Target Australia will no longer stock GTA5

[InsanityRequiem]

Snip.

Here's the thing, this petition throws the feminist view that women should be in video games out the window. This petition basically says that the only people who should be in video games are men. I support more women in video games, but because Target AU banned a game with a tenuous petition that's full of lies and libel, game developers will decide that it is better to not have women in games. Why? Because then stores won't place their games on shelves to be bought. So unless Target AU reverts their decision, do not be surprised if you see Bayonetta, Metroid, The Last of Us, Skyrim, Dragon Age, Street Fighter and more games will be removed because by having women in them, these games support violence against women, as Target AU believes.

Petitions to ban games from being sold based on game content are against the growth of video games. If women cannot be NPCs, then they can't be pro/antagonists, because by being in those positions, they will become involved in some form of violent interaction. And that, as Target AU believes, means these games support the depiction of violence against women.

It's not about GTA5, it's about how this petition slaps inclusionary representation in video games in the face. It takes us back to the 1990s in terms of who should be in video games.

 

[Erttheking]

Snip.

Here's the thing, this petition throws the feminist view that women should be in video games out the window. This petition basically says that the only people who should be in video games are men. I support more women in video games, but because Target AU banned a game with a tenuous petition that's full of lies and libel, game developers will decide that it is better to not have women in games. Why? Because then stores won't place their games on shelves to be bought. So unless Target AU reverts their decision, do not be surprised if you see Bayonetta, Metroid, The Last of Us, Skyrim, Dragon Age, Street Fighter and more games will be removed because by having women in them, these games support violence against women, as Target AU believes.

Petitions to ban games from being sold based on game content are against the growth of video games. If women cannot be NPCs, then they can't be pro/antagonists, because by being in those positions, they will become involved in some form of violent interaction. And that, as Target AU believes, means these games support the depiction of violence against women.

It's not about GTA5, it's about how this petition slaps inclusionary representation in video games in the face. It takes us back to the 1990s in terms of who should be in video games.

I don't care what the petition says. Didn't I flat out say in my post that I considered them to be nutjobs? They're idiots and I don't care enough about idiots to learn the reasoning behind their stupid decisions.

Second of all, it's ironic that you're criticizing the petition for libel when you in the same sentence say that the game was banned. It was not banned, the retailer pulled it from the shelves, you know, as is their right to do. McDonalds taking the Mcrib of their menu is not banning the Mcrib. I'm not saying you're lying, but call it what it is and don't just use sensational words.

I don't see developers drastically changing their games because a handful of stores won't hold one game. That's baseless speculation at best. I mean, there's no announcement from Rockstar saying that they're going to change the game to appease these people. They probably just think "Oh boy! Free publicity again!" Heck, this is the fifth time this has happened to them, and in the past it was a thousand times worse because their games got a rating that wouldn't let them be sold on shelves in any store in the US.

Us? This has yet to spread beyond two countries. You're acting like gaming culture as a whole is going to be permanently damaged. Chill the Hell out. We are nowhere near even the halfway point of that happening.

And of course, the main chip on my shoulder is that people are using the words of crazy people to shit all over feminism because feminists all hate men and want to have domination over them. When people start spewing stuff like that, I really can't stand by them and argue against something and feel right about it.

 

[DayDark]

If 40.000 people can sign a petition to remove a game from a store, based on misleading information, I think we should start a lot more petitions against target and see how far they an be pushed before they start to actually investigate the legitimacy of the claims about their products. And since the people signing aren't thinking for themselves either, well it shouldn't be much trouble spinning a narrative around any number of movies and books where women are being hurt, which they would gladly stand behind. Indeed a lot of media actually features sexualized violence (unlike GTAV), meaning all that is needed is for this to be claimed is for the perverse arousal of the the viewer.

 

[InsanityRequiem]

Snip.

You used ban too in your post I quoted, and since the definition of ban is "Official or legal prohibition" we both are using it correctly, as Target AU made an official statement of removing and no longer stocking GTA5. Ergo they are banning the sale of GTA5 in their stores because of the lies that nut jobs are spreading. The McRib statement is rather wrong because McDonalds is doing a quantity control of a product to sell at specific times, Target AU made an official statement saying they will no longer sell GTA5 because of its content, an official prohibition on selling a product.

The first major issue is that yes, this can spread. New Zealand stores have banned the sale of such games in their stores, and now Australian stores are? That shows that such an idea is growing, so if it sticks to "just" AU and NZ, or even reversed in the two countries, then good. But my jaded/cynical self can see this growing to other stores/countries potentially.

The second issue is that the stance Target AU has taken goes against the feminist agenda to get more women in video games. Feminists want better female representation in games, but if games with said female representation get banned by moral guardians, then these moral guardians are actively undermining what feminism and feminist activists want.

The third issue pertains to issue one, in that if this grows beyond NZ and AU, developers will be forced to change their games to fit that of distributors. Digital distribution is shit for console games, still is and probably will be for a few more years, so console gamers go to places like Gamestop, Target, Walmart, and other stores to buy their games. If stores in other countries start banning the sale of games themselves if they have women in them (Remember, Target AU is using "violence against women" as why they banned the game), then developers are going to have to implement only male characters. So instead of Jodie in Beyond: Two Souls, it would have to be Jonas. Instead of Ellie in the Last of Us, it'd be Elmer. Samus from Metroid would be Samuel instead.

Maybe I took your statement wrong, and I'm sorry if I did.

 

[Erttheking]

Snip.

You used ban too in your post I quoted, and since the definition of ban is "Official or legal prohibition" we both are using it correctly, as Target AU made an official statement of removing and no longer stocking GTA5. Ergo they are banning the sale of GTA5 in their stores because of the lies that nut jobs are spreading. The McRib statement is rather wrong because McDonalds is doing a quantity control of a product to sell at specific times, Target AU made an official statement saying they will no longer sell GTA5 because of its content, an official prohibition on selling a product.

The first major issue is that yes, this can spread. New Zealand stores have banned the sale of such games in their stores, and now Australian stores are? That shows that such an idea is growing, so if it sticks to "just" AU and NZ, or even reversed in the two countries, then good. But my jaded/cynical self can see this growing to other stores/countries potentially.

The second issue is that the stance Target AU has taken goes against the feminist agenda to get more women in video games. Feminists want better female representation in games, but if games with said female representation get banned by moral guardians, then these moral guardians are actively undermining what feminism and feminist activists want.

The third issue pertains to issue one, in that if this grows beyond NZ and AU, developers will be forced to change their games to fit that of distributors. Digital distribution is shit for console games, still is and probably will be for a few more years, so console gamers go to places like Gamestop, Target, Walmart, and other stores to buy their games. If stores in other countries start banning the sale of games themselves if they have women in them (Remember, Target AU is using "violence against women" as why they banned the game), then developers are going to have to implement only male characters. So instead of Jodie in Beyond: Two Souls, it would have to be Jonas. Instead of Ellie in the Last of Us, it'd be Elmer. Samus from Metroid would be Samuel instead.

Maybe I took your statement wrong, and I'm sorry if I did.

*Looks back at post* Huh. I did. Christ's sake what is wrong with me. Well I regret my usage of the word there and I want to take it back. Fine. By the official definition it is indeed banning GTA V. However, by the official definition the Mcrib is also banned. It doesn't matter why there was "legal or official prohibition" on it, only that there was.

Maybe it can spread. But I'm pretty jaded as well and I see the idea of this sticking as about as likely as me suddenly growing a third arm. Controversy and protests? GTA effing LIVES off of that. I imagine everyone at Rockstar right now is either going "Yeah, GTA is gonna get banned, because it went so well the last five times" or "Whoo-hoo! More free publicity! I don't even know why we have a marketing budget!" And I seriously have a hard time buying that stores that specialize in games like Gamestop will go "Ok, let's stop selling what is possibly one of the biggest cash cows in existence because some people who don't even want to buy it are mad"

Ok. This is true. I just can't muster up the energy to care about Australia Target's opinion, what they think has no impact on me. Eh, like I said I have a hard time believing that this is gonna make any serious impact, so I'm not too worried about it hurting representation.

That isn't going to happen. Pure and simple. Developers will have no reason to change the content of their games, because the people complaining about them? They were never going to buy them in the first place. No one ever went "Oh Hell yes, the new GTA is out, I can't wait to check out the new weapons and...I can kill strippers? I WISH I NEVER BOUGHT THIS SEXIST PIECE OF SHIT" I guarantee you that. Like I said, Gamestop not selling GTA V would be incredibly idiotic on its part, considering how much of a cash cow it is. Really, Target Australia. How much of it's income came from video games? Not that much I'm willing to bet. Compared to Gamestop, which is almost entirely video games, and they won't be stupid enough to stop milking that cash cow. (Also Gamestop listening to petitions would require them to actually give a shit about what the customer thinks). And really you're overreacting. Stores that don't even have games as a main selling point in gaming stop selling one game and you're worried about games not being able to include female characters ever? Take a few steps back and calm down man.

Yeah, I'm enjoying our discussion but it really had nothing to do with the first post you replied to.

 

[Silence]

If it is true that this "Target" sells GTA5 in the Toys-Section, they should actually be banned from selling any videogames.

On the other hand, the liars who started this petition should be banned from starting petitions.


It's not even a case about feminism or representation. People are doing immoral things here.

 

[IceForce]

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?

Pro tip: When the crux of your argument hinges on a logical fallacy (in this case, slippery slope), then it's probably not worth making the argument.

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.

What a strange thing for someone to say, especially after they entered the thread and immediately resorted to using an argumentum ad dictionarium.

Genuine question: Was the hypocrisy here deliberate? Or did you simply forget what you posted two pages back?

 

[Ilovechocolatemilk]

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?

Pro tip: When the crux of your argument hinges on a logical fallacy (in this case, slippery slope), then it's probably not worth making the argument.

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.

What a strange thing for someone to say, especially after they entered the thread and immediately resorted to using an argumentum ad dictionarium.

Genuine question: Was the hypocrisy here deliberate? Or did you just forget what you posted two pages back?

I really dislike it when people use slippery slope as a refutation, as if it invalidates any form of causality. Here's Stanford explaining why people who use this fallacy are wrong.

"The argument that ?The attempt to use military might to put an end to terrorism is wrong because it will take us down a slippery slope that will end in improper interference in the affairs of independent states? cannot be dismissed as a bad argument simply by saying that it is an instance of the fallacy slippery slope. If such a slippery slope is plausible, then the argument has some merit.""

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/

The point is, it is completely plausible for this trend to spread elsewhere since it already spread to New Zealand from Australia and historically, bans of books and other media have spread beyond their places of origin.

I will never understand the people who honestly think that banning a video game is okay. Doubly true for people who are supposed to represent their customers, i.e. the gaming journalist websites.

 

[WhiteNachos]

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?

Pro tip: When the crux of your argument hinges on a logical fallacy (in this case, slippery slope), then it's probably not worth making the argument.

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.

What a strange thing for someone to say, especially after they entered the thread and immediately resorted to using an argumentum ad dictionarium.

Genuine question: Was the hypocrisy here deliberate? Or did you just forget what you posted two pages back?

Argumentum ad dictionarium? Really? That's not a thing. It's not a fallacy to use the dictionary to define words.

 

[EternallyBored]

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?

Pro tip: When the crux of your argument hinges on a logical fallacy (in this case, slippery slope), then it's probably not worth making the argument.

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.

What a strange thing for someone to say, especially after they entered the thread and immediately resorted to using an argumentum ad dictionarium.

Genuine question: Was the hypocrisy here deliberate? Or did you just forget what you posted two pages back?

Argumentum ad dictionarium? Really? That's not a thing. It's not a fallacy to use the dictionary to define words.

it is indeed a thing: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_dictionarium

Iceforce is likely accusing you of it because you used a dictionary definition to argue a semantic point, and then turned around and complained about another person quibbling about semantics.

In this case, the problem arises with the concept of censorship as a loaded word, and its meanings as used in emotionally charged situations to give an argument an increased sense of moral weight.

To use an example from the site there is the ever classic:

Person A: "Do you think women need to be treated differently?"
Person B: "No, I think men and women should be equal."
Person A: "Then you are a feminist, by definition!!"

The dictionary is not the end of any language argument, by the dictionary, every person that believes in the equality of the sexes can be defined as a feminist, but in reality we know that not every definition is adequate for every conversation, and just because a word is applicable does not mean it is always the right word to use.

The reason it can be considered a fallacy is that the dictionary can be used to derail an argument into semantics, in this case, defining the word censorship by quoting the dictionary is not valuable to the emotional and moral weight that actually lies behind the concept, or that just because it is semantically correct the term must automatically become useful to the argument.

In this particular case, whether this can be defined as censorship or not by quibbling over dictionary definitions does not change the fact that most people will not treat this as the same moral breach as actual censorship through forced banning or criminalization, and many will see trying to push the concept of this being censorship as a cheap attempt at emotional manipulation to equate this with the terms more severe usage.

In this case the petitioners exercised no power other than their rights as a consumer, they could not force the company to take any action, they asked for a change and tried to moralize why that change should be made, and the company either decided to agree with their moral reasoning, or decided that they valued the business of the petitioners over the business of the potential game buyers. That is their choice as a capitalist company to make.

 

[Zhukov]

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.

Mate, you've shifted the goalposts so many times I strongly suspect you've lost track of them entirely.

So now you're saying that it's only censorship if existing materials are altered or suppressed, but not if the production of future material is targeted.

So... if a government were to shut down a political newspaper that was critical of them, but didn't bother erasing the material that had already been published, that wouldn't be censorship?

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?

Nah. But for a fee I would happily write something that at least implied that was the case.

 

[Something Amyss]

Nah. But for a fee I would happily write something that at least implied that was the case.

Aren't you already doing that? Are you not, in fact, a paid shill for the feminazi order that has annexed Australia?

 

[Zhukov]

Nah. But for a fee I would happily write something that at least implied that was the case.

Aren't you already doing that? Are you not, in fact, a paid shill for the feminazi order that has annexed Australia?

Paid? You think we get paid?

If my forum duelling is not up to par I will be tied to a chair and beaten with a fleshlight.

If I so offend three times I will be thrown into a pit of vagwolves.

 

[Something Amyss]

If people are seriously being paid to post on this forum, I want in.
Because I'm not even being paid to moderate the damn thing.

Where's the justice in that?

Unfortunately, I'm not in charge of the payments. I could probably toss my hat down and take up a collection, though.

Paid? You think we get paid?

If my forum duelling is not up to par I will be tied to a chair and beaten with a fleshlight.

If I so offend three times I will be thrown into a pit of vagwolves.

OMG. We have to rescue the australians!

 

[JohnFei]

If it is true that this "Target" sells GTA5 in the Toys-Section, they should actually be banned from selling any videogames.

On the other hand, the liars who started this petition should be banned from starting petitions.


It's not even a case about feminism or representation. People are doing immoral things here.

Indeed, their actions are indefensible. And that's why some people are desperately trying to muddle the water/derail the discussion just so they don't have to address it. Unless they want to go FullMoviebob and start claiming the end justifies the means.

It's the same mental gymnastics that allow them to remain in denial towards every piece of dirt that's been unearthed since August. And it's pathetic then, as it is now.

 

[WhiteNachos]

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.

Mate, you've shifted the goalposts so many times I strongly suspect you've lost track of them entirely.

So now you're saying that it's only censorship if existing materials are altered or suppressed, but not if the production of future material is targeted.

Asking someone to stop making it is hardly suppressing them.

So... if a government were to shut down a political newspaper that was critical of them, but didn't bother erasing the material that had already been published, that wouldn't be censorship?

Not even close to what I said.

 

[Zhukov]

Asking someone to stop making it is hardly suppressing them.

But asking someone to stop selling something is?

How very curious.

So... if a government were to shut down a political newspaper that was critical of them, but didn't bother erasing the material that had already been published, that wouldn't be censorship?

Not even close to what I said.

Oh?

"...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..."

You posited two scenarios, one in which an already completed work is targeted and one in which future as yet unmade works are targeted. You declared the former to be censorship and the latter not.

 

[WhiteNachos]

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?

Pro tip: When the crux of your argument hinges on a logical fallacy (in this case, slippery slope), then it's probably not worth making the argument.

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.

What a strange thing for someone to say, especially after they entered the thread and immediately resorted to using an argumentum ad dictionarium.

Genuine question: Was the hypocrisy here deliberate? Or did you just forget what you posted two pages back?

Argumentum ad dictionarium? Really? That's not a thing. It's not a fallacy to use the dictionary to define words.

it is indeed a thing: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_dictionarium

Rationalwiki is pretty biased, using it is like using conservapedia. Meanwhile searching that term on wikipedia brings up nothing.

But your definition of "argumentum ad dictionarium" doesn't really qualify as a fallacy just a derailing side conversation.

 

[WhiteNachos]

Oh?

"...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..."

You posited two scenarios, one in which an already completed work is targeted and one in which future as yet unmade works are targeted. You declared the former to be censorship and the latter not.

There is no guarantee that the future things would've existed with or without their complaints. This current thing that already exists, they're trying to prevent people from seeing it because it offends them. That's censorship.

That's why birth control is different than killing the baby after it's already born.

It seriously baffles me how you don't see the difference between "we must stop people from playing this game" and "hey let's ask Rockstar to tone it down in the next GTA game." The second option does not prevent anyone from playing anything, the first one does (yes I know Target isn't the only retailer to sell it but do you honestly think they'd be satisfied with just Target, they're undoubtedly going to campaign to get everyone else to stop selling it to, if they haven't already)

Also how you don't see the difference between "let's lie about this game to disgust people into pulling it from shelves" and "let's lie about it to the people who actually made the game"

 

[WhiteNachos]

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.

Off topic but I want to make a fountain out this. Just have an animatronic fountain that spits out water like this. Kind of like those things that spit water at you in theme parks.

Also do you know what he was reacting to?