The Big Picture: Off Target - Don't Censor Me Part 2
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
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.Sigmund Av Volsung said:
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.Jonathan Hornsby said:
What works in an MMO won't work in a Sandbox game, so equating the two is like saying bananas are a citrus fruit.
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
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
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?WhiteNachos said:
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
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.QuietlyListening said:
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.
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.
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.
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.
And honestly, quoting dictionary definitions is a quite lame rhetorical strategy, and that's coming from someone who was in speech and debate.
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."Haru17 said:
I think it actually is illegal, though. I think that's what the FCC is all about.Haru17 said:
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.MahouSniper said:
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.Haru17 said:
