By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Kotaku Australia: Target's Grand Theft Auto V Ban Leaves Us With No-One To Blame

Ka-pi96 said:
cfin2987@gmail.com said:
 


Indeed they can, but there is a different between expression and force. Some people would have them bend over and do what they are told to do. The best worlds are the ones where people and companies have freedom of expression, as long as it's not at the expense of someone elses.

 

Taking away Targets right to choose would be wrong. By them doing this, they have harmed no one. The other expression, however, is stating that target should be controlled. That is wrong.

That sounds exactly like what they did do...


Massive, successful corporations will choose how they see fit to choose. Just like some stores outright refuse to sell any video games. I stick by saying that what they did took nothing away from anyone. Making a big deal out of this will only heighten the issue on a wider scale. There is another store that sells it up the street, probably for cheaper. However, telling them to put it back on the shelf, that would be imposing. It's a free market, as I said. If people have issue with Target over it, they can shop elsewhere. I'm not sure what complaining about it is going to do.

If Walmart refuse to sell fluffy handcuffs or dildo's, then that's their choice. You can't go in and force them to put it on their shelf. But if they are selling a dildo and someone gets offended, it's their choice whether they should take it off the shelf. It's not like they are preventing anyone from buying the item elsewhere.



Around the Network
Ka-pi96 said:
cfin2987@gmail.com said:
Ka-pi96 said:

That sounds exactly like what they did do...

Massive, successful corporations will choose how they see fit to choose. Just like some stores outright refuse to sell any video games. I stick by saying that what they did took nothing away from anyone. Making a big deal out of this will only heighten the issue on a wider scale. There is another store that sells it up the street, probably for cheaper. However, telling them to put it back on the shelf, that would be imposing. It's a free market, as I said. If people have issue with Target over it, they can shop elsewhere. I'm not sure what complaining about it is going to do.

If Walmart refuse to sell fluffy handcuffs or dildo's, then that's their choice. You can't go in and force them to put it on their shelf. But if they are selling a dildo and someone gets offended, it's their choice whether they should take it off the shelf. It's not like they are preventing anyone from buying the item elsewhere.

Do you like xmas? Will you be annoyed when shops stop selling xmas stuff because some people claim they are 'offended' by it, or will you just say 'oh well that's up to them'?

Eh, I just wouldn't shop at the store anymore. Or should we just control the stores? That's a little thing called socialism, contrary to popular belief. I can't tell a jewish or muslim owned store to sell me christmas stuff. Unfortunately, this may lead to some cray cray people telling stores not to sell christmas stuff because they don't like it. Ok, then we who do like it can shop somewhere else. Or should we grab our pitch forks and go theaten the store.

 

Not saying I agree with the whiners. Just stating that if business roll over for whiners, then that's that. We would be worse to go and force them to resell something they just choose not to sell. Besides, prostitution/murder/violence and Christmas are different kinds of offensive. My comparison of a dildo might be more accurate.



Ka-pi96 said:
 If anything it distracts and marginalizes real concerns because now being a feminists elicits reactions of "ugh, offended by everything" as opposed to "people who want equality and dignity for both sexes".

Those two things should not be in the same sentence.


Making my point.   The shame is how in the general public feminism has come to mean a combative group that hates men and is easily offended.  Every time they pull a stunt like this, those of us in the other camp have to assure people we're not all like that.



Makes sense. If I had 40k individuals from my core demographic asking me to remove a certain toothpaste or hairbrush from my store (for whatever reason), I would simply stock different products and continue on with life.

Also, if a person really thinks it's the "feminist agenda" at work when it's suggested that portrayals of women in video games are problematic then there's clearly some preexisting bias that they need to work through.

As an artist, I fully support freedom of expression in art and entertainment. As an artist, I also encourage and support critical thinking about the message, tone, and implications of art and entertainment distributed to the masses.

Do I support Take Two's right to publish titles in the GTA franchise? Yes. Did I have fun with those titles as an adolescent? Yes. Would I like to see the GTA games slowly mature with the rest of society? Yes. Simple as that.



Retro Tech Select - My Youtube channel. Covers throwback consumer electronics with a focus on "vid'ya games."

Latest Video: Top 12: Best Games on the N64 - Special Features, Episode 7

I feel a day is coming where all men are locked up for potential crimes against women they would never commit, but the possibilty being there is enough.



Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
Where is the petition to ask Target to close doors if they don't lift the ban?

You can't close the doors to target. That would be racist against the women who want to shop there.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

cfin2987@gmail.com said:
Ka-pi96 said:
cfin2987@gmail.com said:

It's a free market. A store can sell or not sell what they like. Seriously people, get over it. Babies or us don't sell it either because their customers wouldn't agree. It's pure business sense.

Yeah, they can sell or not sell whatever they want. But people can certainly be upset about them refusing to sell something for such a pathetic reason.


Indeed they can, but there is a different between expression and force. Some people would have them bend over and do what they are told to do. The best worlds are the ones where people and companies have freedom of expression, as long as it's not at the expense of someone elses.

 

Taking away Targets right to choose would be wrong. By them doing this, they have harmed no one. The other expression, however, is stating that target should be controlled. That is wrong.


You know the petition have done exactly what you are saying is wrong, you know? People aren't demanding a store to sell what they want, but the petitioners to try to censor a game.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

vivster said:
DonFerrari said:
Where is the petition to ask Target to close doors if they don't lift the ban?

You can't close the doors to target. That would be racist against the women who want to shop there.


Sorry, I didn't want to sound sexist... I'll rephrase. Men should be prohibited to buy in Target while GTA is still sold anywhere in the world. That sounds more equalitarian right?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

vivster said:
Still don't see anything wrong in depicting women as things or anything bad. It's what the porn industry is build upon. It's fiction that is catered to a specific audience. Why would fiction be realistic or all-inclusive?

I think it's a very slippery slope to attack anything that's only catered to a specific audience. I don't see how anyone who is not part of that audience has any word in what it should be.

It's like trying to ban linear gameplay because the world is actually open and free to explore.

I agree 110%. You're playing a criminal. You're playing from that POV. GTA is masogynist because the characters you play as are such. Every objectification made is in character and like you said, it's fiction.



"Put aside the fact that the video game allows players to be violent — in equal measure — to both men and women. Place that aside for a second. That’s a given. Female characters in Grand Theft Auto are poorly drawn; they’re either ‘prostitutes’ or wailing, nagging buffoons."

This is so dumb I don't even know where to start.

First off, you can't just say "Let's ignore this particular counter argument." No, sorry, debate doesn't work like that.
Secondly, the group that wanted GTA V removed from stores specifically mentioned the game's depiction of violence against women as what they're upset about. Bringing up the roles that female GTA characters generally assume is completely worthless in this debate because the group did not mention it. At all. The group specifically pointed to the violence as the source of the problem. So I'm not just going to set aside the fact that you can be just as violent to male characters as female characters, since its all kinds of relevant.

I'd be happy to discuss women's roles in GTA, but that's not what this particular debate is about.