Target And Kmart Pretending To Be Prudes In Australia Over A Vocal Anti-GTA5 Minority
from the windsocks dept
Update: We've just noticed that we originally named Walmart in this story when it should be Kmart. We've removed the instances of Walmart and deeply regret the error. Also, it should be noted that Kmart Australia and Target Australia are divisions of Wesfarmers Limited and not related to the US corporations with similar names.
As you may have heard if you follow gaming news, the next-gen console version of Grand Theft Auto 5 release in Australia hit a bit of snag this past week. Now, let's start this off by noting that it was only recently that the government of Australia finally agreed to treat its citizens like adults and allow the kind of video games we enjoy in the States to even be sold in the land down under. It came along with a strict ratings system, of course, but at least these games were finally available for purchase. It was a victory for speech and art.
And now, stupidly and cynically, retailers are pretending to be prudish, in the face of a petition by a vocal minority making almost purely emotional arguments, and have agreed to remove Grand Theft Auto 5 from their shelves. The focal impetus of this response by both Target and Kmart in Australia appears to be this Change.org petition, which is about as Change.org-petition-y as it gets.
It's a game that encourages players to murder women for entertainment. The incentive is to commit sexual violence against women, then abuse or kill them to proceed or get 'health' points.As anyone who has played the game, as I have, can tell you, this is only half true. Or, actually, perhaps less than half, because all the same violence, sexual misanthropy, and cruelty applies at least to the men in the game as well, and I'm pretty sure I remember smacking around some wildlife during my foray into the game as well. The point of GTA5 isn't to demean women; it's to demean everyone and everything. The whole thing is a farce for violence and cruelty. That's its very point. But, to understand the plea of the petition, you have to understand who is issuing it.
We have firsthand experience of this kind of sexual violence. It haunts us, and we've been trying to rebuild our lives ever since. Just knowing that women are being portrayed as deserving to be sexually used by men and potentially murdered for sport and pleasure – to see this violence that we lived through turned into a form of entertainments is sickening and causes us great pain and harm.Let's be clear about two things. The first is that any real life abuse of women, sexual or otherwise, is a horrific thing and should not be tolerated in any fashion anywhere. It's horrible and it breaks my heart knowing that survivors of such abuse must slog through life on a daily basis overcoming the abuse every step of the way. The second thing we must be absolutely clear on is that for anyone that values free speech, be it government or a corporate entity, the fact that these women issuing their petition are abuse survivors doesn't matter even a little bit. Free speech and artistic expression don't simply get to be limited just because some people may be emotionally hurt by it.
The two retailers, Target and Kmart, being private entities, can of course do as they please. But when they say the following in their press release:
"We've been speaking to many customers over recent days about the game, and there is a significant level of concern about the game's content," [Target's GM of Corporate Affairs] Mr Cooper said. "We've also had customer feedback in support of us selling the game, and we respect their perspective on the issue. However, we feel the decision to stop selling GTA5 is in line with the majority view of our customers."then they must also explain why this decision over a forever-controversial gaming franchise is only coming upon the re-release of the game, which originally came out a year ago, and how they can also take the following stance.
Mr Cooper said Target would continue to sell other R-rated DVDs and games.Because the first quote from Mr. Cooper obviates his company's need to take such a stance. All he and Target must do, to remain consistent, is constantly follow the demands of whichever group is shouting the loudest. Because, given that we're talking about one of the best-selling videogames in the history of the medium, that line about Target listening to the majority of consumers is a big bucket of bullshit. And, of course, Target and Kmart will happily sell the game elsewhere in the world, and make gobs of money off of it, while the petitioners updated their petition with "Thank you Target/Kmart" posts.
"While these products often contain imagery that some customers find offensive, in the vast majority of cases, we believe they are appropriate products for us to sell to adult customers.
Fails all around, so... well done everyone.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: australia, games, grand theft auto 5, video games
Companies: target, walmart
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Error in your Story
Its KMART and Target both subsidiaries of West Farmers no connection to US stores or entities of the same name , there is no Walmart operated in AustraliaSubscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
While I am a proud player of the PS4 version, I have to say I don't like this sentence in this article. It's kinda shooting yourself in the foot.
"GTA teaches you to demean women!"
"No it doesn't!...it teaches you to demean EVERYONE!"
...*sound of crickets*
This can be interpreted that you agree with the stated position: it teaches you to demean women, worse in fact, everyone.
I'm not saying I agree with the feminists here (far from it, I bought the game for my 14 year old sister, and she didn't suffer or change in her behavior at all), just saying that that sentence looks a bit sloppy to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Error in your Story
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Error in your Story
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It's impossible for you to know how it affected her brain. Hell, it's impossible for her to know how it affected it as most of the learning and housekeeping processes take place beyond her consciousness.
Since you can't run a controlled experiment comparing her brain from the before and after affects, nor can you monitor it into the future to see how the playing the game modified it vs the brain of a version of her which didn't, you cannot know what effects it had on her.
Everything you see when it comes to the development of a human mind is purely superficial. There is far more going on under the hood than is visible, and the complexity involved from inputs and outputs interacting with each other and the unique makeup of her brain is far beyond our current understandings.
Just an friendly fyi that will hopefully curb your confidence in knowing for sure how an input will or won't affect your sister.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I've meet a lot of women who enjoy a good horror flick showing some axe murderer chasing down women. So I find this whole DVD vs video game argument to be ironic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Only this is a video game. What that statement tells me is that the victims didn't or couldn't find the reset button if they are having troubles distinguishing between real life and video game life.
This is the same old crap that has nothing to do with video games. Those that think they know how you should lead your life better than you are out trying to see you live your life as they see fit.
Video games with violence in them don't cause violence. If anything they work the aggressions out someone might have. Why am I not hearing this about TV, movies, or rap music?
A recent study totally disproved this idea that video game violence causes real life violence. If a person has troubles with telling the difference between the two, it's not gaming problems they have; it's mental and psychological. Denying game playing I promise will not cure that. They'll find their justifications just as easy from book, movie, song, or their imagination if none of the others are available.
BTW, why am I not hearing about banning the use of imagination in this? Strangely silent on that aspect isn't it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Error in your Story
If the answer is no then West Farmers may want to consider making a distinction lest confusion like this occurs again.
And if WalMart does want to set up in Australia the folks there would be wise to insist on a franchise agreement and not allow WalMart's US corporate to directly operate such stores.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
in this post.
First, as you identify, these are private entities so the legal conception of free speech doesn't really factor in to it (unless Australian law really does offer free speech guarantees which apply to private entities, which I doubt). So this must be that vaguely defined "free speech as a social norm" concept that people love to toss around. But even then, I still don't see it.
Target and KMART aren't preventing Rockstar from speaking. They just aren't providing them with a platform to do it, and I don't think they have an obligation to. They have free speech interests too. Clearly they see choosing to sell or not to sell the game as a way to send a message to their customers, and they have the right to choose which message they send.
It doesn't mean I support their decision, I just don't see this as a free speech issue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Bullshit. Free speech is an ideal. It's an ideal enshrined in many governments highest laws, but it is not therefore an ideal limited to government. Is their decision to not carry GTAV part of their free speech? Yes. Is their decision not to carry GTAV inhibiting Rockstar's free speech? Yes.
Free speech has jack shit to do with government, except for the part where even governments (notoriously retarded organizations) manage to recognize its importance. They do not define free speech, they recognize it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
They are the biggest seller of music, games and movies in New Zealand, and if you live in a small town they're the only place to buy that stuff as they've long ago run the original record and games shop out of business.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/better-business/63487424/the-warehouse-to-pull-r18-games-dv ds
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Error in your Story
That is the case. However, it's not a franchise agreement, it's a licensing arrangement that allows them to use the logos. KMart & Target (the real ones) have no say in the operation of these stores.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
In other words, the recorded results of the experiment you provided are only slightly less superficial than the ones the parent says he observed in his sister.
The technology and brain simulation models required to do proper studies on this subject do not exist yet, and are no where on the horizon. Therefore any studies you come across claiming to have meaningful results in this arena are not to be taken too seriously. That's not to say the experiments are completely useless or a wasted effort (we have to start somewhere) but is just meant to reiterate that the brain and the trillions of interactions contained therein are far too complex to map and study at our current levels of understanding. Sociology and psychology are among the softest sciences around, and are likely to remain that way for the foreseeable future.
Fair enough.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Update
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Patently absurd. How has their decision affected Rockstar's speech or art in any way? These stores haven't prevented Rockstar from selling or disseminating their product in any way -- Rockstar is still completely free to do so. Which is of course OP's point that actual censorship is an act of government, prohibiting one from speaking.
In your stupid view, stores would be forced to sell whatever anyone wanted them to lest they violate [stores] violate their free speech rights.
Calling government's "notoriously retarded organizations" is itself about the most retarded comment I've ever seen on Techdirt. There's nothing about government as an organization that makes it inherently brilliant nor stupid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
No offense but that's probably the dumbest thing i've ever read. I'm actually fairly certain I lost a few IQ points processing it.
I can tell you didn't think that through before you wrote it, but even then i'm still flabbergasted you wrote it. It's such a self-evidently stupid thing to say that not saying it wouldn't have required any thought... So i can only conclude that you were completely brain dead when you wrote it and just scribbling random words that in happenstance formed a one in a million 'stupidest sentence of the century'. You're a trophy winner alright.
But again, no offense intended.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
:)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
next banning
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Big whoop
Nobody buys games from Target. The game has been out for over a year. Anyone who would want a copy already has it, or knows where to get it. It's probably at the end of its run anyway.
The hypocrisy is obvious (and expected), but don't pretend that anyone has been hurt by this decision. Target is allowed to sell or not sell whatever they want; I'm sure their DVD section doesn't carry a lot of Catherine Breillat or Lars von Trier, either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Or, even more likely, play the copy that you already have. If you are the target market for GTA5, chances are pretty close to 100% that you already have it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Something's off
It's like something is missing which I can't quite understand.
I don't know why a retail store is shooting themselves in the foot, but all this would do is push the purchases elsewhere. Why would they do this?
The relationship that they have with digital stores as well as other retail stores means that people that want the game will get it, but unless they're very religious, I don't see a reason to ban the game from their stores and deprive the labor of eight studios practically out of nowhere.
It's very odd indeed...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: next banning
https://www.change.org/p/target-withdraw-the-holy-bible-this-sickening-book-encourages-readers -to-commit-sexual-violence-and-kill-women
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Error in your Story
Interestingly both K-Mart and Target Australia pre-date the opening of target and K-Mart stores in the USA so maybe the USA needs to make the distinction? hmmmm?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
This doesn't mean that poarents cannot purchase the product and allow there children to play it (supervised or not) just that like tobacco (16yrs) and alcohol (18yrs) and Porn Videos (18yrs) it is highly controlled. Though NOT illegal for the minor themselves to play/consume/smoke
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Error in your Story
The licensing agreement is not financial and is only to allow each to advertise online in their respective markets and NOT outside of them.
Wesfarmers like Coles when they owned them are under no legal obligation whatsoever to the American corporation nor should they be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Oh, wait a second. I thought it was the majority, and now it's only some. Tripping over your own feet are you? That's what happens when you use emotion instead of logic and fact.
And how do they know that majority view? Did they put it to a vote? Get their customers to tick a box, or use a touchscreen saying yes or no to the ban? Did they ask the target demographic or the older prudish generation? No. None of that. They wouldn't have got the result the censorious ideologues wanted.
A rational person would tell these people to STFU and if they don't like it, don't F'n buy it! But we don't have rational people in charge on this planet.
This is where feminists are taking gaming and why #gamergate is so important. Pretty soon there will not be allowed to be women in games at all, or if they are, the must not be beautiful so as not to 'objectify' them, they must not be attacked so there's no violence toward women, etc. etc. Then we'll have shitty games that don't sell and this will be proof that the games industry doesn't know how to make games for women.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BTW misandry does not exist. The world is NOT biased in favor of women.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
43K signatures as of this comment
GTA needs to be removed because it depicts violence against women? The bible has a freakin' ton of that(and then some), better remove it too.
Either remove both GTA and the bible, or admit that the reason to pull GTA was rubbish, either would be good.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Misandry does exist
Misandry does exist and is a lot more prevalent than one might think, though compared to misogyny, it is still minor.
I have seen too much of each. If you are stupid enough to ignore the existence of either then you are just going to promulgate what you ignore. Both are a bane on society.
The world is NOT biased in favour of most people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is true of every psychological test in existence. By your logic, we should just get rid of psychology completely because we don't have accurate tests yet.
Your entire response is a justification...you apparently think GTA is bad for people, so you respond with "science can't prove it's bad for you...yet!" What are you basing this on? If science can't prove it's bad, what facts are you using to come to the conclusion it's bad?
Sure, you'll probably use the standard cop-out of "well, that's not what I actually said, I just argued that we don't actually know if it's bad or not yet!" The fact that you're even making this argument means you think it's bad. Otherwise, why not argue that pancakes cause insanity? Or the color blue causes, I don't know, caffeine addiction? We can't prove they don't, because the brain is complicated!
Somewhat ironically, you are right in a way...we don't actually know what GTA's effects on a 14-year-old are. They could be dramatic, or they could be, well, nothing. Considering that we've never found a statistical correlation between violent video games and actual violence beyond coincidence I'm much more inclined to believe the effects to be on the "minor-none" scale rather than the "major-walking time bomb" one people seem to think exists.
The truth is we don't really know why people become violent. There's too many factors, and we don't have a way to model it. Throughout the years we've blamed every popular media source on violence, from jazz, then hip-hop, then death metal to chess (look it up), then violent books, violent movies, and now violent video games. You might as well posit that "air causes violence."
It's worth studying, but we need to stop wasting time with things we're already pretty sure aren't the cause, considering violence has existed for all of human history and video games have existed, at most, 67 years.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ok, fine, I'll bite.
It's impossible for you to know how it affected her brain...blah blah blah...Just an friendly fyi that will hopefully curb your confidence in knowing for sure how an input will or won't affect your sister.
My translation: "you don't know if it affected her or not because current science doesn't/can't know it."
Reason for my response: the only reason to say this is if you disagree that it didn't change her behavior. If there is no scientific data that it did change her behavior, you must be operating on the opinion that it did or can.
The "small" interpretation, that you're just clarifying he doesn't know for certain one way or another, is a pointless comment because you could argue it about basically everything. Another "small" interpretation is that everything we experience affects us...which is obvious, and again applies to everything.
Since you're commenting specifically in a response about GTA, and all soft interpretations apply so generally as to be irrelevant, I concluded that you were applying a specific interpretation: that GTA likely affected the poster's sister, and he's too ignorant to realize it.
Those experiments barely scratch the surface of input output behavior and the long and short term effects various inputs have on the mind...
And here my hypothesis becomes clearer. You repeat basically the same thing, that we don't actually understand the human brain and so we need to be cautious with scientific data from sociology and psychology, which is again obvious and irrelevant. We don't understand physics either, yet scientists have models for the creation of the universe (which is really not any more accurate due to the same uncertainty principle). So what? Science is about what you can observe, not about what you can't.
So why do you have two long posts about scientific uncertainty? All scientists (those that study the field) understand that no theory or conclusion is 100% certain, and much of scientific research is about determining just how much certainty we can expect within a specific hypothesis, and what we can do to reduce the areas where that hypothesis fails.
Plus, if what you say is really true, no one should be "confident" about or allow to play games like Grad Theft Auto.
Fair enough.
And here you state your opinion. "Because the effects of violent video games on the mind are unclear, no one should be allowed to play them." When someone stated this in response to your discussion on scientific uncertainty, your response was "fair enough." From a scientific uncertainty perspective, however, since what research we have done indicates little to no influence on behavior, why would your conclusion be that we should do the complete opposite?
Right, because you already have your opinion. In other words, person A says "My 14-year old sister played GTA, and she's fine." You respond "You don't know she's fine, it could have affected her and you wouldn't be able to tell because science doesn't know yet." Someone else responds with research stating that we haven't found a correlation between video games and violence, and that by your logic we shouldn't allow such games. You respond "well, that science is uncertain, and you are probably right."
My conclusion? You definitely have an opinion, it goes against the research we do have, so you use the "well, we don't really know..." argument to make it seem like you're basing it on science and not the exact opposite.
Sorry to call you out on it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
This sentence made me laugh out loud. Heck, your whole post did.
"You're a brain dead idiot...no offense."
How could that not be taken as on offense!?
Well played.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Misandry does exist
Pretty sure this was being sarcastic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not irrelevant in the slightest. You can't quote a facile study so limited in scope to be essentially useless and then try to use it to support an argument. The report cited can't answer the core question of the disagreement (whether playing GTAV negatively affects the human brain or not), therefore it can't be used as a crutch to do so.
Many people claim that playing violent video games causes no harm, they then cite studies to back up their argument, but neither the science nor the studies support that conclusion. That's the core issue here.
Read up on leaded gasoline and paints, asbestos, CFCs, CO2, BPA, the list go on an on. How many of those do you think were branded as completely safe over and over again by scientific studies yet we now know that they are highly damaging to ourselves and the planet?
Here's a inspirational video for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22KrVB5eglg
A little less confidence and a little more caution is always in order when dealing with a developing technology which we interact directly with. As far as what is allowed, we already ban the sale of these games to children. That's what I was referring to when i agreed with the AC.
I'm not sure why you're wasting so many words making this point as if it matters. I never claimed i didn't have an opinion and you know what, i'll bet you have one as well. *gasp*
The facts stand however: The science isn't there and won't be for a long time and if you cite superficial studies claiming otherwise you're going to get called out on it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Misandry does exist
We'll only know if the OP indicates which position is the position he was coming from.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Update
No trademark lawyer needed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
At most, we've found that violent video games can make people more aggressive, which is also true of pep rallies, vehicle traffic, and sports teams. As a matter of fact, I'm fairly certain there haven't been too many riots over video games...yet there's been plenty over sports. And politics. And religion. Actually, the last two have pretty strong evidence to be almost directly responsible for most of the violence in human history.
You're using the same logic that people use to "refute" global warming and evolution. Well, we don't actually know for certain that we're causing the planet to warm up, or that species change over time! It could be (insert your irrational idea here).
The human brain is remarkably good at discerning between fact and fiction, and we learn this skill at a very young age (children as young as three years old can discern between reality and fantasy, although they may be inaccurate in many cases, especially if exposed to fantasy as reality by an adult). By fourteen humans can easily tell the difference between reality (a car chase on the news) and fiction (a car chase in a movie). Even with the best graphics video games don't look real, and the player is causing the actions to happen. It's almost impossible for a 14-year-old to confuse a video game with real life.
So you say there isn't good "science" that proves video games aren't bad for you. You compare it to asbestos, lead, etc. So you've seen the future, huh? One of these days we're going to look back and wonder how we ever allowed these video games to destroy our society?
Please. We know exactly what video games do to the mind; the same thing all our other media does and leisure activities do. Sometimes it exacerbates preexisting mental illness. Sometimes it creates a psychological addiction. Most of the time it does nothing except cause people to have fun for a couple hours. It's like reading a good book, watching a movie, drinking a beer, or having sex. These things all affect your brain, and all of them can become addicting, harmful, and dangerous if taken to the extreme. Some of them we keep from children, because we don't want them exposed until they have more context and are better able to handle deciding for themselves.
So what? You know what causes the real violence and aggression behind GTA V? The fact that the game was released September 2013 and still doesn't have a PC release. Seriously, WTF Rockstar, I'm not going to buy your game to run it on a second-rate console POS.
Let's riot! Oh wait, that doesn't happen with video games. But yeah, I'm sure one of these days I'll be shocked at how that newfangled rock-n-roll is ruining the morals of children and...oh, wait. I meant video games. Yeah, I'm sure these are the things that will turn us evil.
Sigh, why do I even bother.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Like economics sociology and psychology are soft sciences and impossible to fully understand at our current technological levels. Controlled experiments aren't possible on the human brain or on human behavior - the variables are too vast and always in flux and each brain is unique - so we can't know what we can't properly study.
There is a fairly basic dichotomy between soft and hard sciences. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science
So since we can't observe (because the technology does not exist) the short and long term changes the mind undergoes when receiving various inputs there's no science there?
What you don't appear to realize is that your opinion that games aren't (in most cases) harmful to the human brain is no more valid than my opinion that they might very well be. The difference is that you base your conclusion on what you consider to be the proven science of some studies here and there while i base mine on the very real fact that those studies are extremely limited soft-science affairs and thus practically worthless and that until the technology is advanced enough to model and study the mind properly we can't know for sure.
One of us is being objective while the other is not. Can you guess which is which?
To put it another way, would you be willing to bet your life that we know all there is to know about how games affect the mind? Because i'd be willing to bet mine that we don't.
All that being said, i've enjoyed this debate with you and i appreciate your thoughtful replies. I can tell you're quite intelligent and it's always nice to square off against people like you. Regards.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1) 'physiologist' should read 'psychologist' in the first paragraph (clicked the wrong autocorrect option).
2) "Controlled experiments aren't possible on the human brain or on human behavior" is the wrong terminology since controlled experiments can incorporate imperfect controls and thus can be done on humans. What i meant to imply is that because it's impossible at our current technological advancement to have perfect controls (to event get close to that ideal we'd need either human clones or brain simulations with the computing power to run them) the results of psychological studies are soft and scarcely reliable given the enormous complexity of the brain and the trillions of interdependent and interlinked variables that make up consciousness.
Added to which every brain has it's own unique makeup that will respond uniquely to any stimuli. Added to which each unique brain has been, is, and will be molded by an entirely unique set of environmental variables from both inward (unique biology) and outward.
The scope of study is beyond comprehension.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or do you think the human brain is more complex than the universe? Perhaps you would like to tell Stephen Hawking that he should just give up his research because hey, it's not like you can do a controlled experiment on the Big Bang! Clearly physics is a soft science!
Sure, we can't know for certain the exact effects of video games on the human brain. So what? We can observe the effects and control for them over a large population. We do it all the time, for all sorts of science.
Here's how it works...we take a subset of a population, say 100,000. We ensure that the subset follows the same or similar patterns to the whole; similar ethnic group dispersion, varied social classes, different age groups, etc. We do some studies; we ask how many people play video games, how many of them are violent, and how often. We look at the rates of violent crime in the group, and compare the responses to the rate of crime, and check for a statistical correlation. We control for other factors that increase rates of violent crime, such as poverty and education.
This is pretty much the same way they discovered that asbestos was bad for you. There was a death, they did studies, and looked to see if there was a correlation between heath issues and working in asbestos factories. Sure enough, they found one, and now we know asbestos is bad for you. We didn't find out because of some super accurate scientific model; we did a population study. It's common and is fairly good at observing trends and when things cause harmful effects within a group.
Unlike asbestos, however, studies have not found any such link between video games and "harmful effects." This is despite significant political pressure to establish such a link, and despite the media's attempt to examine the video game habits of every modern killer, even when it's been shown over and over again that video games are not the root cause. If they were, over a large population, you should see a statistically significant increase in violence along with increased video game usage, which doesn't happen.
In other words, actual science, not the made up "perfect" science with clones and brain simulations, imply strongly that video games are not any more harmful to humans than any other sort of leisure activity. Until this theory is disproven, that's the science...and it is entirely comprehensible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Speaking of this "you're using the same logic that people use to "refute" global warming" you've actually got it backward. You're the guy standing around during the industrial age saying that dumping all the CO2 into the air is totally fine settled science because by-gum they've done studies, oh and plants just love CO2.
And i'm the guy standing around questioning whether dumping billions and billions of pounds of this stuff into the atmosphere is a good idea.
Also for future reference you should never ask this question in a debate: "so you've seen the future, huh?" for obvious reasons (no i haven't, have YOU?).
It's been fun. Peace out man.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I had a similar memory of D&D. Good charachters had a lot of rulebook restrictions on what they could do, while evil charachters did not, so it was often easier and more fun to be evil. The better DM's compensated for that by giving subtle advantages to the good charachters, like giving players permanent enemies when they did evil acts, and making good allies more reliable than evil ones.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1. Global warming definitely exists.
2. Proof that the warming comes mainly from increased CO2 and not from natural climate variation.
3. Proof that the warming will continue unless action is taken to stop it.
4. Proof that gobal warming will definitely cause great net harm, and not just be mainly benign, or have harm balanced with benefits.
5. Proof that the proposed action is less expensive than than any harm that might come from global warming.
From what I have seen, you only have proof for point 1, and that only for an 18 yr period, from 1980-1998, otherwise the climate has been stable. I see no scientific proof for any of the other crucial points.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
First of all, what in the hell caused you to think the game allows you to rape people?
It's wanton violence, not sexual assault.
Second, there are consequences to your actions as the police come to try to take you down as your wanted meter goes up.
And does doing the right thing, like saving a crime victim, have any kind of reward.
Yes, there's missions outside of the story plot along with other activities that go on besides the world revolving around your actions...
If you have good allies, are they more likely to look out for your back than really evil allies
This is just nonsense. Stop thinking in absolutes.
If so, the game would not only be realistic, but even useful for teaching real life moral lessons.
Great. Now go make that game or mod this one.
But if not, I think it should add that element, so young people are not taught that they can indulge in any mayham they wish without negative consequences arising from it. It would even make for a better game, since being good is sometimes less fun, and even more difficult, and should therefore deserve more rewards and less risk for doing it.
Or maybe you could look at the game and see what people are playing instead of going Professor Umbridge on everyone...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If you're aware it's a financial decision, and you're aware that Target doesn't actually care about the game content, why criticise their decision by pointing out that this decision doesn't make sense as a moral choice? Target doesn't appear to disagree with you...
I personally don't agree with what Target's done, I've played the GTA games myself, and I think any adult should be able to, but please get facts straight: their complaint was not about violence in a general sense, it was only about SEXUAL violence.
So the "there's violence against men too" doesn't hold any water, because there's no sexual violence against men in GTAV.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"First of all, what in the hell caused you to think the game allows you to rape people?"
Well, duh, the article we were all reading did, with the following quote: "The incentive is to commit sexual violence against women, then abuse or kill them to proceed or get 'health' points. "
But if you are telling me the game actually does not do that, and the SJW types who provided that quote were spouting nonsense, I am perfectly willing to take your word for it, since I am well aware that leftist SJW types like them constantly lie.
"Second, there are consequences to your actions as the police come to try to take you down as your wanted meter goes up.".
That is good. So there are at least some consequences in the game for committing criminal acts. But are there also rewards for doing violent criminal acts. Do those rewards greatly outweigh the consequences, if so then the game is still teaching an unrealistic lesson, that crime is rewarding over the long run. Then again, it is a fantasy game, not the real world. But I prefer even fantasy games to have real world consequences for bad actions that outweigh the enjoyment you get from doing them, not because I want to impose any morality, but because I prefer games that are realistic, or at least realistic within the constraints of their universe. Any game that rewards mayhem with little consequence, while providing little reward for doing anything good, is not very realistic.
"This is just nonsense. Stop thinking in absolutes."
Why the hostility. Its a pretty basic truism, from a long line of both history and fiction, that the evil overlord is normally just as bad for his own followers as to his enemies. There should be some incentive in the game for you to look for a gang that has at least some sense of ethics, not to impose moral lesons, but to make the game realistic.
"Great. Now go make that game or mod this one."
Well yes, obviously its their game, and they can do as they wish with it. I am not one of those fanatic SJW types who wants to censor anything. I am just making a suggestion for more realism. Whether the makers of the game, or the fans of the game, are interested in injecting that type of realism, is their business.
"Or maybe you could look at the game and see what people are playing instead of going Professor Umbridge on everyone..."
Again why the hostility, that is why I was asking the questions in my comment, to honestly find out. Then again, I know that gamers have been fighting the extreme leftie SJW censor types (and sometimes the moral majority types as well)for a long time now, so perhaps that is the reason for your hostility. I assure you I am not one of them, the way a game manufacturer makes their game is between them and the fans of the game, or if those fans are minors their parents as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So you ^should^ apologise!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Misandry does exist
As you also took somebody's statement out of context. If you'd read the whole comment from the beginning, the sarcasm inherent in it would have been as obvious to you as it was to me, and I'm also anti-misandry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Regarding the Canada Ban Petition
There will always be a they who wants to take your media away, whether it's objectionable books or objectionable movies or objectionable games. And whether it's due to graphic abuse of women, or the expression of gay relationships as an acceptable thing, or graphically realistic depiction of warfare.
We tend to call such people extremists.
I'm pretty sure that most of us Social Justice types are not looking to change all games into Gone Home or even Portal 2. Nor do we necessarily agree with the decision by Target, Australia to cease selling GTA5, any more than moderate Christians are determined to remove Heather Has Two Mommies or And Tango Makes Three from the shelves of B. Dalton or Barnes & Noble. There are extremists who are so determined to suppress any voices that disagree with them. And it is unfortunate in those times they get their way.
Some people really just can't stand free expression. This is going to be the same with games as it is with literature or film or music. We just need to make sure that when titles get challenged, we are there to make sure the society continues to have access to them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]