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

[Magmarock]

It's self cencership Bob. People aren't angry because Target removed a game that wasn't kid friendly. They are angry because Target allowed themselves to be bullied by SJW's. Australia, is kind of overrun with SJW's and people over here are sick to death of it. The overzealous feminists here are starting to prove that they are a threat to some very real rights. If you want a more practical example. Witcher 2 was censored. upon it's first release with two sex scenes removed from the game. This wasn't because they were too graphic, it was because you received them as payment for a quest. Feminist logic right there.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

snip

Yet you're using this as an excuse to try and make this about my personal morality. When it doesn't even fit with my espoused beliefs.

That would probably be due to not reiterating the "I(as in you) do not care" line and focusing on my mistaken assumption you care. My bad.

So what does this have to do with realism?

It goes to the root of realism in fiction, just how real can it be until you hit a point of diminishing returns.

It sounds like if there is consumer outrage at prostitution, which there is, you should actually be defending their side of it. People are drawing a line on acceptable content. In fact, by this logic, shouldn't you embrace that slippery slope?

Not really as the vocal minority tends to be chaotic, malicious and short sighted.(gamergate reference redacted LOL)

I mean its great and all that people can ban together to get a corporation to remove an old product, it would be even okay for them to do it with a new product. However after a certain point and time you reach a point of things being removed because any small group of crazies can have anything removed.
-
-
I'd rather people learn to live with things that offend them rather than give alot of power to small groups of crazy people.

 

[Something Amyss]

That would probably be due to not reiterating the "I(as in you) do not care" line and focusing on my mistaken assumption you care. My bad.

I've said repeatedly that this was not how I felt. You continued to insist it, even as you indicated I was dumb for needing your reiteration.

That's not just your bad.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

That would probably be due to not reiterating the "I(as in you) do not care" line and focusing on my mistaken assumption you care. My bad.

I've said repeatedly that this was not how I felt. You continued to insist it, even as you indicated I was dumb for needing your reiteration.

That's not just your bad.

No you see I was mistaking you caring about you being misquoted for you caring about whats in fiction.
You are right I did misquote you then went on a dumb tangent. LOL

 

[cantthinkofaname1029]

...Hasn't the whole 'kill prostitutes' thing been around since GTA4? Why is this an issue now

 

[Skatologist]

Does anyone really have to point out to Bob that GTA is a satire?

It takes all facets of society, and aggrandises them to a ridiculous level so that they can be examined in real life.

That and the game is notably misanthropic. It doesn't just dehumanise sex workers, it dehumanises everyone. Just because a story is complex doesn't mean it has to be moral >.>

Eh, Bob has said (haven't watched his video or checked if he changed his opinion on this) that GTA was a parody not a satire. He doesn't really see the message (the thing distinguishing a parody and satire) within GTA other than, "everything and everyone is stupid and we're going to overblow it all!" Maybe it's just that he can't see the message, but that was his position in an Game overthinker episode.

 

[Rellik San]

You're not incentivized to go out and murder prostitutes anymore than you are to cause other types of general mayhem and destruction.

Actually you are by virtue of a single mechanic. Specifically prostitutes typically carry more money than your average joe, and amassing large sums of money is one of the game's implicit goals. And as anyone whose been playing that series can attest to; sometimes "farming" prostitutes is a heck of a lot more efficient than playing mini-games.

Think about it, and be honest. If you're playing a MMO and you're just a few coins short of this awesome new piece of gear, are you going to trek half way across the map in a half hour journey just to get to a ten minute mini-game you'll have to play three or four times for the coin and then trek back? Or would you rather head around to the back of the shop and spend five minutes farming a common mob with a high respawn rate and unusually high drop chance?

Rhetorical question; twelve million WoW players already answered it for you.

I would heavily disagree with you there, yes they carry large sums of money in comparison to others, but there are better and more efficient ways of making money in the game than ho farming. Also this misrepresents the over all goal of GTA which isn't so much to make a lot of money as it is to get through the story in one piece, this isn't like grinding gear for a raid. This is about doing what's fun for the player, I've seen players literally have a none violent time, start up a minicab firm and do all sorts of crazy shenanigans.

What works in an MMO won't work in a Sandbox game, so equating the two is like saying bananas are a citrus fruit.

 

[sexy=sexist]

Target has the right to not sell whatever it wants. Comics had the right to ignore the comic code. Movies have the right to ignore the MPAA.
Having to get censored music from Walmart sucked growing up.
When a place like target or walmart start controling trying to enforce there moral code I get bothered.
I do not trust moral guardians.

"There is perhaps no phenomenon which contains so much destructive feeling as moral indignation, which permits envy or hate to be acted out under the guise of virtue."
? Erich Fromm

 

[C.S.Strowbridge]

And I sincerely doubt that showing people as victimized all the time makes people less likely to help.

I was going to go over your post point-by-point, but instead I will ask just one question. How many psychology classes did you take in university?

If the answer to that is "None.", then you are over your head.

Sorry to be dismissive, but I don't have time to get you caught up on at least three months of classes.

That said, there is absolutely a phenomenon where a problem can seem so big that people won't even attempt to fix it.

 

[C.S.Strowbridge]

...Hasn't the whole 'kill prostitutes' thing been around since GTA4? Why is this an issue now

The same group complained in 2006, but they didn't get a response.

 

[Crimsom Storm]

I like how Bob gets angry about how the hookers are treated, and then lists EVERY SINGLE GODDAMN REASON they're treated that way in this game. Uncomfortable fact: Hookers are treated as less than human constantly, and as such, due to the realistic nature of the GTA series, they are treated in this capacity. Personally, I think it should stay until our culture changes. By all means, let people beat the hookers. Maybe people will get off their ass to change this for real. Or they'll just whine to Rockstar until they change this so they can pretend all is right with the world.

If you don't like it, THEN CHANGE IT. Get your ass out on the streets and start fighting for the rights of hookers and other sex workers. I'd love to see them get better lives, but no one's doing anything to change the way sex is viewed in modern culture (y'know, that terrifying, icky thing), while violence is glorified. It is literally the ultimate satire: Sex Workers, who bring people pleasure, are treated as evil and wrong, and people who beat them and kill them are glorified for it, though they inflict pain and death on people.

I'm so sick and tired of these stupid arguments. You can kill peasants in Skyrim, did you remember that? Beggars, the poor, anyone you didn't like you could kill freely. It's called being an evil character. People whined about the kids and Fallout 3 nixed being able to off them. It didn't accomplish anything, but it made the stupid people feel like they combated child abuse, kind of like how people used to fight against violence in video games so they could feel like they stopped violence IRL. Same argument here, kinda shocked people like Bob don't see just how much their arguments against these features mimic the very people that were trying to shut down their hobby.

Does this mean I believe in child abuse or violence against hookers? HELL NO! But if you're going to give us a virtual world to run around in, people deserve to be able to play whatever character they want. Invincible Children and Invincible Hookers will only serve to break immersion, and put a band-aid on a problem with our society at large. FIX SOCIETY, NOT THE VIDEO GAMES.

 

[QuietlyListening]

Saying that "it just reflects society" is an abdication of the responsibility of art. And yes, GTA is art. Simply representing an evil in society doesn't really do much to fix it. In fact, it can make it worse, especially if that representation is fun. This is even more true if the art represents a picture of current society.

Now the moral stances that games take are completely within their control. However, that means they're also subject to criticism. GTA posits that killing sex workers is actually kind of fun. Apparently a large group of consumers disagree and have used their collective power to oppose that argument. Meanwhile, a whole bunch of other people bought the game anyway. Capitalism!

 

[Rellik San]

Now the moral stances that games take are completely within their control. However, that means they're also subject to criticism. GTA posits that killing sex workers is actually kind of fun.

I would argue the opposite, GTA doesn't posit that killing is fun, it puts the characters in a position where they are forced to kill to survive, if killing prostitutes was a part of the main story you may have a point. But the joy in a sandbox game is derived entirely by the player, some people find being a cabbie fun, some people like to play golf... and some like to wantonly murder anyone and everyone... however just because something provides the tools for these acts, it's entirely the players responsibility and choice whether or not to carry them out.

As such, killing the prostitutes, is only fun, if you find it fun. The game doesn't explicitly tell you it is, it doesn't give you instruction too, nor at any point does it force you too. The narrative of GTA is the art, the players actions outside of that narrative are the developers letting the players make their own art and just providing the tools to do so.

 

[Stranger4You]

The problem with the petition Bob isn't that it's wrong to defend women or more specifically sex workers, but is that it claims that GTA V rewards players for doing so specifically. Yes they can drop cash when they die, anyone in the game can drop cash when they die, it isn't targeting sex workers, everyone is equal game to violence in the game. It continues to claim that it rewards you for violence toward women in general which again is rather you get cash as a reward for violence against anyone.

They made false claims and instead of anyone checking if it was true they just signed it and won. This is as stupid as when a news reporter claimed children could play GTA and kill other children.

 

[Haru17]

Why are these videos being willfully narrow-minded about the meaning of censorship? Even if it isn't illegal to say 'goddamn' on the radio a private radio company can still bleep out 'goddamn' in their songs. It's the same action, just conducted by a different party. Words can change and evolve with time, I mean, if selfie is in the dictionary then censorship can have a broader meaning.

And honestly, quoting dictionary definitions is a quite lame rhetorical strategy, and that's coming from someone who was in speech and debate.

 

[JimB]

Why are these videos being willfully narrow-minded about the meaning of censorship?

I am only guessing, but I'd say if it's because people want to use the word "censorship" to describe a bad thing, then the word's definition needs to actually be a violation of someone's rights. Grand Theft Auto V's creators have no right to sell it in Target's aisles, and Grand Theft Auto V's buyers have no right to buy it in Target's aisles. Target owes neither group those luxuries, so if censorship is not denying anyone a right, then the term is being used to describe nothing more than "an act I disagree with."

Even if it isn't illegal to say 'goddamn' on the radio a private radio company can still bleep out 'goddamn' in their songs.

I think it actually is illegal, though. I think that's what the FCC is all about.

 

[Haru17]

Why are these videos being willfully narrow-minded about the meaning of censorship?

I am only guessing, but I'd say if it's because people want to use the word "censorship" to describe a bad thing, then the word's definition needs to actually be a violation of someone's rights. Grand Theft Auto V's creators have no right to sell it in Target's aisles, and Grand Theft Auto V's buyers have no right to buy it in Target's aisles. Target owes neither group those luxuries, so if censorship is not denying anyone a right, then the term is being used to describe nothing more than "an act I disagree with."

Even if it isn't illegal to say 'goddamn' on the radio a private radio company can still bleep out 'goddamn' in their songs.

I think it actually is illegal, though. I think that's what the FCC is all about.

There was a 2011 supreme court ruling about broadcast profanity and those rules are easing up. Either way my point wasn't about that particular example, but rather that example illustrated my larger point.

 

[A3sir]

This is the video that makes me realise I never agree with Bob and he never has any idea about what he is talking about

 

[Farther than stars]

Once again Bob, I feel the need to remind you that censorship does not need to be from a government. Merriam-Webster defines "censor" as "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable; also: to suppress or delete as objectionable" That is exactly what Target did. Now, was this censorship particularly impactful or relevant? No. Is Target allowed to censor whatever message they don't want because they are a private store? Yes. Is it still censorship when they ban an idea from being delivered through their platform? Yes it is.

I agree with you on how stupid this whole thing is, but it is still censorship even if it's irrelevant anyways.

Well, to be fair though, Bob did point out in the previous video on censorship that he wasn't using the dictionary definition. And there's something to be said for that. After all, censorship only becomes problematic when it's enforced through aggression, usually in the form of the state persecuting people for expressing certain views or showcasing certain images. In the light of such severity, it's not surprising that the popular definition of censorship has centered on those circumstances, because they are the circumstances in which the word "censorship" becomes particularly meaningful. Consequently, if people then start using the word in the dictionary way, that essentially means crying wolf, because the issue comes to be seen as more severe in the eyes of a popular majority, the majority that has appropriated the word to mean something different. That, in turn, skewers the debate, because one side's arguments are hyperbolicly represented.

 

[Farther than stars]

Why are these videos being willfully narrow-minded about the meaning of censorship? Even if it isn't illegal to say 'goddamn' on the radio a private radio company can still bleep out 'goddamn' in their songs. It's the same action, just conducted by a different party. Words can change and evolve with time, I mean, if selfie is in the dictionary then censorship can have a broader meaning.

And honestly, quoting dictionary definitions is a quite lame rhetorical strategy, and that's coming from someone who was in speech and debate.

Actually, it's the other way around. The dictionary definition is the broader one and the popular definition is the stricter one. MovieBob is using the popular definition specifically because its meaning has changed to being centered on government. Dictionary definitions may be lame, but it's still a good idea to know what those definitions are in the first place.