Target Australia will no longer stock GTA5

WhiteNachos

New member
Jul 25, 2014
647
0
0
peruvianskys said:
stroopwafel said:
Ridiculous. Women can have abusive boyfriends and female prostitutes can have respectful clients. Where do you draw the line? The only difference is a financial transaction, which says nothing about the personal integrity of the person in question.
The fact that a man makes the choice to purchase sex from a female stranger says *everything* about his personal integrity.
How is it immoral to pay for. Please someone tell me how consensual sex is just fine until money changes hands?

peruvianskys said:
What about them? They make up less than 15% of women in the sex industry in even the most liberal estimates. The fact that a privileged minority are able to survive without violence doesn't mean the system isn't inherently violent
Yes. Yes, it does. Boxing is inherently violent and as such there are 0 professional boxers who have not experienced violence done to them.

peruvianskys said:
- it just means that white skin, good looks, and some cash are sometimes enough to keep that violence from reaching you.
Or legalization. Making it so that prostitutes can work in strip malls and call police if there's a problem without fear of being arrested themselves.

When prohibition was still going selling alcohol had a lot of risk of violence associated with it, but now there isn't any. That's what happens when you relegate something to the black market.
 

WhiteNachos

New member
Jul 25, 2014
647
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
Guerilla said:
When you're right, you're right. The transcript is actually much, MUCH worse. I quote it for everyone to witness feminist lunacy that ignores both the big picture and common sense:

Players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters.

It?s a rush streaming from a carefully concocted mix of sexual arousal connected to the act of controlling and punishing representations of female sexuality.
It's only much worse if you're still unconcerned with honesty.

So you failed to back up one claim, and ignored the other two. Can't say I'm exactly surprised.
How does this not back up his claim? Seriously explain it.
 

WhiteNachos

New member
Jul 25, 2014
647
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
Your quote doesn't address:

-whether or not she's a con artist
-calling gamers misogynists
-gamers actually deriving pleasure

0/3.
The quote specifically says players are meant to derive a "perverse pleasure" from desecrating the bodies of women.
 

WhiteNachos

New member
Jul 25, 2014
647
0
0
peruvianskys said:
Ilovechocolatemilk said:
So you're against free speech. The idea that one person's speech matters more than another's is antithetical to the idea of free speech. Either everyone has it, or it's not free. Some pigs are not more equal than others.
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.
Well that's too damn because you can't have one without the other.

If free speech wasn't a guaranteed right for everyone do you really think white people would have their speech censored and oppressed groups wouldn't? If free speech protection goes away the first group of people to get censored will probably be the minorities and the oppressed, and if they aren't the first then they will definitely follow shortly.
 

ThePuzzldPirate

New member
Oct 4, 2009
495
0
0
"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions."

Now since for some reason anything to do with feminism in gaming has to now relate to Gamergate, no, writing to advertisers is not the same as getting a game pulled off the shelf. For them to correlate, the makers of that protest would have to write to Rockstar in trying to stop making future iterations of GTA. For "Gamergate" to have committed censorship, they would of tried to block people from reading those articles(and they temporarily have by hacking themselves or by 3rd party.)

Now you could argue that stopping people from making future products is considered censorship and I could agree with that, that itself though is a different argument and not relative to this one.

This is censorship, even if the companies have every legal right to do so. As a consumer, you have the option to continue shopping at Target or not and letting Target know why you refuse to shop there. This is not a morality debate.
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
10,845
1
3
Country
United States
insaninater said:
If there was every any doubt that modern feminism is anything more than a female supremacy movement, this thread is your proof. Violence against men in games is expected, it's the norm, but violence against women in games needs to be shut the fuck down.

Hell, replace a few "women" or "minorities" with "white" and "men", and it starts to read a lot like the KKK. We need to fight prejudice everywhere people, even when it's against straight white men.
Because some nutjobs got one game banned in one store i n a country that has gotten a bad reputation for being a nanny state, feminism is a female supremacy movement? If you're gonna be spreading blatant falsehoods, getting better ammo first.

When feminists start burning symbols of Venus on the lawns of men and organize lynchings, THEN you can compare them to the KKK. Until then, more blatant falsehoods.

I agree. I look forward to the day when you actually start doing that. Because if this is your concept of fighting against prejudice against men, I'm underwhelmed to say the least.
 

Tsun Tzu

Feuer! Sperrfeuer! Los!
Legacy
May 3, 2020
1,620
81
33
Country
Free-Dom
Here's TotalBiscuit taking a look at it:


Annnd he nails the issue, in my opinion, while going over the petition.

Rightly points out Target displaying GTA 5 in the "toys" section of their advertisements being ridiculously stupid too (the image of which was posted earlier), so, woo.
 

JarinArenos

New member
Jan 31, 2012
556
0
0
WhiteNachos said:
Under this logic Rollercoaster Tycoon encourages you to build unsafe theme park rides and drown people, and SimCity encourages genocide.
Ah, but how much more tempting would it be if those actions didn't have any consequences? Not everyone sees the suffering of other people (especially people they don't know) as a drawback in their decision making, so it often comes down to "can I get away with this?" Which is the core difference between the whole sexism-in-games argument and Jack Thomson-esque crying about murders. Most people can't get away with the latter. See also: police not liking the fact that their total legal autonomy is being questioned these past couple years.

OT: I have little opinion on what an ass-backwards company that sells prominently-displayed religious "inspirational readings" has decided to do with a game. I'm shocked they carried R18 games at all, considering how recently Australia added that rating.
 

InsanityRequiem

New member
Nov 9, 2009
700
0
0
erttheking said:
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

Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
10,845
1
3
Country
United States
InsanityRequiem said:
erttheking said:
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

New member
Oct 31, 2007
657
0
0
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

New member
Nov 9, 2009
700
0
0
erttheking said:
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

Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
10,845
1
3
Country
United States
InsanityRequiem said:
erttheking said:
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

Living undeath to the fullest
Legacy
May 7, 2020
4,326
14
3
Country
Germany
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

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

New member
Mar 26, 2009
138
0
0
IceForce said:
WhiteNachos said:
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?
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.
WhiteNachos said:
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

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

Terminally Apathetic
Jun 17, 2013
1,434
0
0
WhiteNachos said:
IceForce said:
WhiteNachos said:
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?
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.
WhiteNachos said:
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.