At this point, this game just looks like a marketing move to create controversy and buzz while it doesn't seem to bring anything worthwhile on the table, I may be wrong though, if its a fun game I'll get it. In the meantime I applaud the herd wanting to buy it for the sake of feeling rebellious and "pissing of hipsters", who don't care about you and your games and the way you might express yourself via mindless consumerism.

Why do you hate freedom??

"Offensive" yet some of them love to blast their enemies on other games. :)

He must not love 'MURICA.

Lots of violence in GTA, no one cares... Lots of violence in a indie game, everyone loses their heads.

Trying to talk sensibly to this guy is like trying to teach algebra to a puffer fish.

I might have seen that argument if we were living in an age where digital distribution didn't exist. Back in the day, if the retailers didn't stock your game, you were pretty much screwed, especially if you got an AO rating which guaranteed that would happen. The American version of Farenheit had that problem Stateside; now, I can download an uncut copy online from a lawful distributor. With the advent of digital distribution, that worry is even less now that you can sell your game without hosting it on a retailer's catalog. Since the dev in this case is doing just that, then there is literally no cause for concern of the game being de facto banned.

tl;dr: the current environment means that it will be impossible for the de facto censorship by way of retailers shunning it that used to be a problem, because it will always remain an option for the developer to distribute the game digitally through their own site.
Now, now, puffer fish have a fairly decent understanding of algebra; hell, they're living examples of exponential growth.

my thought is that it is both. The way I see it the games wishlist is there 'just' to show GOG what we the customers want to buy.

Oh yeah?

OK, I was trying to make light of the puffer fish talk to bring some levity in to try to clear the air without the humor being at anyone's expense, but now I'm honestly not sure what to make of this now that you've literally devolved to replying with "oh yeah?".

Wouldn't This be more appropriate? :P

Yes, in the year 2014 compared to the 80s and 90s, if there is censorship from stores, it's not 100% effective because most people will be able to purchase and download the game from the developers. So there will still be freedom and everyone will be happy if stores like GOG don't sell Hatred but for how long? If stores don't take a stand with Hatred, that sends the message out to those who love censorship that the stores don't give a shit. And then if people don't take a stand with Hatred, that sends the message out to those who love censorship that consumers don't give a shit. So then, the people who love censorship are going to see that the condition is perfect for an invasion. They will invade and try to conquer. So stores and consumers need to send a strong "NO" message to these thought police assholes. And if not, then they will be sending a strong "YES, BEND ME OVER" message to these thought police assholes. I'm sure you heard of the saying, give someone an inch and they'll take a mile. If Hatred and a few other controversial games are only for sale from the developers because stores don't want anything to do with them, people will become desensitized towards this kind of censorship. They will see it as normal just like most gamers see DRM as normal and think those who refuse to deal with DRM are tinfoil hat wearing freaks. Then there will be almost no resistance whatsoever. And when there is no resistance, those who love censorship can take it to a higher level. And then it would be child's play to make it illegal to develop such games like Hatred and make it illegal to buy and play such games too. Then it would be easy to make other kinds of content illegal to develop, buy and play(or watch or read) etc. Movies, books...TV shows...T-Shirts...etc
LOL That was awesome. Whoever made that is a genius.
When someone replies to your previous post with a sentence saying you are as dumb as Puffer fish and nothing more, then it means the debate has ended and devolved into a poo flinging contest. And whenever and wherever there is a poo flinging contest, monkeydelarge is happy to oblige.

... Ok, where to start? Firstly, the situation of GOG not selling the game is not censorship, so desensitization to censorship cannot happen. Censorship is either the banning or editing of something by government mandate. De facto censorship is when when the game is not affected by government action but is made unavailable due to everyone refusing to sell it. Neither can possibly happen here, and as such there is no censorship to become desensitized to.

Secondly, the rest of your post makes absolutely no damned sense. How exactly do any of these hypothetical steps lead into each other? Online retailers refuse to sell a game leads to mainstream acceptance of censorship? Check above for why that is wrong. Consumers who don't speak out against a company refusing to sell a game leads to mainstream acceptance of censorship? Again, see above for why that is literally impossible. Censorship becoming accepted by way of example only works if there are actually examples of censorship to gain acceptance.

Simply put, there is no censorship that can possibly happen, so censorship by way of this particular scenario cannot come to become accepted by virtue of the retailers' and consumers' actions because their actions do not constitute or condone censorship. If the game literally could not be sold elsewhere, I would agree with you; then, we would have an actual problem, much like your pointing to how DRM has become accepted. The thing is, there is no censorship that can happen if GOG doesn't carry the game.
Then again, maybe trying to actually talk about this is a waste of time if you are just going to treat this like a 'poo flinging competition'.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other such entities."