Question, If Anita Sarkeesian is Right, why is Jack Thompson Wrong?

[Tenkage]

This is a legit question, not trying to troll the fans, not trying to say, "She is the devil and needs to be shut down" this is a serious question. According to Anita Sarkeesian if us men play a video game and do something against woman, we will think its ok to do something against woman in real life (kill, rape, beat, etc)

Jack Thompson went on many tirades against video games claiming that if we played violent video games we will want to enact violence in real life.


Now then, answer me this, why is it that Anita is right but Jack Thompson is wrong, its basically the same thing, video games will influence us to do something wrong.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I think you're oversimplifying two very different stances and your analogy is as broken as this bridge.

 

[Riotguards]

they're both very different, one admits that they don't actually play video games, the other doesn't play them but declares they make you violent

however they do share a simultaneity, in that they don't understand what they are arguing against, Anita says everything against women is sexist while jack says they make you violent which both are obviously far from the truth

 

[Tenkage]

they're both very different, one admits that they don't actually play video games, the other doesn't play them but declares they make you violent

however they do share a simultaneity, in that they don't understand what they are arguing against, Anita says everything against women is sexist while jack says they make you violent which both are obviously far from the truth

I think you're oversimplifying two very different stances and your analogy is as broken as this bridge.

Not quite, both argue video game influence people to do bad things....

 

[Lilani]

When did Sarkeesian ever explicitly say video games cause men to want to rape women? I've never heard this one, at least not in the form of an exact quote not taken out of context.

 

[Tenkage]

When did Sarkeesian ever explicitly say video games cause men to want to rape women? I've never heard this one, at least not in the form of an exact quote not taken out of context.

See her latest video, she pretty much made the claim that video games that harm woman will infleunce men to do the same.

 

[Andy Shandy]

According to Anita Sarkeesian if us men play a video game and do something against woman, we will think its ok to do something against woman in real life (kill, rape, beat, etc)

When did she say this? I mean, I assume you have a link to this at least.

Admittedly, I've gotten so tired of the whole Sarkeesian thing so I haven't paid the most attention, but I figure this would've been brought up more by her detractors if she'd actually said it.

EDIT: Basically what Lilani said, so I've seen the response.

 

[Lilani]

When did Sarkeesian ever explicitly say video games cause men to want to rape women? I've never heard this one, at least not in the form of an exact quote not taken out of context.

See her latest video, she pretty much made the claim that video games that harm woman will infleunce men to do the same.

Okay, sorry, but I am not going to track down a ~20 minute video for a quote you may or may not be properly paraphrasing. Please imbed or link the video and give the timecode for the part you are referencing, or copy the quote down word for word, with the context it comes with.

 

[Zontar]

The reason is simple: they're both wrong. The only difference is that there's a social movement which one is (sometimes) aligned with that (except when it's not) that props them up.

Thomson didn't have any ideological support behind him, he was simply anti-video games with nothing other then generic "anti-violence" as his call.

Anita, on the other hand, has the more radical parts of the modern feminist movement behind her. Apart from the movement (which having is always very helpful) the only difference between them is how blatantly a con they both where, with Thomson being of a lesser degree. They had much in common after all, both being people who never where into video games nor had any interest in starting to play them, but still wanted them censored and changed to suit their image of how it should be.

Off topic: when are Running with Scissors going to make a Postal 2 equivalent for Anita? Say what you will about that game, it was beautiful in it's decadence, and we owe it all to good, hard working developers wanting to give the finger to Thomson.

 

[Pogilrup]

The reason is simple: they're both wrong. The only difference is that there's a social movement which one is (sometimes) aligned with that (except when it's not) that props them up.

Thomson didn't have any ideological support behind him, he was simply anti-video games with nothing other then generic "anti-violence" as his call.

Anita, on the other hand, has the more radical parts of the modern feminist movement behind her. Apart from the movement (which having is always very helpful) the only difference between them is how blatantly a con they both where, with Thomson being of a lesser degree. They had much in common after all, both being people who never where into video games nor had any interest in starting to play them, but still wanted them censored and changed to suit their image of how it should be.

Off topic: when are Running with Scissors going to make a Postal 2 equivalent for Anita? Say what you will about that game, it was beautiful in it's decadence, and we owe it all to good, hard working developers wanting to give the finger to Thomson.

No one is out to censor your games. Sheesh.

OP:
Jack Thompson made claims that video games directly cause violent behavior. Sarkessian claims that videogames can encode and transmit certain unconscious prejudices against women.

There is a big difference between shaping one's actions and shaping one's beliefs.

 

[Zhukov]

Exact quotes pls.

I don't ever remember her saying that. I do remember her saying that media is capable of influencing people's attitudes to the things it portrays. Which to my admittedly limited knowledge is true. There's a big difference between that and saying that playing DoA will cause a dude to go out and commit rape or punch his girlfriend.

However, it's not like I've read/watched every single thing, plus I could be straight up remembering wrong.

Which is another reason I'd like to see you link the exact place in which she said what you're saying she said. Either a link to something she wrote/said or a video accompanied by a note of the time at which she said it.

 

[The Lunatic]

Not quite, both argue video game influence people to do bad things....

Like both said, you are oversimplifying her statements. I'd suggest to actually try and understand what she argues.

I'm sure people have said the same about Thompson.

 

[Pogilrup]

Also IMO exposure to violent media might not make one commit violent actions against close people that one doesn't like, but it could potentially make one more supportive of "war hawks", provided that those politicians also have a silver tongue.

Not quite, both argue video game influence people to do bad things....

Like both said, you are oversimplifying her statements. I'd suggest to actually try and understand what she argues.

I'm sure people have said the same about Thompson.

Well then we better searching the Internet for some really old forum posts from 9 to 10 years back.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

According to Anita Sarkeesian if us men play a video game and do something against woman, we will think its ok to do something against woman in real life (kill, rape, beat, etc)

As far as I'm concerned I'd like a link to the source you're quoting, and if it's a video, an approximation of the timecode if possible. I don't like her videos, they're as insightful as TvTropes and about half as fun, but I don't recall her saying anything of this sort, ever. Not only do I think you're oversimplifying two very different stances on the same issue, I also think your argument is based on a very broad and loose understanding of what Sarkeesian advocates.

 

[Zontar]

No one is out to censor your games. Sheesh.

Except for the fact that Thomson called for it directly, and Anita has threw indirect action. If blatantly lying about something to try and have an element in it removed from the whole medium because of how you misrepresent, lie or otherwise skew the image of the product, and being indiscriminate in how you do so, then you are trying to censor.

She may know it's hopeless to think it will succeed (hell, there's a reason why at best the major studios give people like here only a token amount of attention before staying the course), but to say she has not called for it seems to ignore every video she's made on video games.

If she isn't calling for censorship, then she sure isn't going out of her way to try and not give that subtext in everything she has ever made, and I mean everything, not just the "give me money to ***** about things I've never had interest in or knowledge of" campaign.

 

[Pogilrup]

No one is out to censor your games. Sheesh.

Except for the fact that Thomson called for it directly, and Anita has threw indirect action. If blatantly lying about something to try and have an element in it removed from the whole medium because of how you misrepresent, lie or otherwise skew the image of the product, and being indiscriminate in how you do so, then you are trying to censor.

She may know it's hopeless to think it will succeed (hell, there's a reason why at best the major studios give people like here only a token amount of attention before staying the course), but to say she has not called for it seems to ignore every video she's made on video games.

If she isn't calling for censorship, then she sure isn't going out of her way to try and not give that subtext in everything she has ever made, and I mean everything, not just the "give me money to ***** about things I've never had interest in or knowledge of" campaign.

Then you want to accuse her of defamation, not censorship. You may only accuse her of censorship when she explicitly calls for it.

 

[Zontar]

Then you want to accuse her of defamation, not censorship. You may only accuse her of censorship when she explicitly calls for it.

So her calls for things to change, that things need to be "different" in the industry aren't calls for censorship? Then what the hell are they if her whole premise is at best flawed to a degree of not being admissible?

 

[Pogilrup]

Then you want to accuse her of defamation, not censorship. You may only accuse her of censorship when she explicitly calls for it.

So her calls for things to change, that things need to be "different" in the industry aren't calls for censorship? Then what the hell are they if her whole premise is at best flawed to a degree of not being admissible?

No because if it was a call for censorship she would tell us to support Bill H.R XYZ to regulate the content of videogames.

 

[Zontar]

No because if it was a call for censorship she would tell us to support Bill H.R XYZ to regulate the content of videogames.

That's a direct call for censorship, what she has been doing is very much a call for it, but an indirect one as it is inferred in the viewer that that is her message about the topic at hand at the end of her videos. If it isn't what she is trying to say, then her videos are even worst then I already thought they where.