The Big Picture: Off Target - Don't Censor Me Part 2

[SirAroun]

I don't care about GTA V but Bob definition of Censorship is so limited as to be toxic. Why are private organizations allowed to get away with things we would never allow the government to get away with when many private organizations have almost as much if not more influence and power then the government.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

I'm sure Ozgameshop.com's revenue is going to shoot up like crazy and that EB Games/Gamestop is all but too happy about this. But I have to disagree on the point if relevancy with ya there Bob, as the whole "Remastered" Edition is coming out (or has come out).

The change.org petition is well meaning but misguided, telling a group of people they can't have something or shouldn't just makes them want it more, and if you're being deceptive it's just going to make people angrier.

Although this video did give me an idea for what the next GTA game could be about, former sex worker with an axe to grind.

 

[Grampy_bone]

I'll just point out that MovieBob and other's support of Target would completely reverse if they were removing Gone Home for promoting "sodomy" or something-

Support? You really got the impression that he was supporting Target?

He called them cynical and dumb. Boy, those are some supportive words.

Correctly identifying their refusal to sell the game as free market capitalism instead of censorship does not mean he agrees with their actions.

If you follow MovieBob you see a distinct anti-corporation, anti-free market attitude in what he says. So now he goes, "Hey I don't like this either but that's what happens in a free market..." it's like a smug, backhanded jab at people who support something he is against. He's really saying, "This is capitalism's fault." My point is that there would be no strong principled stance about capitalism from him if they were de-listing a game he likes. It would be all condemnation and nothing else.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

So your not selling this game? Fine I'll go across the street to gamestop, or god forbid walmart, they'll gladly take my money and future business from me unlike you.

Wallmart Austraila is gonna stop carrying the game as well.

I see what you did thar; har, har, har. Silly yanks.

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

capitalism aint censorship kids. these places can stock what they want. go buy another GTAV copy from a rival store to protest.

 

[Baresark]

I was watching this video and thinking, "oh man, is Bob gonna make it through without attacking the game?" The answer is no. Is the solution to take sex workers out? That doesn't make any sense in the context of what GTA games have always been (about the seedy underbelly of society). You can't make them invincible when no one else is just because they are sex workers. The fact is that they have always been part of these games and it has not really been a problem to this point. He also doesn't broach how they lied about what sex workers were in the game.

If I don't like a game, I don't play it. If I don't like a book, I don't read it. Life is much simpler when you apply a bit of reason to the way you think about it.

 

[RJ Dalton]

Oh, wait, so it was just in Australia? I'd not really looked into it because I couldn't care less about the situation, but from what I was seeing on occasional Twitter feeds had led me to believe it was a "Target Everywhere" thing. So, the whole outrage is even stupider than I thought.

Good God, people, we have *really* got to learn to pick our battles.

 

[walsfeo]

Moviebob getting upset about having to repeat himself is like Michael Bay getting upset for having to make crappy movies with lots of explosions and shaky cam.

Other than that, good episode, if a little obvious.

 

[Suhi89]

I posted something similar to this on part one, but it seems as though people still refuse to believe words mean what they clearly mean. So, from Wikipedia.

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.

Nevertheless, I feel we have to apply certain qualifiers to this, or else Target is engaging in censorship by not selling its shoppers' credit card information to me, and the word becomes meaningless as a condemnation. "They're suppressing the information of their patrons' financial identifications because it's considered harmful! Censorship! Censorship!"

This is an argument over semantics, but I will try to address it anyway, because I find the topic interesting.

I think that would be stretching the definition of the word somewhat (as I said, language is defined by usage, not prescription, and that definition of censorship isn't in common usage, unlike the definition we are talking about), but even if we accepted it, that would just be a type of censorship we were happy to live with. As it is, implicit in the definition of the word is the motivation for withholding something. If it is because of moral objections - censorship. If it is because you have signed a non disclosure agreement in a business setting- not censorship. If you don't want a particular opinion to be heard because you think it is harmful or offensive - censorship. If you just think that your readers wouldn't find it interesting - not censorship.

In this case, the petition surrounding it makes it clear that GTAV has been pulled on offence grounds. Sure, Target will have done it for business reasons, but the fundamental reason is that it causes offence. There are grey areas to what is or isn't censorship - this doesn't fall in those grey areas.

In any case, it's only a problem if you think that censorship is always a bad thing. It's not. I'm happy for certain things to be censored in the interests of national security. I self censor and don't swear in front of my parents because I know it offends them. Certain films are censored in the UK if they depict genuine cruelty towards animals, and I'm OK with that. Other films are censored to reach a particular classification and I'm fine with that too. I'm happy for newspaper editors to censor libellous claims from their writers.

In this particular case, it's a fairly small deal. I disagree with Target's decision and it would stop me shopping there if I lived in Australia, but it is their right. It's still censorship, whether you agree with it or not. If you agree with it, then you just agree with this particular act of censorship. That's not an indefensible position.

The concern for me is if it were to become widespread. At the moment it's one retailer, so it's not a big deal. It is worth making our dissatisfaction at the situation known however, in case other companies start joining the bandwagon. I would most of the people who signed the petition would rather it was not possible, or at least extremely difficult, to purchase GTAV at all.

(Incidentally, the main reason I'm not pro gamergate is that I consider organised letter campaigns to sponsors expressing discontent with printed opinions to be a form of censorship, and I'm generally against that unless it's for what I consider to be good reasons (and there aren't many good reasons IMO). Even if you don't want to call it censorship because you're irrationally scared by words, it has the same effect. It shuts people you disagree with up).

I don't think I'm using a wild, crazy definition of the word here. On the contrary, I think it is how most would understand it.

 

[Moeez]

I was watching this video and thinking, "oh man, is Bob gonna make it through without attacking the game?" The answer is no. Is the solution to take sex workers out? That doesn't make any sense in the context of what GTA games have always been (about the seedy underbelly of society). You can't make them invincible when no one else is just because they are sex workers. The fact is that they have always been part of these games and it has not really been a problem to this point. He also doesn't broach how they lied about what sex workers were in the game.

If I don't like a game, I don't play it. If I don't like a book, I don't read it. Life is much simpler when you apply a bit of reason to the way you think about it.

First, not even the petition (https://www.change.org/p/target-withdraw-grand-theft-auto-5-this-sickening-game-encourages-players-to-commit-sexual-violence-and-kill-women) demanded to remove sex workers from the series or then they'd address the petition to Rockstar. Second, it's always been a hot topic ever since GTA 3 and the news caught on. Third, you should watch the video again, as other people in this thread also seem to have bad listening. Bob argues for maybe dialing down the negative depiction of sex workers, and new to GTA 5, the transphobic messages [http://gaygamer.net/2013/10/grand-theft-auto-v-misogyny-transphobia/]. I'll transcribe it just in case:

"Honestly, if the point is that the series considers dialing that aspect back, I think they've kind of got a point. Not ban it point, no. But definitely a 'hey Rockstar, what the fuck' point. Sex workers are the most consistently at-risk groups and professions in the world in terms of likelihood to be victims of violence and sexual assault. Risk which is only compounded by laws that make them afraid to come forward. Law enforcement agencies long history of not believing or caring about them in the first place. And societies frequently regard them as less than human or even deserving what befalls them. And while the GTA series' prostitute-killing elements didn't create that atmosphere, it's not going to make anyone go out and commit robberies/homcides against sex workers, well there's an argument to be made that it contributes to the overall atmosphere that normalises and downplays that kind of violence and dehumanisation. Certainly, not as much as everything that came before and informed it, sure, but it certainly isn't helping."

 

[JimB]

This is an argument over semantics, but I will try to address it anyway, because I find the topic interesting.

Thank you. I enjoy semantics arguments interesting.

As it is, implicit in the definition of the word is the motivation for withholding something.

Actually, it's explicit, at least in the Wikipedia definition you provide; and the scenario I provided does fit the explicit text. I think what's implicit is that most people define the word as, "A bad thing I disagree with," such that Target not stocking a year-old game is censorship but people boycotting media outlets that express anti-GamerGate sentiments is not.

(Please note that I understand you disavow GamerGate and the example I provided later in your post. I only brought it up as an example, and one that I hope does not come off as accusatory.)

In any case, it's only a problem if you think that censorship is always a bad thing. It's not. I'm happy for certain things to be censored in the interests of national security. I self-censor and don't swear in front of my parents because I know it offends them. Certain films are censored in the UK if they depict genuine cruelty towards animals, and I'm OK with that. Other films are censored to reach a particular classification and I'm fine with that too. I'm happy for newspaper editors to censor libelous claims from their writers.

In this particular case, it's a fairly small deal. I disagree with Target's decision and it would stop me shopping there if I lived in Australia, but it is their right. It's still censorship, whether you agree with it or not. If you agree with it, then you just agree with this particular act of censorship. That's not an indefensible position.

For the record, all that sounds perfectly reasonable. I just don't often say so because I worry it will be subject to low-content violations.

 

[SAMAS]

I posted something similar to this on part one, but it seems as though people still refuse to believe words mean what they clearly mean. So, from Wikipedia.

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.

Nevertheless, I feel we have to apply certain qualifiers to this, or else Target is engaging in censorship by not selling its shoppers' credit card information to me, and the word becomes meaningless as a condemnation. "They're suppressing the information of their patrons' financial identifications because it's considered harmful! Censorship! Censorship!"

This is an argument over semantics, but I will try to address it anyway, because I find the topic interesting.

I think that would be stretching the definition of the word somewhat (as I said, language is defined by usage, not prescription, and that definition of censorship isn't in common usage, unlike the definition we are talking about), but even if we accepted it, that would just be a type of censorship we were happy to live with. As it is, implicit in the definition of the word is the motivation for withholding something. If it is because of moral objections - censorship. If it is because you have signed a non disclosure agreement in a business setting- not censorship. If you don't want a particular opinion to be heard because you think it is harmful or offensive - censorship. If you just think that your readers wouldn't find it interesting - not censorship.

In this case, the petition surrounding it makes it clear that GTAV has been pulled on offence grounds. Sure, Target will have done it for business reasons, but the fundamental reason is that it causes offence. There are grey areas to what is or isn't censorship - this doesn't fall in those grey areas.

In any case, it's only a problem if you think that censorship is always a bad thing. It's not. I'm happy for certain things to be censored in the interests of national security. I self censor and don't swear in front of my parents because I know it offends them. Certain films are censored in the UK if they depict genuine cruelty towards animals, and I'm OK with that. Other films are censored to reach a particular classification and I'm fine with that too. I'm happy for newspaper editors to censor libellous claims from their writers.

In this particular case, it's a fairly small deal. I disagree with Target's decision and it would stop me shopping there if I lived in Australia, but it is their right. It's still censorship, whether you agree with it or not. If you agree with it, then you just agree with this particular act of censorship. That's not an indefensible position.

The concern for me is if it were to become widespread. At the moment it's one retailer, so it's not a big deal. It is worth making our dissatisfaction at the situation known however, in case other companies start joining the bandwagon. I would most of the people who signed the petition would rather it was not possible, or at least extremely difficult, to purchase GTAV at all.

(Incidentally, the main reason I'm not pro gamergate is that I consider organised letter campaigns to sponsors expressing discontent with printed opinions to be a form of censorship, and I'm generally against that unless it's for what I consider to be good reasons (and there aren't many good reasons IMO). Even if you don't want to call it censorship because you're irrationally scared by words, it has the same effect. It shuts people you disagree with up).

I don't think I'm using a wild, crazy definition of the word here. On the contrary, I think it is how most would understand it.

True, but I think what Bob is getting at is what he calls in the video "Capital 'C' Censorship". What Target and K-Mart Australia are doing isn't any worse than WalMart refusing to stock AO-rated games, or any place that chooses not to sell pornographic movies/books/magazines. That's "Little 'C' censorship". It is something that they, as semi-independent branches of a privately-owned company, have the right to do.

"Big 'C'" is what ol' JT was trying to do: Government stepping in and using the weight of Law to keep anyone from getting something just because they don't like it. That is what is a problem, and this recent mess is nothing like that.

 

[MoonWhispers]

People's Republic of Overreactistan? Yea, I lol'd irl. Thanks Bob.

 

[Winnosh]

I was watching this video and thinking, "oh man, is Bob gonna make it through without attacking the game?" The answer is no. Is the solution to take sex workers out? That doesn't make any sense in the context of what GTA games have always been (about the seedy underbelly of society). You can't make them invincible when no one else is just because they are sex workers. The fact is that they have always been part of these games and it has not really been a problem to this point. He also doesn't broach how they lied about what sex workers were in the game.

If I don't like a game, I don't play it. If I don't like a book, I don't read it. Life is much simpler when you apply a bit of reason to the way you think about it.

I never got the idea Bob was saying remove Prostitutes or make them invincible. Just rethinking their purpose in the game. Before they were the most common source of health and you were encouraged to go and find them out between missions for health buffs then had the option to kill them.

With the changes made and the multitude of other ways to get health back in the series keeping them that way as disposable and cheaper sources of health with the added encouragement of killing them off makes no sense and doesn't quite fit with the rest of the game.

 

[Baresark]

snip

I never got the idea Bob was saying remove Prostitutes or make them invincible. Just rethinking their purpose in the game. Before they were the most common source of health and you were encouraged to go and find them out between missions for health buffs then had the option to kill them.

With the changes made and the multitude of other ways to get health back in the series keeping them that way as disposable and cheaper sources of health with the added encouragement of killing them off makes no sense and doesn't quite fit with the rest of the game.

No, I misspoke (so to speak). I know he specifically said not to ban them. You are correct. When I was typing I was speaking more the point of the petition where they claim killing them was incentivized on top of paying them for their services.

First, not even the petition (https://www.change.org/p/target-withdraw-grand-theft-auto-5-this-sickening-game-encourages-players-to-commit-sexual-violence-and-kill-women) demanded to remove sex workers from the series or then they'd address the petition to Rockstar. Second, it's always been a hot topic ever since GTA 3 and the news caught on. Third, you should watch the video again, as other people in this thread also seem to have bad listening. Bob argues for maybe dialing down the negative depiction of sex workers, and new to GTA 5, the transphobic messages [http://gaygamer.net/2013/10/grand-theft-auto-v-misogyny-transphobia/]. I'll transcribe it just in case:

"Honestly, if the point is that the series considers dialing that aspect back, I think they've kind of got a point. Not ban it point, no. But definitely a 'hey Rockstar, what the fuck' point. Sex workers are the most consistently at-risk groups and professions in the world in terms of likelihood to be victims of violence and sexual assault. Risk which is only compounded by laws that make them afraid to come forward. Law enforcement agencies long history of not believing or caring about them in the first place. And societies frequently regard them as less than human or even deserving what befalls them. And while the GTA series' prostitute-killing elements didn't create that atmosphere, it's not going to make anyone go out and commit robberies/homcides against sex workers, well there's an argument to be made that it contributes to the overall atmosphere that normalises and downplays that kind of violence and dehumanisation. Certainly, not as much as everything that came before and informed it, sure, but it certainly isn't helping."

You are right. My bad. When I was watching I was glad he said that banning was not what he meant. I was just a little blown away if for no other reason that Bob usually falls in step with the party line anytime a women's group gets involved. I stand corrected.

 

[Cecilthedarkknight_234]

Bob I think you missed the point entirely this entire stink was brought because of the ps3/xbox1 ports of gta5 that allowed a fp mode. All of the screen shoots I've seen from this "petion" mainly feature deaths in this newly added feature for the next gen consoles and PC. I fully respect your opinion bob however you've got to keep in mind these newer versions of GTA5 offer more than their previous gen counterparts.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I posted something similar to this on part one, but it seems as though people still refuse to believe words mean what they clearly mean. So, from Wikipedia.

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.

Governments, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship. When an individual such as an author or other creator engages in censorship of their own works or speech, it is called self-censorship. Censorship may be direct or it may be indirect, in which case it is called soft censorship. It occurs in a variety of different media, including speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of claimed reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children or other vulnerable groups, to promote or restrict political or religious views, and to prevent slander and libel.

From vocabulary.com

Censorship blocks something from being read, heard, or seen. If you've ever heard the sound of bleeping when someone is speaking on television, that's censorship.
To "censor" is to review something and to choose to remove or hide parts of it that are considered unacceptable. Censorship is the name for the process or idea of keeping things like obscene word or graphic images from an audience. There is also such a thing as self-censorship, which is when you refrain from saying certain things ? or possibly re-wording them ? depending on who is listening.

oxforddictionaries.com

Examine (a book, film, etc.) officially and suppress unacceptable parts of it.

merriamwebster.com

censor verb
: to examine books, movies, letters, etc., in order to remove things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society, etc.

You get my point. Censorship doesn't have to be official or government backed to be censorship. This is simple definitions of words. It just requires the removal of something for reasons of offence or unacceptability. This is how it different from choosing not to stock something because you believe that it won't make you enough money. It also doesn't matter if you can get it elsewhere. Target has censored GTAV by the definition of the word.

And even if I couldn't go to the top few results from google when I type in 'censorship definition' to back up my point, words are defined by their usage. Decimate is now essentially a synonym of destroy. Less can mean fewer. Literally doesn't literally have to mean literally. You might not like it, but you're going to have to live with it.

I think Bob is getting it mixed up with the violation of the first amendment, which only the American government can violate.

FTFY.

This is Australia, thus the first amendment has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Though Bob is going hard on the definition of censorship. Though this doesn't sit at hard nationwide censorship. There are shades of censoring and Target/Kmart banning a game is middling.

 

[TheOneGuyInNebraska]

Although I agree the GTA series as a collective has an unpleasant history with sex workers and the treatment of them I really don't get why this petition was going after GTA 5 specifically. Honestly, unless i'm forgetting something it felt like that specific game didn't even care about prostitutes, or beating up/killing them. None of the missions or side missions even involve sex workers, I played through the entire game without even realizing you could still do that. It feels like the game only included prostitutes just because its GTA, you could remove them and it would make zero difffrence. And really, the only violence against sex workers is not some encouraged part of the game, as i'm sure other people have mentioned you can beat up/kill pretty much every NPC you find. It really doesn't feel like the game is doing the whole "kill the hookers" thing.