pretty amusing.
"They weren't forced into not selling it, they just responded to a petition"
"They listened to their customers, it's a good thing right?"
"It's not censorship, it's a business decision"
"We shouldn't promote violence against women"

Amazing.
I assume you want/believe the opposite of these quotes you posted here, which would imply you WANT to promote violence against women.
I'm pretty sure he means that those people are agreeing with the idea that GTA promotes violence against women which is just rubbish.