Target Australia will no longer stock GTA5

Zhukov

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

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

Something Amyss

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

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

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

Zhukov said:
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

New member
Sep 25, 2014
40
0
0
the silence said:
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

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

Zhukov said:
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

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,768
0
0
WhiteNachos said:
Asking someone to stop making it is hardly suppressing them.
But asking someone to stop selling something is?

How very curious.
WhiteNachos said:
Zhukov said:
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

New member
Jul 25, 2014
647
0
0
EternallyBored said:
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
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

New member
Jul 25, 2014
647
0
0
Zhukov 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.
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

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

peruvianskys

New member
Jun 8, 2011
577
0
0
WhiteNachos said:
How is it immoral to pay for. Please someone tell me how consensual sex is just fine until money changes hands?
"Consensual" is not an accurate description of the vast majority of sexual encounters that take place in the sex trade.

When a man purchases sex, he's not paying to obtain consent - he's paying to ignore it. He's asking, "How much money does it take for the fact that you don't want to fuck me to not matter anymore?"

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.
Legalization has never stopped violence against women. Prostitution is completely decriminalized in Germany and New Zealand and their own governments have admitted that organized crimes, sexual violence, and assaults towards prostituted women have not gone down. Why? Because legalization fails to address one central fact: Men who purchase sex are the type of men who kill women.

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.
You know, alcohol is an inanimate thing. Women aren't. Your comparison is misogynistic.

WhiteNachos said:
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.
Well then perhaps the right of oppressed folks to speak freely ought not be left up to a racist, misogynistic colonial government.
 

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,768
0
0
WhiteNachos said:
Zhukov 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.
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.
In my newspaper example, there was no guarantee that future critical articles would be published with or without the shutdown. Does that mean I was not describing a censorship situation?

Once again, if I prevent something from being made because it offends me, or for any reason, am I not preventing people from seeing that thing?

WhiteNachos said:
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."
Oh, I see a difference. It's just not relevant to whether or not what is occurring here is censorship.

In both cases a business is being asked to modify their product. In both cases the business has every right to refuse or ignore the appeal. In neither case does this constitute censorship.

WhiteNachos said:
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)
Did you just immediately and knowingly contradict yourself?

Yes, yes you did.

The first option does not prevent anyone from playing anything. Even in your speculative scenario in which they successfully appeal to every single retailer to pull the game, it would still be legally available to import, own, buy, sell and play. (Analogy: are those Japanese games that never get released in the west being censored in the west?)

WhiteNachos said:
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"
Again, I see a difference between those two scenarios. It's just not remotely relevant to whether or not what is occurring is censorship. The second option is especially irrelevant since it isn't happening.
 

WhiteNachos

New member
Jul 25, 2014
647
0
0
Zhukov said:
WhiteNachos said:
Zhukov 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.
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.
In my newspaper example, there was no guarantee that future critical articles would be published with or without the shutdown. Does that mean I was not describing a censorship situation?
We're not talking about the government, we were never talking about the government but instead talking about private citizens. Stop trying to derail the conversation. The government can complain to private citizens and indeed they have but that's not the same as passing a law.

Zhukov said:
Once again, if I prevent something from being made because it offends me, or for any reason, am I not preventing people from seeing that thing?
That's the exact same argument as "if you prevent a baby from being made, how is that different from killing it after it's born". You're assuming it was being made in the first place, that they already had plans to make it and were caving to pressure.

Zhukov said:
WhiteNachos said:
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."
Oh, I see a difference. It's just not relevant to whether or not what is occurring here is censorship.
E:You were the one acting like they were the same thing. That if one was censorship the other one had to be as well.

Zhukov said:
In both cases a business is being asked to modify their product.
Nope. Try again.

WhiteNachos said:
The first option does not prevent anyone from playing anything. Even in your speculative scenario in which they successfully appeal to every single retailer to pull the game, it would still be legally available to import, own, buy, sell and play.
Not the point. They are TRYING to prevent as many people from playing it as possible. Let me ask you, is a book burning censorship? It'd still be legal to own the books, but would it be censorship to try (and fail) to purge every copy from the Earth?

WhiteNachos said:
(Analogy: are those Japanese games that never get released in the west being censored in the west?)
It costs money to release stuff in the West, even if you don't translate the games it still costs money to ship it over there. So no.

WhiteNachos said:
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"
Again, I see a difference between those two scenarios. It's just not remotely relevant to whether or not what is occurring is censorship. The second option is especially irrelevant since it isn't happening.[/quote]

Wasn't your original comparison about complaining to Rockstar?
 

Loonyyy

New member
Jul 10, 2009
1,292
0
0
WhiteNachos said:
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.
GTA implicitly endorses the action, through several systems:

1. You regain health by visiting prostitutes, and, if you're a straight male and have little taste, which seems to be assumed, you get a shitty porn show. The game incentivises visiting prostitutes through an out of game reward-porn, and an in game reward-health.
2. You can regain the money by killing the prostitute, which is the way you interact with just about everyone. Prostitutes also are located in areas away from fixed police concentrations (Like say, Police Stations, or the feds), and you need to take them somewhere out of the way to have sex with them, which lowers the consequences of police interference.

The tactic has been around for a long time, it's part of gamer folklore, and Rockstar hasn't removed it, which suggests that they don't have a problem with this emergent aspect of play (Neither do I, for the record). They've left it in in successive iterations.

Now, you haven't understood my logic, so neither of your examples apply, but I'm going to take a stab at them anyway:

Rollercoaster Tycoon allows you to build unsafe parks, and animates the (Hilarious) results. My personal favourite being Shamus Young's video set to TMBG "Older". Other similar games have prevented people from building unfinished rides. The devs left it in. Why? Because they find it adds value to the game. Developers include things for a reason(Not necessarily good or bad, but they generally have some reasoning behind decisions), and mechanics are important.

Simcity also specifically includes (At least in 3000: Unlimited) the ability to cause disasters. The game specifically gives you the ability to do these things.

You don't just put something in the game and then when it's done, say "You have a choice, it's nothing we did". I couldn't destroy cities with fires and tornados if Simcity didn't include the option. I couldn't murder a prostitute for health and money if they didn't include the prostitutes, health, and money. I couldn't cut someone's head off and make people vomit, before tasing them until they wet themselves, set them on fire, and pee it out, if Postal 2 didn't include the mechanics for all of these things.

Consider this your first warning: I don't like explaining things all the way through in minute detail, as if to a child. I find it boring. It's a waste of my damn time. If you're not going to bother communicating at a higher level, I'm going to ignore you. I was responding to Zhukov and Zachary, with terms that they would understand, and of course I'm not making rigorous arguments in joking, sarcastic conversation with them.
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.
Ahahahahahah. Have you ever played GTA? If you go to the red light district, take a hooker somewhere quiet enough you can actually do something, there's very little in the way of police response. It's a civilian, it's out of sight, it's a minimum level crime in the games estimation. See, this is the thing. The harder core than thou crowd wants to pretend that everyone else is referring to something sight unseen, that's a load. That's a lie. It's doubly dishonest when they then misrepresent the game assuming that no-one else has seen it and are mistaken about the game rather than having a different opinion on the game.

This is one of the things that irritates me no end, and that I found so amusing, in conversation with Zachary. The assumption that they're more knowledgeable about games, and the check. Yes I've fucking played GTA. I've got most of the backlog on Steam, I own the game in question, GTA V (Which since you've responded to multiple of my posts, you could have figured out). I've put more hours than I'd like to count into GTA IV, and more than that into Episodes from Liberty City. Vice City was one of my favourites growing up. I've finally got San Andreas working on my PC with dualscreen by using a controller, but the binding's a pain in the neck with an xBox-360 controller. Is that enough damn cred for you? Should I ask for your resume?

Shooting out a cop cars tires to evade them is the sort of strategy you're trying to describe here. If I've got a wanted level of 1 star, that's going to bring me to two, that's a poor escape. Beating up any civ? Nope. I used to run along the boardwalk in GTA IV beating civilians, taking their cash and when I finally got a puny wanted level, outrunning the police. You want to know what's harder? Trying to get an assault rifle before the game gives you access to one by fighting the police until they send swat teams. My first step in any GTA has always been finding a cop and taking his gun. It's never much of a challenge, always a bit of fun. The punishment for killing hookers in GTA is pretty much nil. Of course, bothering with that much cash and effort for health is a pretty early game tactic, later the missions pay way more.
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.
So I'm dinged for hyperbole and you immediately respond with more hyperbole? That's the consistency which I was talking to Zhukov and Zachary about. That's why I didn't address you, because frankly, I'm not interested. I'm really not interested in being held to a higher standard than what you're willing to hold yourself to. The people I communicated with understood it fine.
But seriously their most sensationalist/relevant claims definitely are lies so why are you defending them?
Which claims am I defending again? I said that some people have misrepresented the game in this thread (You, for one. Naughty) and that some have misrepresented the petition in the thread, and criticised that. Just now I've defended the notion of the game incentivising the killing of prostitutes, so I guess that's the defense?

See, that's the thing. I didn't say that I agreed with the petition, or that I was defending it. I criticised the people who lied about the content of the petition. Which includes you. That's an example of hypocrisy staring us in the face.
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.
Do you even realise what I'm saying, at any point, in my entire post? It doesn't look like it. There's scare quotes around the term Professional Victim, because I'm appropriating the term. Specifically from Thunderf00t and his ilk. Every time things like this come up, there's a section of people who say that people are pretending to be offended by say, GTA, or that they're "Professional Victims". I'm using sarcasm to disect a disgusting and disingenuous ad hominem used as a justification for arguing in bad faith by assuming it on the part of their opposition.

The other, disgusting part, is the people pretending that somehow the killing of men in the game, or in games is an issue. Because if it were, they would have brought it up. It's only brought up as a rhetorical device when someone else says that they're not happy with the way the game treats women, so they say they're not happy about the way it treats men, and then never say that outside of the response, and continue to purchase the game, and don't offer the criticism to the devs. They pretend that somehow this is an equal opportunity offense. If it is your conviction, do something. I disagree with the petitioners, but at least they decided they were sickened by it (Which, if you read the petition, and have a little knowledge of sex work, or do some reading on it, you can understand why), and then did something, which also affects them. If you disagreed with the game involving killing men, or even worse, police officers, and boycotted it, wrote in to Target, or criticised it (Actual criticism, not trying to shield it from criticism), I wouldn't have a problem. I'd disagree, but you could phrase that in a way that I could agree with the structure of, without agreeing, because I don't care about murder in games, still less about how most videogames present the murder of men, and I don't care about killing police officers in games, but I can understand how someone who does could have a problem with it. The additional bullshit about prevalence is people who are either liars or not Australians pretending they know jack shit about how we live in MY country. No, we're not always being shot. No, men aren't at a massive risk from violence (Yes, there is violence against men, and I swear to god if you sea lion this shit I will block you straight away because I've experienced more than my share, and I'm not going to justify myself to you). Whereas women in sex work are at a high level of risk, and many of them have painful experiences related to this.

WhiteNachos said:
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?
See, now you've just misrepresented me too, and just put words in my mouth. Please tell me, when did you stop (Insert something horribly wicked here)? How do you expect to discuss things, when your responses don't address the posts, and when you misrepresent the game, the petition, and those you're supposedly talking to.

I'm waiting for an apology for this one, because it's frankly a disgusting level of dishonesty. Why would anyone discuss anything with you if that's how you're going to address them.

Since again, I have to explain things to you at the lowest level: The petition specifically has a problem with the whole fuck a prostitute kill a prostitute, save money bit. Many sex workers have been beaten or abused as a part of their job, or payment with-held, or been abused and exploited by pimps, and not properly compensated for their work. They're often raped or abused, and there is very little they can do about it, or interest in their advocacy. Australia in particular, and Tasmania, my state, has tried for a long time to improve these with laws aimed at allowing prostitution whilst discouraging the unhealthy practices. That being a part of a game is something they find sickening. I personally, don't, because I percieve GTA differently, and feel that they're creating a fucked up world in a poorly done attempt at satire, and those sickening acts are advantageous in real life, the game gives the player the opportunity to gain by doing things which are clearly wrong. Killing cops just for their guns? Wrong. Killing prostitutes after you've gotten your satisfaction to avoid paying them? Wrong. Running down civilians? Wrong. But that's the fucked up world Rockstar wanted to create, and I personally still enjoy the game.

Now, tot misrepresented the petition by ignoring the prostitution aspect, and the game by ignoring the difference between the prostitution killings and straight forward regular killings, to which Zach responded with a sarcastic comment about where to find male prostitutes, which was pretty damn funny. As you'll notice, while rarer, male prostitutes do exist, as do male strippers, yet they tend not to feature in these games. Funny that. It brings to mind the fact that these games are pandering to straight men, and that straight men aren't often interested in questioning that.
 

Loonyyy

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

Zhukov said:
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!
You think the vagwolves are bad, you haven't seen the clitsharks. And the goddamn areobats. They take down their share of planes and boats.

It's too late for us. Save yourself.
 

WhiteNachos

New member
Jul 25, 2014
647
0
0
Loonyyy said:
WhiteNachos said:
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.
GTA implicitly endorses the action, through several systems:

1. You regain health by visiting prostitutes, and, if you're a straight male and have little taste, which seems to be assumed, you get a shitty porn show. The game incentivises visiting prostitutes through an out of game reward-porn, and an in game reward-health.
And you sometimes get wanted stars for doing it.

Loonyyy said:
2. You can regain the money by killing the prostitute, which is the way you interact with just about everyone. Prostitutes also are located in areas away from fixed police concentrations (Like say, Police Stations, or the feds), and you need to take them somewhere out of the way to have sex with them, which lowers the consequences of police interference.
When you get wanted stars for killing civilians seems kinda wonky in GTA, I've seen several people complain about getting them even when there was not witnesses in sight.

But I could make a very similar argument about how the game "endorses" the murder of taxi drivers. It's way easier to find those and they provide a far more useful service in the game.

Loonyyy said:
I criticised the people who lied about the content of the petition. Which includes you.
Which part have I lied about?


Loonyyy said:
The other, disgusting part, is the people pretending that somehow the killing of men in the game, or in games is an issue.
You miss the point. Usually it's to show how hypocritical the complainers are, when there's far worse violence against men (in both quantity and "quality") and they only give a shit about the violence done to women, then call the game sexist.

Loonyyy said:
Because if it were, they would have brought it up.
Some people have. There's a whole trope and argument about it called "Men are the Expendable Gender". Do some reading on it.

Loonyyy said:
The additional bullshit about prevalence is people who are either liars or not Australians pretending they know jack shit about how we live in MY country. No, we're not always being shot. No, men aren't at a massive risk from violence (Yes, there is violence against men, and I swear to god if you sea lion this shit I will block you straight away because I've experienced more than my share, and I'm not going to justify myself to you). Whereas women in sex work are at a high level of risk, and many of them have painful experiences related to this.
And this is relevant how? It's a game, it's fiction, so unless you believe it'll cause real world violence (which you shouldn't because there's no solid evidence that it does), it's a moot point. All it boils down to is "woah this makes it a touchy subject for us, which totally justifies us saying other people shouldn't play the game".

WhiteNachos said:
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?
See, now you've just misrepresented me too, and just put words in my mouth.[/quote]

I thought you were implying that misrepresenting the game was the only thing wrong with the petition and that it wasn't a big deal. If not, I apologize.

Anyway the petition said the game would cause more real life violence. I'm not misrepresenting anything the petition said.
 

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,768
0
0
WhiteNachos said:
We're not talking about the government, we were never talking about the government but instead talking about private citizens. Stop trying to derail the conversation.
Says the guy trying to bring abortion into it.

I feel we are arguing in circles.

a) Tell me, is the following an accuration summary of the situation at hand?

"A group of people did not like the content of GTA5 and appealed to a retailer of the game to discontinue selling it. The retailer agreed to do so."

b) Could you define "censorship" to me in your own words?

c) Can you explain how your definition of censorship fits the situation described.
 

Loonyyy

New member
Jul 10, 2009
1,292
0
0
WhiteNachos said:
Loonyyy said:
WhiteNachos said:
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.
GTA implicitly endorses the action, through several systems:

1. You regain health by visiting prostitutes, and, if you're a straight male and have little taste, which seems to be assumed, you get a shitty porn show. The game incentivises visiting prostitutes through an out of game reward-porn, and an in game reward-health.
And you sometimes get wanted stars for doing it.
Have you even played GTA? If you get a wanted star, you'll usually get 1. In the course of the gameplay, you'll attain far higher wanted levels. In GTA-IV, the consequences of 1 star means moving about a block away from the scene of the crime.

This is not a disincentive on the level of the incentive. There are very real disincentives they could have here, and other games do:

"Ezio did not kill innocents"
"Friendly Fire Will Not Be Tolerated"

And that still leaves the game incentivising the action.
Loonyyy said:
2. You can regain the money by killing the prostitute, which is the way you interact with just about everyone. Prostitutes also are located in areas away from fixed police concentrations (Like say, Police Stations, or the feds), and you need to take them somewhere out of the way to have sex with them, which lowers the consequences of police interference.
When you get wanted stars for killing civilians seems kinda wonky in GTA, I've seen several people complain about getting them even when there was not witnesses in sight.
I've had the same. Usually witnesses pull out their phone, and call, or a police officer is in the wanted circle (As far as GTA-IV's wanted system goes. I haven't experimented to the same extent with GTA-V's system, because I found the police much more efficient, and I'm very bad with controllers for aiming, and I couldn't wrangle the camera very well). At least the GTA-IV system for crimes like that, usually in the docks in the first quarter you start in, where the prostitutes hang out, there are a bunch of random people and prostitutes, killing them without a witness seems to often give a wanted star, but it tends to happen significantly later, usually to me once I'm well clear of the area, because the wanted radius for 1 star (The punishment for killing a prostitute), is about a block, and there often when it glitches aren't even any police officers in the circle.
But I could make a very similar argument about how the game "endorses" the murder of taxi drivers. It's way easier to find those and they provide a far more useful service in the game.
Actually, I'd agree. The game does offer an incentive to kill taxi drivers after their services are done. They won't remember you, and it will give you some of the money back. Similarly, eating a hot dog will give you your health back, and at a much lower cost ($1 IIRC). If you wanted that money back, you could kill the vendor (And there's a gas can to make that extra fire-y). That's a little riskier, since the vendors are usually on the street or by parks. Still, the game incentivises visiting these people, and outside of that interaction, there's only really one way that the game gives you to interact with them: The same way that you interact with all NPCs, murder them, screw with them, or ignore them, with killing them being rewarding in game with money, and out of game, since exploring ways to fuck with people and the police is a staple of the series.

Loonyyy said:
I criticised the people who lied about the content of the petition. Which includes you.
Which part have I lied about?
Well, let's see:

-Censorship (Even if what Target did is censorship [And it isn't in any meaningful, negative sense of the word, which is what is being invoked] the petitioners don't have any authority or power that Target is obliged to listen to)

-Calling it a bunch of lies (And I'm still not convinced of that). For me, the biggest error there is the image header, which depicts a woman that I don't recognise as one of the prostitute skins for the game, who's been killed with a hatchet(The header was almost certainly chosen because it is the most inflamatory)

-"The game never insults them or effects them" Not true. The game very clearly has effected them, and they've responded. Outside of survivors of abuse (Which the author of the petition seems to claim to be), the game insults women all the damn time. Honestly, for me it was a big step down from GTA-IV. If a game as misogynistic as GTA-V is (I'm not referring to the hooker killings, but the social commentary, starlets, slut-shaming, Franklin's Mother, Michael's daughter and Michael's wife) then felt that it had banked enough credit as a commentary about women to depict that, I can imagine being very pissed off. They don't tie the act to any commentary, and they don't do anything particularly positive. Tangentially, I'd say GTA-IV did this better, Michelle, Elizabeta Torres, were actually interesting female characters, and that banks some goodwill with the player. GTA-V doesn't. It insults women, depicts them as a stereotype of a slutty teenager, whores, strippers, stupid, vapid, unfaithful, and doesn't have a female voice. In contrast, whilst men get a terrible rap in the game, the player has input into that by controlling a male, and characters (Franklin, Michael) get to show positive masculine traits.

-"Slander". Prove it, or leave that one alone. That word's got a very specific meaning, and I really don't see where in the petition they slander Rockstar, and since at least one of their sources is shown there, I don't think that it's possible to make the case that they're lying. I can understand someone thinking the game is misogynistic (I agree), and that it "turns bashing, killing, and horrific violence against women into a game" (It does). That the game links sexual arousal and violence (It does. GTA has practically made an artform out of juxtaposing sexualised women and violence)

-"Lying about what was actually in the game" Still haven't seen that.

I see a bunch of things that people could disagree with, the interpretations of the effects, the context of the game, the consequences of the game, and their proposed course of action. I don't see lying about what's in the game, unless we're playing it Postal style where "You could finish the game without doing any of that" is some sort of argument about it, because the devs put hookers into the game and strippers, but you're not meant to notice them, or interact with them, because we both know that's not true.

Loonyyy said:
The other, disgusting part, is the people pretending that somehow the killing of men in the game, or in games is an issue.
You miss the point. Usually it's to show how hypocritical the complainers are, when there's far worse violence against men (in both quantity and "quality") and they only give a shit about the violence done to women, then call the game sexist.
No, you miss the point. I understand it's an attempt to show hypocrisy. With reference to the petition, that's a lie. The petition explicitly references the behaviour regarding prostitutes as it's chief concern. It's a complete difference in kinds. That's a misrepresentation of the petition.

The other problem is it's a bullshit example of privilige. "This thing could offend me, or you, but it doesn't, so you shouldn't be offended by that, or that you're hypocritical for complaining."

No-one is obliged to complain for you. Clearly they weren't offended by that in the same way that they were by this. Maybe they didn't see that (As their source seems to be YT videos, that's a distinct possibility). But also, women are probably going to feel very differently about male on female violence than male on male violence, and they do have very good cause to do so. (This also bites men in the ass, because it makes socialising with both genders harder, and it hurts men who are attracted to women even more, because that's a key component to their sex life).

Either case, there's a big difference, and that is privilige. There are differences between people, and if I call my white coworker the N-word, he's going to feel very differently about it than if I call my black coworker the N-word. Even further, if I call my white coworker "White ************" "Cracker ************" "I bet you burn easy in the sun" or the like, they're going to feel very differently about it than if I make racial jokes about my asian coworkers or my black coworkers. Firstly because I'm white, and secondly because as a white man in Tasmania, racism isn't a problem for me, while it is for our coworkers, who get it all the time. It's actually become a thing at my store between us that we'll insult each other for being white, in mockery of the racist dickweeds we deal with all the time. I'm also not going to give a shit if any of my asian coworkers or black coworkers call me a cracker, or make any of those stupid jokes (It's really hard to think of good racist slurs against white people), because racism has never really disadvantaged me.

Additionally, GTA V is the first game to show female police officers, so I guess it's about time. They're much rarer however (I hadn't actually noticed them until I looked it up because I was wondering if the military was mixed gender).
Loonyyy said:
Because if it were, they would have brought it up.
Some people have. There's a whole trope and argument about it called "Men are the Expendable Gender". Do some reading on it.
I have. It's horseshit. Pure unadulterated horseshit.

Personally, I do have an issue with the depiction of men in the game, several. They don't exist as a response to feminists, or as a dodge to avoid criticising it.

Three main ones: One, Michael's wife's infidelity. The cuckolded man is a lazy narrative trope, and it doesn't accurately represent why people cheat, but it does serve to hurt people who've experienced that, insult them, and then imply that it was because they were too fat and disinterested as opposed to the toned instructor.

Two: The death of Johnny, where again, we have cuckolding, we also have a murder. See, he's also a much better fighter than Johnny, and also makes fucking nasty comments about Johnny blowing him. Yeah, I don't think that's funny, and you definitely haven't banked the cred to do that with men, men who've been cheated on, gay men, or bi men, especially with the next problem I have.

Three: Floyd. He's vaguely effiminate, and weak(He even owns a teddy bear!), and then it's heavily implied that he's sexually assaulted by Trevor(One switch to Trevor involves them in bed together[of course Floyd's in pink pajamas. Because pink is girly, and because he's clearly a girl cause he got molested and that's the worst thing you could be, see, you're pink and gay and being made a ***** ***VOMIT****], after which he cries). Male survivors of sexual assault are not weak, they are not assaulted because they are effiminate, or not aggressive, and that's fucking disgusting. Fuck whoever wrote that scene. Following that, he's accused of "[not] being a man at all" by his girlfriend and is murdered with her by Trevor. Fuck that twice.

(Also, the torture, but I feel that's more a foreign policy/racism sort of angle rather than a masculine one. But that entire sequence is bad)

And none of these involve calling people who say they've survived a sexual assault hypocrites for not caring about the deaths of men in a game that the men don't even care about. If you care about it, this isn't the place, and you do it a disservice by using it to pretend that the criticism doesn't matter. Criticisms of the depiction of men in the game stand or fall on their own and not as disingenuous responses. And if they're problematic, then they're problematic irrelevant of whether the presentation of women is problematic. I'd be disgusted if someone said that I didn't care about sexually assaulted sex workers because I voiced that criticism isolated from a criticism of the games treatment of women. It's false equivalence starving children hogwash.
Loonyyy said:
The additional bullshit about prevalence is people who are either liars or not Australians pretending they know jack shit about how we live in MY country. No, we're not always being shot. No, men aren't at a massive risk from violence (Yes, there is violence against men, and I swear to god if you sea lion this shit I will block you straight away because I've experienced more than my share, and I'm not going to justify myself to you). Whereas women in sex work are at a high level of risk, and many of them have painful experiences related to this.
And this is relevant how?
Because that's the other one that comes up with the what about men being killed. "Oh men are killed, and they're killed IRL". I'm pretty sure Weeping Angel had that bullshit going a few pages ago, and that wasn't the only one. There are more than a few people who don't know anything about Australia making claims about Australia, Australian men, and violence against Australian men, who think they can speak for us, and that's bang out of order, particularly when they make the obvious mistake of thinking that gun violence is a significant issue for Australian men.
It's a game, it's fiction, so unless you believe it'll cause real world violence (which you shouldn't because there's no solid evidence that it does),
"The Suicide Club" is fiction, but it terribly misrepresents suicide, and is incredibly offensive to people who've experienced depression and suicidal impulses.
"Metalocalypse" is fiction (Also, possibly one of my favourite shows of all time) The final of the second season is still intensely homophobic, and insulting towards homosexuals.
The new "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" is fiction. It's still pretty damn sexist.
"Transformers" is fiction. It doesn't make it not racist, sexist (And that goes both ways with this one especially).

Even apart from the petition etc, I'd like to have words with the writers of GTA-V. I'd also like words with Brendan Small. Because overall, I like these properties, and I'm disappointed that they'd say these things. I think the saddest part is how alienating and excluding these are. GTA is mostly driving and shooting and bizarre comedy and cultural commentary, and that can include anyone(And to my mind, would include a lot more women anyway, considering that our dominant cultural forces tend to be dictated by men. Counter-culture by the same people as the mainstream is always going to be lacking). I'd imagine that women playing the game and coming across the many sexist parts would feel pretty similarly to when characters I liked on a show I liked, by people I respected, concluded that something was bad because it's gay. I'd really like to see them made to answer, not to the women of the petition, but to female fans of the game.

Additionally, I don't have to believe it'll cause real world violence directly, and I didn't say that. I believe it'll cause real life sexism, particularly with the trend for people to not think about it, and in particular avoid thinking about it or deny any possible deeper reading or thinking. And I can definitely see how people can be concerned that a greater degree of sexism can result in a greater degree of violence against women, without it being so simplistic as people imitating a game, which is not at all what I mean.

Ideally, in my mind, the game should be more balanced. If it weren't so sexist everywhere else, this would be less concerning, because then the game is doing the thinking for the player (Which is meant to be part of the satirical cultural commentary schtick). Instead the game has more than a few issues with women it needs to work out, because you can't do all that sexist shit and play it for laughs and include the violence against women and the sexual exploitation of women for the titilation of straight men without people wondering what the fuck your problem is.
it's a moot point. All it boils down to is "woah this makes it a touchy subject for us, which totally justifies us saying other people shouldn't play the game".
If they find it touchy, and they think that people shouldn't play it, they can say that. I'm not going to, and I personally don't support the petition.

But it's definitely not a moot point, as I said above, being concerned about the proliferation of sexist material, particularly dehumanising sexist material which treats women as objects, targets, conquests, and stupid people to laugh at, and at risk women like sex workers, in that way, does not mean you think it directly causes violence. And influencing perceptions and culture isn't nearly the same as directly influencing action, so don't conflate the two with the usual "This game has sexist elements which may be unwittingly internalized" with "This game has violent elements which people will imitate because it's cool", because that's just an unfortunate and terrible talking point that should die a quick death. For a gender swapped example, giving girls barbies and making their characters in fairy tales beautiful princesses who are prizes isn't positive either, it encourages girls to internalise their appearance as being most important, and that they are objects, prizes, shouldn't pursue their goal or man, and that a man (Who is also a royal figure usually, or a knight) will come along, save them, and they'll naturally be a fit sexually and personality wise and fall in love. Similarly, more than a few people have expressed dissatisfaction with how fairy tales, and the media and culture have influenced their perception of romance and the opposite sex, and in particular the frustration that comes when one realises that culture has been misleading them.

WhiteNachos said:
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?
See, now you've just misrepresented me too, and just put words in my mouth.[/quote]

I thought you were implying that misrepresenting the game was the only thing wrong with the petition and that it wasn't a big deal. If not, I apologize.[/quote]

Thanks, that's not common on here, that really means a lot.
Anyway the petition said the game would cause more real life violence. I'm not misrepresenting anything the petition said.
There's a difference in mechanism though. Sexist attitudes help perpetrate violence against women, including the failure to properly deal with rape, or domestic violence, or even antiquated sexist ideas of womens sexuality being perpetrated through genital mutilation. Uncritically presenting these attitudes reinforces and propagates them, which can lead to trouble down the line, not from people imitating the game, because obviously it's wrong, but because they think wrong things about women, or consent, or any number of things. Similarly, the game doesn't encourage you to respect police officers or authority figures. I don't think the game will make you kill cops, I think the game will make you think differently about them though.

And that goes both ways. Sexist attitudes about men also perpetrate horrible things for men. The game itself has a few (I pointed out three I feel are problematic, the third being the biggest for me), which propagates sexist ideas about men which result in harm against men. No, women aren't cheating because their lovers are stronger or more muscular, they're doing it because that woman is being an asshole. No, you don't get raped because you're not aggressive, and you shouldn't try to be aggressive to compete. No, you don't have to provide for women, particularly women who don't care about you. No, women aren't gold-diggers, and if you encounter a woman who is that, you don't have to put up with that. No, men aren't hypersexual. No, bisexual men are not dangerous to men, and they're no more or less sexual than anyone else (Fuck you Trevor). No, crying is not weak, or unmanly. No, feeling, and expressing emotions apart from anger and sexual arousal isn't a bad thing. The worst sexist attitudes towards men affect in particular gay and bisexual men, or effeminate men, or men who enjoy typically non-masculine fare(Which is more of us with each passing year). Or men who are victimised by violent crime. Or men who are seen as emasculated by failing to surpass outdated, dangerous, and unfair ideas of masculinity. With the presentation of Floyd's abuse, or the typical attitude towards say, prison rape, how do we expect male victims of sexual assault to cope, and how do we expect them to come forward? Particularly when the vast majority of sexual assaults go unpunished even if reported? I guess the best you can do if you're anything like Floyd is to finally stand up for yourself against a horrible woman, and an evil man, and be butchered as a point about how edgy, tough, violent and crazy that man is.

Personally, I think the big issues with GTA come from it trying it's hand at satire (As it always does), and failing. And the big problem with satire is, when you fuck it up, you've just made a worse example of what you were trying to criticise. I think the scope and execution of the satire in GTA is always poor, and GTA-V is particularly egregious. Rather than being sarcastic and critical, South Park as a videogame, it's just misanthropic and nasty all too frequently. People are a lot more willing to forgive satire if the message is worthwhile, or if they can see the message, or if it brings a comparable insight, however, GTA seems to wallow more and more in a disgusting exageration of the most disgusting parts of our society, with no real insight, and the few token critiques being shallow and vapid, or outright contemptible. I'd rather that instead of the game no longer being sold (Which will happen as it fades from popularity in about 18 months anyway), people thought more about it, and Rockstar tried harder next time.
 

WhiteNachos

New member
Jul 25, 2014
647
0
0
Loonyyy said:
-"The game never insults them or effects them" Not true. The game very clearly has effected them, and they've responded.
Effected them beyond offended them. As Steve Hughes said "nothing happens if you're offended".

Loonyyy said:
Outside of survivors of abuse (Which the author of the petition seems to claim to be), the game insults women all the damn time. Honestly, for me it was a big step down from GTA-IV.
I don't see how, every character in the game is a terrible human being for one reason or another or they've got other major problems (like being a doormat). No one in the game is a role model. The closest is that older woman Trevor tried to date. She's faithful and seems like a good person all around.


Loonyyy said:
-"Lying about what was actually in the game" Still haven't seen that.
"It's a game that encourages players to murder women for entertainment. The incentive is to commit sexual violence against women, then abuse or kill them to proceed or get 'health' points"

"It also links sexual arousal and violence."

"Just knowing that women are being portrayed as deserving to be sexually used by men "

And the claim it'll lead to more real life violence.

Some of these may not be flat out lies but they're as misleading and sketchy as Fox acting like Mass Effect had pornographic sex scene in it.


Loonyyy said:
No, you miss the point. I understand it's an attempt to show hypocrisy. With reference to the petition, that's a lie. The petition explicitly references the behaviour regarding prostitutes as it's chief concern. It's a complete difference in kinds. That's a misrepresentation of the petition.
No it doesn't, it goes on and on about how it endorses violence against women, it never says "violence against prostitutes" or "violence against sex workers" (and the violence against prostitutes still isn't as graphic as what the men get).

Loonyyy said:
The other problem is it's a bullshit example of privilige. "This thing could offend me, or you, but it doesn't, so you shouldn't be offended by that, or that you're hypocritical for complaining."
No. Think of something at least mildly offensive that tries to take potshots at everyone (like the old versions of Cards Against Humanity, or South Park in general). Now imagine someone enjoys that thing, laughs at all the jokes then all of a sudden it makes fun of their group and they're like "woah this goes too far, this is outrageous and the creators should apologize". Everything's all fine until it makes fun of their group, then and ONLY then do they get upset. You can make fun of anyone BUT me. Now replace make fun of with "kill in a video game". That's the hypocrisy we're dealing with.

I have. It's horseshit. Pure unadulterated horseshit.
Could you give a reason (and if you do please don't give a wall of text). Go to the tvtrope page on the subject and tell me how the main points are BS. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MenAreTheExpendableGender

I can't think of a single game with an equal number of female extras you have to kill never mind one with more of them. Even in GTA while there's an equal number when it comes to civilians, start a mission and you'll be guaranteed to go through more men.

"The Suicide Club" is fiction, but it terribly misrepresents suicide, and is incredibly offensive to people who've experienced depression and suicidal impulses.
to SOME people who were suicidal. Don't make blanket statements. I was suicidal, I've never read the book, I have no idea if it'll offend me and I don't appreciate you speaking for me on that.

I did read/skim the rest of your post but I don't spend all my time arguing on this damn thread (no offense to you). I do appreciate the effort though.
 

vledleR

New member
Nov 3, 2014
115
0
0
Target is a family department store. Vidya games probably have a negligible impact on sales. If an established consumer base was pissed, even if they were the dreaded "concerned mother" demographic, they made a good business call imo.