The Big Picture: Remembering the Real Jack Thompson

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 20 NEXT
 

So Jack Thompson is a despicable hypocrite, yet you don't see any parallels between him and Anita Sarkeesian?

I mean, death threats are bad no matter who gets them, but you don't see how awful it is for someone who throws around the word "misogynist" like it's candy and yet bends over backwards to point out that every instance of violence against men is somehow "Framed acceptably" by video games.

The broad strokes of her message are fine, better female characters who wouldn't want that.
But her personal bigotry against men makes her an unsuitable figurehead for anything really

elvor0:

faeshadow:

Mr. Omega:
4:45 to 5:00, people. That's what this was all about. And he's right. I've see enough people bring up this particular boogeyman I've just stopped responding to it because of how stupid the comparison is. If nothing else, it helps me realize whose opinions I don't have to take seriously.

How is it a stupid comparison?

"Video games cause violence" and "Video games cause sexism" are not exactly that different mindsets. They're just blaming inanimate objects on different things.

I'd say this is a different scenario because Thompson actually potentially had the power to censcor and or ban games from being sold, and that was his goal... Thompson and Sarkeesian may preach the same motif with different variables(violence or sexism), but Sarkeesian isn't calling for censorship or a ban on sales of games, her goal is different. Although her "video games cause sexism" sentiment can go fuck itself, because that's fear mongoring bullcrap.

Now, whether or not you agree with what Sarkeesian has to say (I don't; I think her work is talentless, pre-sumptuous axe grinding, poor at best and outright lies half the time, and I /want/ better representation of women in video games) is a different matter entirely, but Bobs right, Thompson and Sarkeesian are not the same issue or comparable. This shouldn't be an argument or discussion that needs to happen.

I'm not so sure about that anymore. You don't have to actually be a politician to get things done. Anita may not have the power of legislation, but she does have the power of every (or nearly every) national news outlet at her beck and call. In fact, I'd say she has more power than Thompson because nobody trusts politicians. However, as we can see exemplified in the ebola panic going on right now, the public will believe what the news tells them. And the news right now is telling them that Anita Sarkeesian is a victim that must be trusted at all times, and gamers are evil, if not "dead".

Thompson may have had legislation powers, but Sarkeesian has the power of national consciousness. And that is something that politicians will easily bend over to obey. At least, as long as it gets them votes.

If you want a historical perspective on this, go look up the history of Prohibition. It didn't start with politicians.

faeshadow:

"Video games cause violence" and "Video games cause sexism" are not exactly different mindsets.

Well, I mean, aside from the part where one party directly attributed the problem to games and the other has done the opposite. You know, Jack treating video games as the magic bullet and Anita saying the exact reverse, that there is no magic bullet.

I would think this would be an important thing.

Zachary Amaranth:

Izanagi009:
How about instead of making a figurehead enemy that would unite the people but lead to nothing, you target something that is more ambiguous but will yield better results: lack of intelligence.

Because that would require us to critically examine ourselves as well, and that's bad or something.

But at the same time....

Gaming culture wanted to be treated on the same level as movies and books but we only want the positive in terms of acceptance and influence, not the negative in terms of unfortunate implications and tired tropes being brought up.

It's weird you say that after this:

I don't like Anita on grounds of lack of citation, updates, or even basic academic research but the points themselves have merit.

You don't like her on grounds that not only are acceptable within other media, but that she herself has done in other media without blowback. So it seems like even as you point out that we don't want to have the negatives of being a serious medium, you yourself are setting higher standards to insulate against it.

But again, I ask you to consider that you may not be the target here. There are plenty of people who don't share your gripes and rail against her by carefully editing her pieces and rephrasing her, or people who have only watched/read these complaints, or the people whose only criticisms of her appear to be of the "cunt/whore/slut" variety.

Perhaps your criticisms aren't the ones he's talking about?

Perhaps, I'm not the target of the video but I still think that this whole "movement" has it's head up it's ass in terms of it's thoughts that I find it hard not to get pissed off at them

Also, I have to set high standards about our community, setting them low will lead to contempt and lack of real improvement. Dotting on them and saying they are fine is not how you make someone improve, you push them through hell and high water until they are better.

Mythmaker:
Does anyone here actually take Bob seriously when it comes to video games? Maybe he says some few things that you agree with, but does anyone actually respect his opinion on this subject?

I don't. Frankly, he should stick to what he's good at, at least with this show.

Honestly I can't really remember the last time he talked about a game as a game and not as a cultural piece. The last time I can remember was when he called "Metroid: Other M" a pretty good game and "At least it wasn't another damn fps" when talking about Prime. It was there that to me he lost all credibility when it came to talking about games.

OT: I do think that the comparisons to Jack Thomson are overblown, Ms. Sarkesian is not really calling for censorship or banning, but I do think that a few of her claims are just as poorly informed and dishonest as his were. I just take issue with how many points in her videos just feel out of context, misunderstood if not dishonest.

Izanagi009:
please stop making the comparison, their end goals are different so I say we judge their goals and their means together. Both are wrongheaded in how they present their case but one is actively imposing on a constitutional right and the other doesn't

You would presume to know Anita Sarkeesian's goals.

I am not going to make such an assumption, I will only point out that if she's not looking to get videogames banned on account of being harmful to society - the same argument Jack Thompson used - then she's laying out a lot of groundwork for someone else who may try.

I will not accept this as harmless, wong-headed criticism when it so closely aligns with the rhetoric we've heard before.

faeshadow:

Thompson may have had legislation powers, but Sarkeesian has the power of national consciousness. And that is something that politicians will easily bend over to obey. At least, as long as it gets them votes.

How fortunate, then, that she's not trying to dictate, mandate, or legislate anything, or this might be a real worry.

Izanagi009:

Also, I have to set high standards about our community, setting them low will lead to contempt and lack of real improvement. Dotting on them and saying they are fine is not how you make someone improve, you push them through hell and high water until they are better.

And yet, you're holding criticism of one medium to a higher standard than that of others. Hell, have you complained about the lack of academic standards in Moviebob's pieces?

UberPubert:

Izanagi009:
please stop making the comparison, their end goals are different so I say we judge their goals and their means together. Both are wrongheaded in how they present their case but one is actively imposing on a constitutional right and the other doesn't

You would presume to know Anita Sarkeesian's goals.

I am not going to make such an assumption, I will only point out that if she's not looking to get videogames banned on account of being harmful to society - the same argument Jack Thompson used - then she's laying out a lot of groundwork for someone else who may try.

I will not accept this as harmless, wrong-headed criticism when it so closely aligns with the rhetoric we've heard before.

fair enough but i will wait and see what the results of her "criticism" are before I make the same judgement as yours

Zachary Amaranth:

Izanagi009:

Also, I have to set high standards about our community, setting them low will lead to contempt and lack of real improvement. Dotting on them and saying they are fine is not how you make someone improve, you push them through hell and high water until they are better.

And yet, you're holding criticism of one medium to a higher standard than that of others. Hell, have you complained about the lack of academic standards in Moviebob's pieces?

Perhaps not but this is a soapbox, I merely see them as opinions that I can ignore or accept. However, if I was in a serious debate about the tropes of women in games,books, or movies, I would be inclined to take the well researched argument over the soapbox.

Also, I'm not holding criticism of one medium to a higher standard, all media needs to be held at that high standard lest we dive into utterly horrible works or see our pop culture degrade in intelligence further.

Izanagi009:
fair enough but i will wait and see what the results of her "criticism" are before I make the same judgement as yours

I take no issue with a reserved opinion, but I feel we have already seen some of the results:

Thunderous applause from the gaming media.

This does not bode well for a hypotheses of harmlessness.

faeshadow:

Mr. Omega:
4:45 to 5:00, people. That's what this was all about. And he's right. I've see enough people bring up this particular boogeyman I've just stopped responding to it because of how stupid the comparison is. If nothing else, it helps me realize whose opinions I don't have to take seriously.

How is it a stupid comparison?

"Video games cause violence" and "Video games cause sexism" are not exactly different mindsets. They're just blaming inanimate objects on different things.

Nobody is saying "video games cause sexism."

There is a difference between saying 'Media Causes X' and 'When X occurs, we think of it as Normal'.

This is something more people need to understand when we talk about these sorts of issues.

V4Viewtiful:
I can't hear Ollie North without that American Dad song

Got you covered

Never heard of the guy myself, so this was interesting. Then again I don't really follow all the big stories about video games, I just play them

UberPubert:

Izanagi009:
fair enough but i will wait and see what the results of her "criticism" are before I make the same judgement as yours

I take no issue with a reserved opinion, but I feel we have already seen some of the results:

Thunderous applause from the gaming media.

This does not bode well for a hypotheses of harmlessness.

applause on the points, not the methods.

like I said, the points are fine, the meat around them is poor and with little research. With time, things will correct themselves

I'd say that Bob is the one being disingenuous here. Thompson isn't being brought up in this context as a boogieman, it's to make people aware of how badly both the gaming community and the gaming media responded to him.

Fact is that the worst of Jack Thompson's detractors were no better than the dirtbags who threaten Anita Sarkeesian; but you'll be hard-pressed to find any articles on game sites from back then that called out or decried the harassment and death threats made towards him.

Again, the point isn't that Jack Thompson was an angel, it's that he didn't deserve death threats. And the gaming media fucked up real bad when they endorsed or even applaued harassment and death threats back when he was the target.

Mikeyfell:
So Jack Thompson is a despicable hypocrite, yet you don't see any parallels between him and Anita Sarkeesian?

I mean, death threats are bad no matter who gets them, but you don't see how awful it is for someone who throws around the word "misogynist" like it's candy and yet bends over backwards to point out that every instance of violence against men is somehow "Framed acceptably" by video games.

The broad strokes of her message are fine, better female characters who wouldn't want that.
But her personal bigotry against men makes her an unsuitable figurehead for anything really

Where has she ever expressed "personal bigotry" towards men? I have not seen a single example of this in her videos or various tweets, not even in your offhand example where you completely miss the point of what it means for a game to "frame" violence as an acceptable means of a solution.

Izanagi009:
applause on the points, not the methods.

like I said, the points are fine, the meat around them is poor and with little research. With time, things will correct themselves

That would depend on the point.

If the argument is "we could use more female protagonists in games, look at these statistics that show they're uncommon" and I'll take no issue.

The moment 'misogyny' enters the conversation, we have an accusation, an accusation without evidence or statement from the accused, and to see it taken at face value - with cheering fans abreast a stage of Anita's choosing - is more than troubling.

I will not submit that attributions both blanketing and specific of bigotry among games, the people behind them, or the ones who enjoy them are harmless.

0:54 seconds
Bob, That is when I stopped watching.
That is the point when I said I don't think I could watch any more of your stuff.
Bob, I've stuck through despite having differing views on gamergate.
Despite your twitter actions and your other attempts to swing the nature of your narrative in this manner.
When you made a plea for analytical discussion, I knew what your were trying to do much like how extra credits tried to provide a similar argument on their own channel and to date it will be their dumbest, weakest and least thought out episode to date.
I would have simply wrote this off as another pile of crap and I'd go back to my self fable of being Benjamen from animal farm but my brother spurned me onto watch up to 4:54.

Bob, I'm not mild a mild man, but try to be slow to anger.
People have gone years without ever seeing me so much as irritated and I pride myself on that.
This for the first time in years has gotten me genuinely upset.
I have never been quite as angry with you or what you represent then now.
Bob, if you think Mcint- i mean Anita is worth discussion, PLEASE center a video on it.
Explain things about here, give me a reason why her work is academically, Don't actually focus on any of the harassment, Explain why what she is saying, why she is saying it and look into the research she did to do it.
Do not hide tail and through rocks at us from trees, be honest with your intention.
Otherwise I will go through rationally and examine what she is doing and why she is doing it.
Frankly from what I see She is precisely like the Jack Thompson you described and more importantly her arguments use a similar sense of logic to his from what I've been able to stomach of that grade 9 presentation McIntosh calls a video.
There is legitimate criticism of her as a public figure and her academic methods.
I find the worst sin she has committed in her videos was she simply does not care, you can tell it in her tone and in her discussion, she has no love for our hobby.
And if you do create a video I suggest tackling the video she made about literally saying she Is not a Gamer and find them gross because she doesn't want to go around shooting people.

That being said, bob you have lost yourself another one of the few fans that could tolerate having different ideological views then your own.
You have lost a fan that has enjoyed your videos to this point and until today I don't think there is a video you've uploaded here that I have ever found myself unable to watch and this is the first.
Go have a in depth discussion with your friend, Dr Punchy Wright because He's doing a horrible job proof reading or your videos.
Thank you.
And stop releasing these videos timed with Jim, I wouldn't normally examine it this way but it's hard for me not to see what you are blatantly trying to do when I read the front page.

Anita and Jack may be different in terms of goals and sucess,Thompson was a nut case while Anita knew what she was doing and got big because of it.Their views on gaming however are two sides of the same coin,one believes video games cause violence and violent tendencies in people while the other believes they contain sexist elements and can strengthen sexist ideas by playing them.

Both are from two contrasting yet similar mindsets imo.

r

Guys, for shit's sake. All Chipman did was point out that Sarkeesian is not gaming's Hitler. You are acting as exactly the reason these cultural criticisms and discussions are necessary.

You know what
here


I feel this was a much better and hell much more interesting attempt to analyze things.
And better yet I feel pretty fucking hopeful about the game industry then when I've had the misfortune to watch Anita's regurgitation.

ITT: Half of the people willfully missing the entire point of the video. Some people just can't put their hate-boners away, I suppose.

Anyways, glad to see I'm not the only person who can't hear "Oliver North" without thinking of the American Dad song.

TheYeIIowDucK:
God dammit Bob, just do that one "fuck gamergate" episode you obviously want so much to make and get it over with. Stop with this beating around the bush thing.

Pretty sure that at this point Tito doesn't want any of the content creators explicitly referencing GG. He's allowed them to cover it before, didn't go well, he's tried covering it before, it never turned out well. I think he just doesn't want it acknowledged outside of the forums, lest he have to deal with more than he's already got on his plate regarding it.

PainInTheAssInternet:
Guys, for shit's sake. All Chipman did was point out that Sarkeesian is not gaming's Hitler. You are acting as exactly the reason these cultural criticisms and discussions are necessary.

I agree with this. Anita can speak her opinions to who wants to hear them. Granted I won't listen to them but at least its a sign of video games growing up to the level of other artistic mediums so at least I can be thankful for that.

PainInTheAssInternet:
Guys, for shit's sake. All Chipman did was point out that Sarkeesian is not gaming's Hitler. You are acting as exactly the reason these cultural criticisms and discussions are necessary.

Neither was Jack Thompson,yet you did'nt see people fall over themselves for him like they do with Anita Sarkeesian.Both make/have made the same points about games without any shred of proof aside from their cherry picked evidence yet only one got flak for it from the gaming media at large.

And why is that I wonder?

Ok... my thoughts on this vid:

1) So... this is MovieBob's attempt to make a gamergate video without saying gamergate? Right... (well, he couldn't help flashing us a lil Sarkesian)

2) I find the theme of the vid kinda silly: I'm reasonably sure I'm over ol' jacky boy

3) The history lesson itself was quite interesting. I never knew much about his background or what else he did

4) the idea that JT created the modern concept of 'the gamer' is quite interesting. I'll have to keep that in mind.

The main reason for comparison seems to be that both Anita and Thompson are non gamers who complain about games that they don't actually play or know anything about, assuming that's true( I don't know since I have not watched her video's) I guess the comparison has some merit, however unless Anita wants to censor video games I don't think the comparison really holds up.

Really I'm just sick of the whole gamergate shit storm, twitter is the worst thing to happen to the internet in a long time, and making a movement based around a hash tag that anybody can use is a retarded idea.

As somebody who deliberately avoided the Gamegate shit storm, this video is just hollow to me. A generic message which I guess has meaning, but anything else is just white noise.

See, I knew better than to read the comments, but that didn't stop me. The cringe is real.

Anyway, good video, Bob. You've put yourself on my list of people whose opinions I should respect again, and while that may sound cold, trust me when I say that list is probably... well, just you, Jim and Anita, at the present time of writing this. Maybe a few others, too, but you get the idea.

I really enjoyed the extensive amount of, dare I say abstract (for me at least. I wasn't there when most of that history played out), research, and feel that other 22 year olds probably had little to no previous knowledge of what was stated in the video. What I'm trying to say is that I walked away from your video with something I didn't have when I clicked it. It was educational, but moreover, I think the points made in it are perfect to target the 18-24 range (read: majority of gamers) with. This video made me a better person, and I just thought you should know that.

Knowing Bob's political standing, I'm pretty sure I can list all his talking points without even watching.

Knowing Bob's political standing, I'm pretty sure I can list all his talking points without even watching.

jFr[e]ak93:
I have never heard of Jack Thomson... So this was quite interesting. I don't know how I've been missing this.

The last time he was even really close to relevant was around 2007 when GTA IV came out, and even by then he had become more of a joke than a threat, so if 7 years ago you weren't immersed in gamer news it probably would have slipped you by. I mean most people at that point were just REALLY into this new game called Bioshock, and the ramblings of a madman did not warrant the use of a magical hand that shoots bees.

So, was there a specific high-profile comparison of Sarkeesian to Jack Thompson in the big stupid shitstorm I don't care about, or is this generally about comparisons to Jack Thompson being a wrong thing in this particular shitstorm since the side portrayed by their detractors as an enemy of games is of left-wing ideology, not right-wing?

faeshadow:

elvor0:

faeshadow:

How is it a stupid comparison?

"Video games cause violence" and "Video games cause sexism" are not exactly that different mindsets. They're just blaming inanimate objects on different things.

I'd say this is a different scenario because Thompson actually potentially had the power to censcor and or ban games from being sold, and that was his goal... Thompson and Sarkeesian may preach the same motif with different variables(violence or sexism), but Sarkeesian isn't calling for censorship or a ban on sales of games, her goal is different. Although her "video games cause sexism" sentiment can go fuck itself, because that's fear mongoring bullcrap.

Now, whether or not you agree with what Sarkeesian has to say (I don't; I think her work is talentless, pre-sumptuous axe grinding, poor at best and outright lies half the time, and I /want/ better representation of women in video games) is a different matter entirely, but Bobs right, Thompson and Sarkeesian are not the same issue or comparable. This shouldn't be an argument or discussion that needs to happen.

I'm not so sure about that anymore. You don't have to actually be a politician to get things done. Anita may not have the power of legislation, but she does have the power of every (or nearly every) national news outlet at her beck and call. In fact, I'd say she has more power than Thompson because nobody trusts politicians. However, as we can see exemplified in the ebola panic going on right now, the public will believe what the news tells them. And the news right now is telling them that Anita Sarkeesian is a victim that must be trusted at all times, and gamers are evil, if not "dead".

Thompson may have had legislation powers, but Sarkeesian has the power of national consciousness. And that is something that politicians will easily bend over to obey. At least, as long as it gets them votes.

If you want a historical perspective on this, go look up the history of Prohibition. It didn't start with politicians.

Well true but in Thompsons case I believe it was the flat banning(as with Prohibition) of 18+/M games, it was a binary legistration.

On the other hand, the subject of "sexism" is very awkward to actively censor. What is sexist may differ radically from person to person, Sarkeesian thinks having female prostitutes in Fable 3 is sexist, while I would call it equality, due to the fact that there are also male prostitutes(equality to be portrayed positively also ecompasses negative portrayal, otherwise it's not equality, it's superiority). Some people think high heels are sexist, while some feminists actively support them as sexually empowering. Bayonetta bounces betweensexually empowering or sexist porn from person to person.

But again, Sarkeesian isn't looking to ban things, just change how things are done, Sarkeesian may well have mainstream opinion on her side but I don't think the "threat" from her is as palpable or in the same line of reasoning as Thompson. She'll die down eventually, a footnote in gaming history that I don't expect to actually achieve anything, even if I do denounce her work.

However, the Sarkeesian and Qunnspiricy debacle has given rise to another issue: people blasting people who criticize Sarkeesians(or others) work in the same manner as they would blast them for personal attacks or harrassment AND created a movement of extremist feminists or Sarkeesian-esque supporters who label anyone as a mysoginist that doesn't agree with them. Which isn't on, being harassed should not grant you immunity to actual criticism. That, I feel is the real problem borne of this. Sarkeesian may not be responsible, but she was part of the catalyst. But then it'd be unfair to blame her for that....I think. I dunno, I haven't heard Sarkeesian respond in the same manner as the people I'm on about, but I do feel Sarkeesian is a bit partial to echo chambers.

Also as a disclaimer, I'm just going to apologize for my last sentence in my post you quoted, it's a bit more dismissive than I actually intended to be.

EDIT: Sorry, watch out for the paragraph above the disclaimer, it's new.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 20 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here