Sex Negativity and it's effects on gaming.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT
 

scorn the biomage:

that's not censorship its capitalism. if no want to sell your game at their store front that's your problem not theirs

And lying to people to get something removed on false pretences is censorship, though the specific example is more censorship through bullying the producer of the produce and not deceit towards the retailer.

Zontar:

scorn the biomage:

that's not censorship its capitalism. if no want to sell your game at their store front that's your problem not theirs

And lying to people to get something removed on false pretences is censorship, though the specific example is more censorship through bullying the producer of the produce and not deceit towards the retailer.

No, really, it is just lying. Which should be bad enough on its own. Censorship is just one of those buzzwords that are in vogue right now with the politically uncorrect crowd, which is why it keeps popping up everywhere it shouldn't be.

Gethsemani:

No, really, it is just lying. Which should be bad enough on its own. Censorship is just one of those buzzwords that are in vogue right now with the politically uncorrect crowd, which is why it keeps popping up everywhere it shouldn't be.

Describing the action that is being attempted isn't something "popping up [where] it shouldn't be", it's literally stating what is going on by definition.

Zontar:

Gethsemani:

No, really, it is just lying. Which should be bad enough on its own. Censorship is just one of those buzzwords that are in vogue right now with the politically uncorrect crowd, which is why it keeps popping up everywhere it shouldn't be.

Describing the action that is being attempted isn't something "popping up [where] it shouldn't be", it's literally stating what is going on by definition.

So, some gamers are attempting to censor Street Fighter 5 into changing its artistic vision?

I'm just trying to get a handle on these new definitions.

altnameJag:

I'm just trying to get a handle on these new definitions.

No you're not. I've been stating the actual definition of censorship (as it applies to all things) and the only reason it's an open question is because some have tried (and failed) to redefine censorship as being something only the government can do.

Zontar:

altnameJag:

I'm just trying to get a handle on these new definitions.

No you're not. I've been stating the actual definition of censorship (as it applies to all things) and the only reason it's an open question is because some have tried (and failed) to redefine censorship as being something only the government can do.

Says the guy who is redefining censorship. Here's a hint: if you don't have the ability to enforce censorship: you aint a censor. You are just someone asking someone to do something. You might ask quite meekly, or you might ask quite forcefully, but you are still only asking.

starbear:
You might ask quite meekly, or you might ask quite forcefully, but you are still only asking.

And asking Japan to open trade from the seat of a battleship with loaded guns pointed at Tokyo is also technically asking along the same lines, that doesn't change the fact that's not what people call that either, and rightfully so.

Zontar:

starbear:
You might ask quite meekly, or you might ask quite forcefully, but you are still only asking.

And asking Japan to open trade from the seat of a battleship with loaded guns pointed at Tokyo is also technically asking along the same lines, that doesn't change the fact that's not what people call that either, and rightfully so.

Asking Japan to open trade from the seat of a battleship with loaded guns pointed at Tokyo is an act of war. Can we at least make an effort to avoid ridiculously hyperbolic absurd comparisons to completely unrelated examples? When the Social Justice Warrior points a gun at the head of a developer then maybe your comparison would make sense. But this simply isn't happening.

starbear:

Asking Japan to open trade from the seat of a battleship with loaded guns pointed at Tokyo is an act of war.

And yet we invented the term "Gunboat Diplomacy" for such situations.

When the Social Justice Warrior points a gun at the head of a developer then maybe your comparison would make sense. But this simply isn't happening.

You're right that they aren't literally holding a gun to developers heads, they're just sending death threats to them and lying to retailers about the content of their products to have them pulled from the market.

It's not nearly as bad but they're still terrible people who have earned their ill repute.

Zontar:

starbear:

Asking Japan to open trade from the seat of a battleship with loaded guns pointed at Tokyo is an act of war.

And yet we invented the term "Gunboat Diplomacy" for such situations.

"Gunboat Diplomacy" and "Act of War" are two different things. Literally pointing loaded guns at the capital city of another countries and asking them to open trade is an act of war.

When the Social Justice Warrior points a gun at the head of a developer then maybe your comparison would make sense. But this simply isn't happening.

You're right that they aren't literally holding a gun to developers heads, they're just sending death threats to them and lying to retailers about the content of their products to have them pulled from the market.

It's not nearly as bad but they're still terrible people who have earned their ill repute.

Who has sent death threats? Name names. You said these people are censoring the games: censors can't be anonymous. Who are they?

And retailers should know the contents of the products they are selling, should they not? If they have been fooled into pulling games off the market (this hasn't happened by the way: Target Australia were not fooled, and pulled the game off the market off their own bat and not because they were "bullied") then that is their own fault, is it not?

Zontar:

Slice:

Play your games.

I think the issue here is that the sex negative people trying to ban the products they like are actively trying to prevent that. It's a little hard to "play [their] games" when it's removed from the market due to cancerous censors.

So compete with them, with your uh... sex positivity. Also show me those bans from "Sex Negative" people. Not a store that doesn't carry something, a BAN. Because uh... I can't think of a game I've not gotten to play if I wanted to. People like you claimed to be on the front lines of defending the rights to game of people like me, but what do you actually do other than talk?

My games are being bent over and fucked by AAA publishers, not "Sex Negatives". Stop trying to distract people from the real problems with your personal problems.

starbear:
"Gunboat Diplomacy" and "Act of War" are two different things. Literally pointing loaded guns at the capital city of another countries and asking them to open trade is an act of war.

Yet when the Americans did just that everyone called it "Gunboat Diplomacy" and neither Japan nor anyone else started a war.

Who has sent death threats? Name names. You said these people are censoring the games: censors can't be anonymous. Who are they?

Well one perfect example are the people who harassed the developers of Original Sin with death threats over a midriff being part of the game's cover art, seems to disprove the "censors can't be anonymous" given the harassment got so bad the company capitulated despite having done literally nothing wrong and being flat out intimidated to "self-censor".

And retailers should know the contents of the products they are selling, should they not? If they have been fooled into pulling games off the market (this hasn't happened by the way: Target Australia were not fooled, and pulled the game off the market off their own bat and not because they were "bullied") then that is their own fault, is it not?

When a con artist swindles a moron out of his money we still lay blame on the con artist, even if some is also laid on the one falling for the con. Whether Target Australia knew about the game's content doesn't matter, they removed a game from their store on false pretences because of a slanderous petition that was signed by people who, for the most part, didn't even hid the fact they where not from Australia (the site it was on makes people make accounts that includes their country of origin. Most of those who signed didn't bother hiding the fact they where not Australian). Target Australia is in part to blame for this for being both spineless and lazy at the same time, but that doesn't change the fact every single person who signed that petition was openly stating they wanted something removed from the market based on a lie.

Zontar:

starbear:
"Gunboat Diplomacy" and "Act of War" are two different things. Literally pointing loaded guns at the capital city of another countries and asking them to open trade is an act of war.

Yet when the Americans did just that everyone called it "Gunboat Diplomacy" and neither Japan nor anyone else started a war.

If Japan had decided to blow up these loaded guns pointed at their capital city it would have been a legitimate act of self defence. And if I were to sail into New York Harbour and if I pointed my big guns at the city I very much doubt the reaction would be to open trade talks.

But that doesn't matter: because your ridiculously hyperbolic absurd comparison has nothing to do with Target choosing not to sell a game.

Who has sent death threats? Name names. You said these people are censoring the games: censors can't be anonymous. Who are they?

Well one perfect example are the people who harassed the developers of Original Sin with death threats over a midriff being part of the game's cover art, seems to disprove the "censors can't be anonymous" given the harassment got so bad the company capitulated despite having done literally nothing wrong and being flat out intimidated to "self-censor".

Who are these people? What are their names?

Here is the post from the artist of Original Sin.

http://orogion.deviantart.com/journal/Save-the-Boob-plate-380891149

"A bare belly was for some enough a trigger to send our company enough hate and threatening mails to persuade my boss to ask me to change the cover."

Cite for these death threats? Direct cite (not second hand cite from an upset artist) over the nature of these threats?

And this isn't censorship.

And retailers should know the contents of the products they are selling, should they not? If they have been fooled into pulling games off the market (this hasn't happened by the way: Target Australia were not fooled, and pulled the game off the market off their own bat and not because they were "bullied") then that is their own fault, is it not?

When a con artist swindles a moron out of his money we still lay blame on the con artist, even if some is also laid on the one falling for the con. Whether Target Australia knew about the game's content doesn't matter, they removed a game from their store on false pretences because of a slanderous petition that was signed by people who, for the most part, didn't even hid the fact they where not from Australia (the site it was on makes people make accounts that includes their country of origin. Most of those who signed didn't bother hiding the fact they where not Australian). Target Australia is in part to blame for this for being both spineless and lazy at the same time, but that doesn't change the fact every single person who signed that petition was openly stating they wanted something removed from the market based on a lie.

No: this is not what happened. They were not conned into anything. The petition was irrelevant to the the decision to remove the game. (Unless you want to call Jim Cooper from Target a liar?)

And this isn't censorship.

Zontar:

scorn the biomage:

that's not censorship its capitalism. if no want to sell your game at their store front that's your problem not theirs

And lying to people to get something removed on false pretences is censorship, though the specific example is more censorship through bullying the producer of the produce and not deceit towards the retailer.

Lying people to get them to remove something isn't censorship, it's lying. Censorship isn't a magic word that makes you right, and when you try to treat it that way it makes your argument fall apart.

Whatever that argument actually is. It mostly seems to be winks, nods, and a lot of dry implication meant for a receptive audience.

MishaK:

Zontar:

scorn the biomage:

that's not censorship its capitalism. if no want to sell your game at their store front that's your problem not theirs

And lying to people to get something removed on false pretences is censorship, though the specific example is more censorship through bullying the producer of the produce and not deceit towards the retailer.

Lying people to get them to remove something isn't censorship, it's lying. Censorship isn't a magic word that makes you right, and when you try to treat it that way it makes your argument fall apart.

Whatever that argument actually is. It mostly seems to be winks, nods, and a lot of dry implication meant for a receptive audience.

And then, when you take into account that "lying" in this case is basically "a subjective assessment of the game with which I disagree" and you realize that there's even less substance to such claims.

I mean, it's a game where the only standardized gameplay interaction you can have with female characters in it is to pay them for sex and/or murder them, yet when a group of sex workers speak up and say "yeah, we already have a problem with being raped and murdered and people thinking there really isn't anything wrong with that in real life, do we really need to make a game reinforcing that?" we're supposed to believe that THEY'RE the bad guys here, and not the people screaming "YOU TAKE THAT BACK YOU DIRTY LYING FEMINIST CENSORS!"?

Slice:

iller3:
...equally immature people who are constantly trashing Loli / Brony / Furry fandoms because they just can't handle the thoughts of attaching sexual attributes to a "cutesy" medium that they insist was some how only ever made for Kids.

I can't speak for anyone else, but it's because in my personal experience the people fucking their pillows and talking about their "Waifu" or "Fandom" are annoying, boring, obsessive people. They're not bad people, but I don't like them. I don't think most people like them. I especially dislike it when they project their issues all over the place, or demand acceptance as though anyone even cares that they exist.

Play your games.

Okay I've seen some pretty darned confrontational bronies....but we're still talking about a very very small vocal minority among an internet loaded to bear with obsessive and potentially annoying / autistic behavior and you can't elaborate on what makes just them uniquely offensive to you and therefore different from those who obsess over the nonsexual? Continuing what I stated, if there was no sexual connotations in what makes them happiest then we wouldn't hear ANY of this constant Trashing and Moral policing. Which just speaks volumes about it being a failure on the part of those who judge everyone else purely from their own flawed inhibitions, insecurity, or outright jealousy at the amount of sexual content available to those Genres. If it was any other kind of content they were "drowning in", we wouldn't even be talking about it. If VideoGames were pandering with something else that makes unattractive bloggers feel insecure there wouldn't have have been NEARLY these levels of Sociology Scheistering going on the past year and a half because other Nerd crap isn't as exploitable as that pre-programmed easy-mode shaming tactic against Titilation

What other immature themes in games get NEARLY the same level of hate thrown at them by you or progressive critics?? ...and are you really being honest when you name them, or just grasping to some degree like Jim Sterling often does?

iller3:

What other immature themes in games get NEARLY the same level of hate thrown at them by you or progressive critics?? ...and are you really being honest when you name them, or just grasping to some degree like Jim Sterling often does?

Race, QTEs, DLC, Race, Day one DLC, (dating myself) Day one patches, On-disc DLC, Pre Ordering (especially bonuses), Race, "Cinematic", and (apparently) editing to make things less, err, titty-esc (ie, that thing what Capcom did).

And yes, race is there three times. "Modern Military Shooters", or Spunkgargleweewee, springs gleefully to mind.

altnameJag:
Race, QTEs, DLC, Race, Day one DLC, (dating myself) Day one patches, On-disc DLC, Pre Ordering (especially bonuses), Race, "Cinematic", and (apparently) editing to make things less, err, titty-esc (ie, that thing what Capcom did).

And yes, race is there three times. "Modern Military Shooters", or Spunkgargleweewee, springs gleefully to mind.

Huh? Racebaiting certainly is a constant and easily exploited tactic, but what specifics in this gaming Demographic is actively hated on? More importantly, by who? ...I'd caution that one's a figurative derail in that its only building my case for me

MishaK:
[
Lying people to get them to remove something isn't censorship, it's lying.

And hitting a man with a frying pan to the head so hard it kills him isn't murder, it's assault.

Zeconte:

And then, when you take into account that "lying" in this case is basically "a subjective assessment of the game with which I disagree" and you realize that there's even less substance to such claims.

No, it's a factual statement. The petition lied, straight up made shit up. This isn't subjective, it's a simple statement of the fact of the matter. You can try and twist it all you want, but the facts are facts.

Zontar:
No, it's a factual statement. The petition lied, straight up made shit up. This isn't subjective, it's a simple statement of the fact of the matter.

Alright then, let's get down to specifics, no more generalities.

Which part(s) of the petition do you specifically take issue with? Care to cite some of these lies?

IceForce:

Zontar:
No, it's a factual statement. The petition lied, straight up made shit up. This isn't subjective, it's a simple statement of the fact of the matter.

Alright then, let's get down to specifics, no more generalities.

Which part(s) of the petition do you specifically take issue with? Care to cite some of these lies?

https://www.change.org/p/target-withdraw-grand-theft-auto-5-this-sickening-game-encourages-players-to-commit-sexual-violence-and-kill-women

It's a game that encourages players to murder women for entertainment.

That's literally the first line of petition.

to see this violence that we lived through turned into a form of entertainments is sickening

Straight up stating that it's sick filth, and since they're trying to have it removed it may as we state "ban this sick filth".

And then there's this gem.

Games like this are grooming yet another generation of boys to tolerate violence against women. It is fuelling the epidemic of violence experienced by so many girls and women in Australia - and globally.

Honestly this is a case of not only everyone who has ever played the game knowing they lied, even many people who know of the game but have never played it know that's the case. There's really no way the person who made the petition was not aware of the fact they where being full of shit when making it.

Zontar:
https://www.change.org/p/target-withdraw-grand-theft-auto-5-this-sickening-game-encourages-players-to-commit-sexual-violence-and-kill-women

It's a game that encourages players to murder women for entertainment.

That's literally the first line of petition.

to see this violence that we lived through turned into a form of entertainments is sickening

Straight up stating that it's sick filth, and since they're trying to have it removed it may as we state "ban this sick filth".

And then there's this gem.

Games like this are grooming yet another generation of boys to tolerate violence against women. It is fuelling the epidemic of violence experienced by so many girls and women in Australia - and globally.

Honestly this is a case of not only everyone who has ever played the game knowing they lied, even many people who know of the game but have never played it know that's the case. There's really no way the person who made the petition was not aware of the fact they where being full of shit when making it.

Tiny problem here - none of those parts of the petition are objectively, definitively, in a way that can be proven... false. None of them. I mean, do I agree with it? No, not at all. But is it actually lying? I don't think so.

To some people, the fact that the game allows you to kill women and get away with it at all could be seen as 'encouragement' for players. Varies from person to person. Isn't objectively true or false. So it's not lying.

I mean I'm surprised you didn't bring up this line given that this one actually is objectively false.

The incentive is to commit sexual violence against women, then abuse or kill them to proceed or get 'health' points.

But yeah. It doesn't bode well that you were asked which parts of the petition you thought were lies, and you replied with three quotes, none of which were actual lies. Also,

Zontar:
And hitting a man with a frying pan to the head so hard it kills him isn't murder, it's assault.

Um... what?

scorn the biomage:

Zontar:

Slice:

Play your games.

I think the issue here is that the sex negative people trying to ban the products they like are actively trying to prevent that. It's a little hard to "play [their] games" when it's removed from the market due to cancerous censors.

that's not censorship its capitalism. if no want to sell your game at their store front that's your problem not theirs

It is when they are being a vocal minority and getting people who don't care about games in general to join their crusade all in the name of virtue signaling

BJ Blazkowicz:
It is when they are being a vocal minority and getting people who don't care about games in general to join their crusade all in the name of virtue signaling

Nope That people exercising their freedom of speech don't got the numbers to match them tough luck that's how things go.

Edit: You guys really don't understand what censorship is do you?

scorn the biomage:

BJ Blazkowicz:
It is when they are being a vocal minority and getting people who don't care about games in general to join their crusade all in the name of virtue signaling

Nope That people exercising their freedom of speech don't got the numbers to match them tough luck that's how things go.

Edit: You guys really don't understand what censorship is do you?

Removing a work of art/literature/film etc. from sale because it is deemed obscene, politically unacceptable, or a "threat to security" is an act of censorship, I don't get why this is such a big issue for some people that they need to waste hours arguing over it.

starbear:

Zontar:

altnameJag:

I'm just trying to get a handle on these new definitions.

No you're not. I've been stating the actual definition of censorship (as it applies to all things) and the only reason it's an open question is because some have tried (and failed) to redefine censorship as being something only the government can do.

Says the guy who is redefining censorship. Here's a hint: if you don't have the ability to enforce censorship: you aint a censor. You are just someone asking someone to do something. You might ask quite meekly, or you might ask quite forcefully, but you are still only asking.

The act of censorship and the role of censor are not the same thing, so you are correct, but only because you are misrepresenting the previous statement.

inmunitas:
Removing a work of art/literature/film etc. from sale because it is deemed obscene, politically unacceptable, or a "threat to security" is an act of censorship

Yes if it was forcefully removed by threat of violence and by and or a government or a violent mob it would be censorship. but somebody exercising their first amendment rights to criticize or petition for the removal a piece work of media is not censorship its people speaking their minds.

scorn the biomage:

Edit: You guys really don't understand what censorship is do you?

They really, really don't.

On top of that, they haven't really thought out the ramifications of doing the exact same thing, but on the other side. If criticising a thing is likened to "censorship" because they don't agree with it, than what about, say, KiA's bizarre obsession with criticizing everything about people they don't like?

iller3:

altnameJag:
Race, QTEs, DLC, Race, Day one DLC, (dating myself) Day one patches, On-disc DLC, Pre Ordering (especially bonuses), Race, "Cinematic", and (apparently) editing to make things less, err, titty-esc (ie, that thing what Capcom did).

And yes, race is there three times. "Modern Military Shooters", or Spunkgargleweewee, springs gleefully to mind.

Huh? Racebaiting certainly is a constant and easily exploited tactic, but what specifics in this gaming Demographic is actively hated on? More importantly, by who? ...I'd caution that one's a figurative derail in that its only building my case for me

EDITedit: Ya know what, nevermind. "Racebaiting certainly is a constant clickbaiting tactic and easily exploited tactic"?

If people talking about race is videogames is "racebaiting", this'll not end well.

scorn the biomage:

inmunitas:
Removing a work of art/literature/film etc. from sale because it is deemed obscene, politically unacceptable, or a "threat to security" is an act of censorship

Yes if it was forcefully removed by threat of violence and by and or a government or a violent mob it would be censorship. but somebody exercising their first amendment rights to criticize or petition for the removal a piece work of media is not censorship its people speaking their minds.

No, it has nothing to do with how it was removed or by whom, anyone can enact censorship. How prevalent the censorship is depends on who is acting as censor.

edit:

altnameJag:

iller3:

altnameJag:
Race, QTEs, DLC, Race, Day one DLC, (dating myself) Day one patches, On-disc DLC, Pre Ordering (especially bonuses), Race, "Cinematic", and (apparently) editing to make things less, err, titty-esc (ie, that thing what Capcom did).

And yes, race is there three times. "Modern Military Shooters", or Spunkgargleweewee, springs gleefully to mind.

Huh? Racebaiting certainly is a constant and easily exploited tactic, but what specifics in this gaming Demographic is actively hated on? More importantly, by who? ...I'd caution that one's a figurative derail in that its only building my case for me

EDITedit: Ya know what, nevermind. "Racebaiting certainly is a constant clickbaiting tactic and easily exploited tactic"?

If people talking about race is videogames is "racebaiting", this'll not end well.

You may wish to watch the following video to understand what is meant by "race-baiting".

inmunitas:

scorn the biomage:

inmunitas:
Removing a work of art/literature/film etc. from sale because it is deemed obscene, politically unacceptable, or a "threat to security" is an act of censorship

Yes if it was forcefully removed by threat of violence and by and or a government or a violent mob it would be censorship. but somebody exercising their first amendment rights to criticize or petition for the removal a piece work of media is not censorship its people speaking their minds.

No, it has nothing to do with how it was removed or by whom, anyone can enact censorship. How prevalent the censorship is depends on who is acting as censor.

How about in context: Are people who petition a company to make a change acting as censors?

altnameJag:

inmunitas:

scorn the biomage:
Yes if it was forcefully removed by threat of violence and by and or a government or a violent mob it would be censorship. but somebody exercising their first amendment rights to criticize or petition for the removal a piece work of media is not censorship its people speaking their minds.

No, it has nothing to do with how it was removed or by whom, anyone can enact censorship. How prevalent the censorship is depends on who is acting as censor.

How about in context: Are people who petition a company to make a change acting as censors?

Obviously not, they are advocating for the censorship of a work, but they themselves are not in the position of censor.

inmunitas:

Obviously not, they are advocating for the censorship of a work, but they themselves are not in the position of censor.

Let's take this broader argument that retailers not stocking a product (because of outside influence) being censorship and apply it differently: If a retailer chooses not to stock a product to begin with, are they exercising censorship? To give you a specific example, my local book store does not stock When Titan's Clashed by Glantz, a book I've been wanting to read for some time. Are they exercising censorship?

(This post edited for a better example)

Keavy:

Zontar:
https://www.change.org/p/target-withdraw-grand-theft-auto-5-this-sickening-game-encourages-players-to-commit-sexual-violence-and-kill-women

It's a game that encourages players to murder women for entertainment.

That's literally the first line of petition.

to see this violence that we lived through turned into a form of entertainments is sickening

Straight up stating that it's sick filth, and since they're trying to have it removed it may as we state "ban this sick filth".

And then there's this gem.

Games like this are grooming yet another generation of boys to tolerate violence against women. It is fuelling the epidemic of violence experienced by so many girls and women in Australia - and globally.

Honestly this is a case of not only everyone who has ever played the game knowing they lied, even many people who know of the game but have never played it know that's the case. There's really no way the person who made the petition was not aware of the fact they where being full of shit when making it.

Tiny problem here - none of those parts of the petition are objectively, definitively, in a way that can be proven... false. None of them. I mean, do I agree with it? No, not at all. But is it actually lying? I don't think so.

To some people, the fact that the game allows you to kill women and get away with it at all could be seen as 'encouragement' for players. Varies from person to person. Isn't objectively true or false. So it's not lying.

Yep, as I said "subjective assessment with which I disagree" =/= "Lying" but that's exactly what they're arguing. They're just as confused as to what "lying" is as what "censorship" is.

I mean I'm surprised you didn't bring up this line given that this one actually is objectively false.

The incentive is to commit sexual violence against women, then abuse or kill them to proceed or get 'health' points.

Which then raises the question whether they are mistaken or lying, because, as I tried to explain to runic knight, lying implies willful and intentional deceit. There is quite a substantial and significant difference between knowing what you say is untrue and saying something that you believe is true but is not. In this case, I would more believe they are confusing the fact that you are able to pay prostitutes for sex in order to gain health back and then you have the choice to kill them in order to get your money back and then some, which, very well could be argued to be incentive to do so.

Gethsemani:

inmunitas:
Obviously not, they are advocating for the censorship of a work, but they themselves are not in the position of censor.

Let's take this broader argument that retailers not stocking a product (because of outside influence) being censorship and apply it differently: If a retailer chooses not to stock a product to begin with, are they exercising censorship? To give you a specific example, my local book store does not stock When Titan's Clashed by Glantz, a book I've been wanting to read for some time. Are they exercising censorship?

(This post edited for a better example)

We're talking about art, not just any product, plus Target had GTA V in stock and available for sale to begin with. Apparently Target removed GTA V from sale with immediate effect because the content of the media was believed to be politically unacceptable. As for your local book store, it would depend on why they do not stock the book.

inmunitas:

We're talking about art, not just any product, plus Target had GTA V in stock and available for sale to begin with. Apparently Target removed GTA V from sale with immediate effect because the content of the media was believed to be politically unacceptable. As for your local book store, it would depend on why they do not stock the book.

Since when does literature not qualify for art or as an important part of freedom of expression? You didn't answer my question, if a retailer chooses to never stock a particular piece of art or media in the first place is that censorship? This is a simple yes or no question. The reason why isn't important since the end state is the same, the consumer can't get access to that particular piece of art or media from that venue.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked