Yes, there's one thing that Columbine and comparable cases should have made clear:
Nobody cares for what it's really about and that's certainly neither gun control nor hobbies or music.

If there is some attention anywhere, people will use it to blame what they didn't like before anyway. As good as everyone has some hidden agenda and when people like Sarkeesian took teleseminars about building a business and making money without actually creating anything of value
Proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5If8qy5tctY&t=23s
things get directed against anything, because a common enemy is and always has been a powerful tool.
This is existing at every party in every conflict, including both sides in this conflict too of course.
What's really interesting is the difference in detail between the parties like harrassing neutrals for not wanting to take sides (GaymerX, etc...) the flaming of one of your own when the person actually only did something to lessen the heat (Wu), etc...

What it's really about often isn't as interesting for most people and it is the same here.
If you think about it, it's only about some typical gamers that are angry about political and industrial influence and dishonest critics in their hobby, about some activists complaining about the lack of games that fit their needs although enough games of any kind exist and they should just get to know and play those instead and about some people making money by fanning the heat.

Compared to other stuff in the world, it's really quite laughable.
If the one angry mob would invest their energy into making more alternative games with a certain quality, the other mob would only support stuff with their money and attention that is worth it and the official activists would so something about real issues in the world (Did Anita use any of her at least $550.000 I know of she made in all this for muslim women in Europe and America or women in the middle east or Africa? All those seriously need help!), everybody would gain.
The real problem are the leeches trying to make money and gain influence/power via conflict, those have no use for peaceful solutions and utilize the kidiots on the #gg side as well as the blind haters on the other side.

PS: Remember Jon in Watchmen? An untouchable common enemy used as the immediate end of a global war, we need something like this and it should be something that isn't really connected to anyone so nobody can suffer if it's attacked.

And to be perfectly honest, if certain neo-feminists really wanted to change the industry, they would provide support to developers to make the next great game rather than force change in existing games. Because at the end of the day, change will only be paced by profit. If there were truly great games available which appealed greatly to the collective mass of gamers, they would be bought and paid for. If the forced changes were really good for the industry, the industry would embrace them because they would bring in more profits.

But cry as they like, if at the end of the day, sales would not grow, the changes they call for will not occur.

Won't happen, because they correlate with the folks that see the economy as zero-sum.

Ironic how the advocates of cooperation / diversity only see the free market as competition. The parallels between seeing natural sexual dynamics as signifiers of gender oppression, and seeing trade dynamics as signifiers of capitalist oppresion are kind of obvious... certainly I find my "enemies" in the economical ideology sphere tend to popup in many different culture war arenas.

Anyway, on gaming specific I saw some post by Zoe recently "surrendering" to the market and advocating some niche termed altgaming or something... guess what, it would be sponsored / subsidized / patronized. No surprise really, and to me a positive sign there's just no market for most of this narrative / ideological / message advocacy trying to convert games into something they're inherently not suited for.

I only hope such "failure" won't radicalize folks further into authoritarian ideas, they're borderline as it is... accepting such shit is part of growing up afterall... oh, I forgot we have so many safety nets that society is incentivized to become gradually more infantilized and entitled.

No, I was just wondering why everyone keeps crying "You're tarring everyone with the same brush" Every time me or anyone else examines or highlights the worst, most extreme excesses of... anything, really
The aftermath of Columbine was a scary time, I was worried that censorship and bannings would happen, kind of like the Comic's Code, back in the 50s or something, I'm not saying that I wasn't, I'm just saying I thought
"OMG they want to take away computer games and rock music because they reckon that 0.00001% of people who experience that entertainment are going to go postal and they want to stop any chance of anyone going postal"

not

"OMG If I walk down the street in my Marilyn Mason hoodie someone's going to call armed response on me"

That's the difference between "This is why we can't have nice things" and "Tarring everyone with the same brush"

I only bring Columbine up because we would have all been on the same side back then, I assume

GTA again?
You act like 'Use a prostitute and kill her to get your money back' isn't even a thing
Even the main GTA fan wiki admits it's a thing:
http://gta.wikia.com/Prostitutes

"Prostitutes can raise your health to more than 100% in the 3D Universe. Players must pay for their services. However, you can kill the hooker and take your money back when you're finished - probably the in-game situation most commonly cited by critics of GTA's violence/immorality."

Personally I think Rockstar should troll them in the next one by just having the prostitute walk off and 'de-spawning' afterwards in cut-scene or even just have them all go cashless, with a 'she whips out a point-of-sale device' cut-scene!

As I say, as much as I love GTA I've always found that whole thing a bit of an embarrassment TBH...

Wait, they raise you health to OVER 100%? Now even I'm incentived to 'use' them...
(they can keep the cash though, I'm not a monster!)

So, is it only GTA prostitutes? Or are there other fictional characters you think do something with their fictional cash? :)
When is a prostitute not a prostitute? Maybe if she does 'it' for free? Maybe if she magically heals your health?

I mean what exactly makes someone a monster automatically if they exploit this gameplay mechanic?
Care to offer some thoughts? Hopefully it's not some unexamined moral reflex, nor that you can't distinguish reality from fiction, despite my teasing. ;)

The last sentence was GOLD. Totally agree. Many of these things are intrinsically linked at a larger level. This 'nanny state' we created following World War II was just the manifestation of a power grab that has been done now pretty much everywhere. Safety nets have become safety hammocks, a soft, easy, relaxing comfort zone that ceases to challenge, to struggle, to overcome, or to inspire in any productive human way. What we thought was a supportive tool for us has become the ultimate weapon against us. There are simply no bombs or armies powerful enough to destroy an idea, even if that idea is a morally corrupt one.

Modern feminism just reflects that. The kids out there chanting slogans reflect that. People are ready for revolution, they just don't know why they're fighting or who they're fighting. But deep down they sense a threat. That threat hides itself so well that the people are instructed (more like blinded) to see the same old villains in that role... men, whites, blacks, the rich, blue bloods, the aristocrats, the commies, the nazis, Skeletor and Cobra Commander... blah blah blah. Cartoon villains for a cartoon planet.

You fill the heads of millions of young people with bad ideas based in old revolutions, plaster it on social media and billboards... you can get away with anything. The worst strategy of tyrants isn't guns and armies... it's ideas. Winning of hearts and minds. If you can convince a whole generation of people that their biggest crusade should be about installing gender neutral bathrooms in stores, I'd consider putting money on your horse winning the race.

If I saw a film where the protagonist killed a random prostitute right after having sex with her, just to avoid paying, I'm find it shocking and repugnant despite the fact that I know it's only fiction, they're only actors and no-one really died, or even had sex!
I don't think that's a weird response...

Exactly; a medium of entertainment gave you have an emotional experience. It illicited an emotional response; which was shock. And as a result you felt more strongly about the characters; a la became more immersed. AKA; the film did exactly what it was supposed to do.
You feeling shocked is not the issue here. An extreme situation such as that can really make you feel strongly about the characters in a story. Would anyone care as much if Psycho Mantis from MGS1 was a random insane person or feel more strongly connected when they learn he was abused as a child?
If you feel offended; its your right not to watch. It can clearly be seen that going to such extremes is very good monetarily and quality wise in a story. Game of Thrones is a great example of it.
But if you feel everything that offends YOU should be denied to EVERYONE, that is something real to be shocked about.

Well *I'm* not crusading against GTA I'm just not at all surprised that someone took offence to that aspect and as I said before, the 'Think of the Children' plea, despite what rating tag is on the box, is especially potent in a society that sees computer games only as entertainment for teenage boys, which is a symptom of the lack of 'diversity' in the gaming audience, which GG is being made out to be doing all it can to maintain...

How can #GG be blamed for lack of diversity? Who is the person who tries to turn every female character into her own concept of a perfect woman while bitching about lack of diversity? AntiGG preaches diversity; but gets their ''offended'' mask out whenever they see a character who is different. This hypocrisy has the antis to blame; not #GG. There is much higher variation of gender and race in #GG than in antigg; but they dismiss them and it isn't surprising since all those racists wanna do is make money of these ''minorities'' like slave traders; never asking their opinion but automatically assuming they know what is good for ''their'' minority.

I explained earlier exactly why it isn't a thing. But I'll explain again. Killing NPCs for cash is a game mechanic and can be done to anyone. This mechanic doesn't specifically target anyone. Thus, the fact anyone can be killed for pocket cash, is universal.

So, you are making a plea that it is somehow more wrong to kill prostitutes, maybe because they are women, maybe because you just paid them. But what about poor store clerks. They are probably making minimum wage, can barely support their families and are likely making magnitudes less the prostitutes. If you want to argue which death causes more suffering, I'd say the poor store clerk.

But again, that is just an emotional plea that defies the logic of the situation. To the extent killing is wrong in the game, I feel it is essentially equally wrong of any background NPC which one has little to no background information about.

But let's imagine we have to start protecting certain NPCs. Can't have prostitutes killed because its misogynistic. If the store clerk has an ethnic origin, guess that can be construed as racist, take the list further...should we only allow white men to die? Is that your plan?

The only reason its a thing is because you neo-fems make it a thing. It's complete circular logic. Neo-fems complain about GTA prostitutes. Then, argue that you cannot dismiss this, because people are talking about it. Duh. Beyond that, the game allows anyone to be killed, so that is a non-issue.

The fact the player can pay a prostitute for health then becomes the only issue. Frankly, assigning such life-giving properties to prostitutes doesn't sound very misogynistic to me. About the best you can do is suggest the game puts visiting a prostitute in a rather good light....

---------------

As to diversity, its rather ironic that neo-fems claim gaming has grown to include a very diverse audience when its convenient to them (Gamers are Dead articles), but now to claim gaming is so very not diverse when it is again convenient to their argument....

Yeah, but you're seeing 'neo-fems' as one big, hive-mind. When I posted about this before I wasn't trying to say that the people who brought the petition against Target selling GTA weren't feminists, I just remain unconvinced that they're 'OUR' feminists, they are not feminists who are invested in or interested in 'exploiting', if you like, gaming and gaming culture they're outside feminists - 'muggle' feminists, if you like, who are coming at this from a 'survivors of violence' angle THEY are from general society and take the general society view that games are entertainment for teenage boys while the gaming feminists are saying that games are not representing the gaming audience because it has grown beyond the realm of just being entertainment for teenage boys
They think that people who are into video games commonly buy their video games from Target for f's sake!

I never said its one big hive mind. Not at all. Interesting how you claim I somehow did. Frankly, many of my posts I point out the diversity of interests in this debate from the same side from those who are looking to replace games with their own to those who can care less about video games and see this as one small battle in their promotion of feminist ideals by trouncing on male-dominated interests.

Just as there is no one Gamergate, there is no one feminist nor neo-feminist group. That said, I do not think them "muggles" as they seem to have their act together in terms of the arguments one expect to hear from neo-fems. But frankly, debating their actual thoughts is pointless without directly talking to them. No, to me they are choosing an angle to promote their agenda just like any advocacy sub-group. And I have shown why its a bad argument.

As to Target or K-mart, many people do buy games there. Why else would they be selling them? Furthermore, there is an issue with regional distributors as well. With Target and K-Mart no longer stocking those games, the regional distributors might choose not to stock it as well. For stores that rely on the same distributors, there may be a de facto ban on the game for their stores as well.