The Big Picture: Remembering the Real Jack Thompson

[FogHornG36]

Nobody is talking about Jack Thompson, but if they do bring it up, its because he fought for "Video games cause violence" and Anita fights for "Video games cause sexism" you can't have one without the other.

Making a 5:40 video talking about Jack Thompson isn't going to change this.

I also have a problem with you saying you are part of "gaming culture" when you are backing up everyone who is saying that it is dead, and how to destroy it.

But thanks for going #FullMcIntosh, I'm just going to go back to not watching your videos knowing the kinda stuff you put out.

 

[DragonStorm247]

I dunno, I feel like remembering Jack is actually useful in that we can see how the Censorship Wars were completely different from the current situation. Don't get me wrong, it's completely ridiculous to call Anita, etc, the next Thompson, but we should remember history for history's sake.

 

[FenchurchSt]

I was under the impression that he has been "dead" politically on the video games front since the industry adoption of a comprehensive universal self-governing ratings system in America. Why did someone bring him up again? Eh... don't answer that, I know why: too many people being too worried about things they shouldn't be concerned about and dredging up old buried arguments while putting on the blinders and missing the things we should actually be paying attention to.

Either way, in all actuality this man was never a real threat. He may have had a lot of publicity, he may have had a lot of nasty claims to throw around, and he may have had a lot of backers at the time, but he never had the authority to dampen free speech. The type of censorship he was crying for was absolutely different from something like SOPA (something that was all written up and ready to happen) which was basically all dressed up as something to "protect rights" of copyright holders. Thompson's vision of censorship was only to remove rights of creators and block the sale of what is in other media legal content. Both were wrong, in my opinion, but one was a threat whereas the other, at worst, would have caused all of the major publishers to turn into Nintendo of America of that era, i.e., SELF-censoring to avoid actual censorship. Even if that were to happen, just like the film industry's heavy self-censorship during the enforcement of the Motion Picture Production Code in Hollywood and Nintendo of America themselves, the publishers would have eventually abandoned it in favor of something better.

I honestly wasn't even aware that he is still worth talking about outside of video game history lessons.

Can i just take a moment to agree with the people calling for everyone to put their flags and hashtags and preconceived notions and battle lines and just talk to each other like human beings again?

I'm sick and tired of this broad-brush damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't arguing. I'm tired of everyone whining about what a group is or isn't about. I'm tied of a million different arguments all lumped into a tangled mess and watching everyone fruitlessly try to sort through it. I'm tired of anita and jack and bob and thunderfoot, and all the people who themselves have become symbols and buzzwords. It's psychotic, people are human beings, they're not some extension of some group. We need to narrow the damn brush already. The concept of the individual needs to make a comeback on these forums, and fast.

If this whole shitstorm has taught me anything, it's that hashtag politics are garbage. People can only be judged by who they are, by their personal stances on things, not by who they affiliate with, and that's probably a good lesson to have, but it's pretty much over now. It's sad, because i actually do want to talk about the state of game journalism, but i can't really do that anymore now can i? Shit, i don't even know how anyone is going to approach that topic anymore. So thanks a fucking lot all you flag-wavers, you poisoned an important and legitimate topic and now we won't get to talk about it without all this bullshit resurfacing for a long time.

Also, dude, can I frame this comment?

I feel like the gaming community used to be so positive and now I can't say anything without someone assuming something about me or watching people take sides over stupid things. I haven't been on twitter in months and I don't even care to look at it anymore. I want to have real conversations with people and not have them be all "oh you're a girl? you're probably going to say something weird like Anita Sarkeesian," or something. I don't even know the first thing about her, nor do I care for she's impacted nothing. I want to belong to a community that discusses things, not stand under a patron archetype that the internet determined I must fight for.

The whole affair is repulsive. No matter how proud I am to say I believe video games matter, no matter how close I was to thinking that gaming could be something worth talking about in "polite" company, all of this garbage makes me want to wash my hands of these notions and just go back to being a silent closet gamer. It's so shameful that I want to deny this part of my life and being involved in this monstrous community.

 

[martyrdrebel27]

you're still focusing the person, not the facts presented. There is one very clear fact. In a candid speech to a class, she says she's not a gamer and had to learn about them. In a scripted, produced video, she says she's a gamer and loves games. She's not a gamer, she's a liar and poisonous to gamers.

Ah, yes, of course. I forgot that once someone says something, they are permanently that thing forever and ever. It's why I'm still a grocery boy, even though I haven't worked in a shopping center for seven years. Or why my favorite colour is still orange, despite the fact that I currently find blue far more appealing. Object Permanency, it's a real pain in the ass, you know?

And really, poisonous to gamers? Are you entirely sure? 100% positive? I'm pretty sure she... you know, isn't. At all. Dry, short videos that offer up basic information on tropes in video gaming relative to feminism is hardly poisonous in the slightest, especially given the number of people who can view her material without adverse side effects. A more apt approach would be to say that some gamers are allergic to the contents of her material, and should therefore seek medical advice over dealing with allergic reactions in relation to Feminist Critic of Video Game Tropes.

its about how she presented herself in two extremely contradictory ways. You are wrong, and I don't feel like continuing this conversation, so I just wont.

 

[Absimilliard]

"Gaming needs to get over Jack Thompson". This might be because I'm not American, but I had to watch the episode to remember who he is, which in my mind is "one of those nutters who tried banning GTA, ha-ha, good luck with that one." (Of course there's more to the story than that, as was shown in the video, but that's about as much of my memory I'm willing to dedicate to him.)
Also, does it honestly surprise anyone that some people use false syllogisms and/or comparisons many people find unreasonable during an online discussion?

EDIT: On the plus side, now I do remember who he is if the topic comes up in a conversation I'm in.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

Bob, dude, seriously...

It's your show and technically you can do whatever you want but regardless of ideological difference NO ONE came here to listen to you rant about this issue. Do yourself a favor and take this discussion to another outlet unless you want to alienate viewers who enjoy the big picture for discussing geek nostalgia and other "fun" topics.

Actually, that's exactly what I came for, as well as to see the garglegoat bandwagon whine like the misogynist white male privilege babies they are.

I find this sort of thing to be fascinating. There's a certain mindset that leads to one boiling a movement down to a series of derogatory statements and that mindset is one I've never been able to wrap my head around. I find it particularly interesting that you refer to them as "babies", since your message conveys the idea that you, yourself are engaging in the most juvenile behavior imaginable. I also find it extraordinary that you seem to think everyone who is pro GG is a male or white. I don't imagine you actually believe that though; I am thinking it's just easier to ignore the actual makeup of the group so you can engage in a bit of slamming white males.

I'm not being devious when I say it is fascinating though; I really do find it interesting how people can set their minds this way. The harshness of my criticism is because I also find it deplorable. And surely it doesn't matter, but I am not pro GG myself. I simply find that your description of that movement to be so wacky that it makes a caricature of you more than them.

I use caricature simply because I find nothing serious to take in their stance, and I'm tired of explaining it to people who won't listen. Also, by your definition of immaturity I am well within my rights to point it out in a group that paints their opponents as "LW#" or "SJW" or "left-wing radical". Furthermore, while it is given that GG is not entirely made up of white males, they certainly make up the overwhelming majority. Hell, I'm a white male, and I don't have this sense of entitlement that GG seems to have. It's like they've never read "The And and the Grasshopper", or even seen the Disney adaptation; maybe they could learn a thing or two from it.

I also can't stand GG apologists who "aren't pro-GG" yet don't hesitate to rise to their defense at every opportunity. Where are the criticisms of the ridiculous and short sighted demands made by GG that wouldn't actually fix anything that they purport to want fixed? The lack of such criticisms demonstrates a clear bias toward supporting GG.

(I'm talking about you.)

That is interesting one how do you know that a majority of gg is white and why would that matter in fact white males make up a majority of both sides so really that whole distinction means what now?
Also you brought up that scary word entitlement another casualty in a long list of words that have been over used and have lost all meaning at this point.

I mean you say you are not entitled yet here you are mad at people who don't share the same hate or level of distaste for something the same as you or the way want them to. And yet you say your are not entitled is really hilarious. For real you come off like a bizarro world version of the thing you despise.

Good job deflecting the actual point. Not like I haven't seen that before. Typical GG tactic: spam their detractors with words that really have no meaning then beg the question.

"You hate GG because GG hates women. I see no distinction between the two; don't you think hate is wrong?" /trollface

"Hey, I'm not pro-GG, but here's why your argument is wrong. Sure, GG's arguments might be wrong, too, but who really knows? Let's not ask. EVER." /trollface

Get bent.

Serious question: Do you genuinely believe that your inverted commas "side" argues better than the GG people?

From my understanding, the incredibly successful destruction of GamerGate (I'm sorry GG people but it's true, your name has been so thoroughly smeared it's near impossible to use. It's the same thing that happened to feminism) was an ad hominem declaring it misogynistic. Misogynistic or no, that has been what the discussion is about now because it gives the anti- side a better narrative,

There is no argument, there is just the petulant shouting of which I, and many others, are so sick and tired at this point. Arguing with GG is like arguing with a wall which changes its paint job on a nearly daily basis.

No one outside of GG destroyed GG; it was destroyed from within and doomed to failure due to its toxic nature and origins. There are some things you don't recover from, and making death threats against your detractors is one of those things. That's an automatic loss; it doesn't matter how much you apologize or try to make it better.

Furthermore, an ad hominem attack is only an attack if the negative character portrayed is irrelevant to the conversation. If we criticize Jeffrey Skilling when he gives investment advice, that is not ad hominem. It is common sense. So too when we accuse GG of misogyny in its desire to "keep feminism/liberalism/whatever" out of its games, that is not ad hominem because the previous activities of GG are completely relevant to the current conversation.

You don't get to cry, "AD HOMINEM!" just because you don't like the ramifications of criticism of your group to your argument.

I'm... not sure what you're trying to say here.

GG started with a premise that Games Journalism was displaying signs of corruption and bias which was kicked off by an issue involving a female developer. Unfortunately, there are people involved in that who made the entire thing seem misogynistic. The rest of them do still have an argument, but it got mired in ad hominem to the point that NOBODY ADDRESSED THEIR ARGUMENT. That's what I mean, the counter-point to journalism might be corrupt wasn't "it isn't because of X" it was "YOU HATE WOMEN!". From a purely logical perspective, that isn't a response and denying they have something to respond to is also not a response. The anti-feminist view is not one I've ever seen projected by anyone from the GG crowd (though I'm sure quotes can be found if one looks hard enough).

If death threats against your detractors are an automatic loss then I would like your opinion on Christina Hoff Summers and the various death threats she received from the anti-GG side? Both sides are guilty of this, in fact both sides are guilty of this towards WOMEN. Or so it's alleged, if you think one side is lying then it stands to reason the other is too so either way it'd be a moot point.

That latest showing on David Pakman was probably the most depressing outing I've seen so far but sadly indicative of what seems to be the arguing style.

See, here's the thing, I don't care that much about GG. I just don't. It'll get under my skin if I let it, all I can do is make a note which 'internet celebrities' decided gamers are dead and make like a corpse and not give them my ad money. Country I live in I honestly don't care or need to care that much.

But at the same time, I am pissed off that the other side of this debate seems to continuously use logical fallacies and deny the other side even EXISTS for the sake of saying they won the argument or condescending to them.
I like being neutral, I want to protect it.
So I would appreciate if we could see some actual dialogue because at the moment I'm seeing a lot of smug insults and not a lot of rebuttals. If we have to talk about it, am I asking too much that we talk about it like fucking adults?

 

[Stalydan]

Yeah Bob, it seems like you're just bringing up a list of things to say how bad he is and we should lay off Anita but nobody cares. We dislike Anita because she believes everyone who plays games or intakes media of any other kind is an idiot and is made in a misogynistic "patriarchy" supporter. All she did was loop video games in the same way to get money from unsuspecting saps who'd pay her to make a series about it that seems to only have a few of its scheduled episodes out, all of which have some misinformation to varying degrees, retread common feminist theory to people like it's the new shit, uses art and Let's Play footage without even contacting the owner to see if it was okay or spout some old gender studies myth about rape or sexual assault that's been disproven to the point that it's laughable it's even still being spread.

Just come out and say "Fuck GamerGate" on here already. It's boring with you just dancing about it when you obviously want to say something about it.

 

[bobdole1979]

Can anyone explain to me why people defend Hitman? I honestly don't get it, is it a really popular and amazing game series? I can honestly never heard of anyone talk about it being really good or talk about it at all.

But when it comes to gamergate and Anita people defend it as if it was the Alamo.

In the same video where Anita critizises Hitman she also talks about God of War but i've never seen anyone defend God of War.

Because Anita lied about Hitman.

And if you've ever played through a recent Hitman game, it becomes reeslly obvious she lied about it. She basically killed 2 women for no reason, dragged their bodies around and said and I quote "Players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters."

That's so far away from reality that it's disgusting (speaking as a fan of Hitman games). It becomes really transparent that she's either not doing research or making shit up to complain about.

She may take scenes out of context in some other games, but for this she's just making shit up out of nothing. You wanna know why you can drag bodies around in Hitman? So you can hide them. That's it, and anyone who's played the game for more than a couple of level would know this (and she would've had to have played a good chunk of the game to get to the level she was complaining about).

I'd compare it to Fox News complaining about Mass Effect.

she lied? Then why do these exist???

these videos were all made LONG before Anita ever startered her kickstarter, let alone her video featuring hitman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVElJbjDqOs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnUIvtq87Ug

Seems to me she was spot on as THATS EXACTLY WHAT PEOPLE ARE DOING! You might not be doing it and might not see it that way but guess what? people are doing just what she said.

 

[Monsterfurby]

Thank you for calling "gamer identity" absurd - "gamer" is one of the most useless labels in existence and absolutely does not do justice to the diversity of 'those who play (video) games'.

 

[ryukage_sama]

When feminist critics are discussed, I often hear complaints that gamers are standing up against efforts to censor video games. While I have heard no calls from critics of video games to censor their production or sale, I do hear this from pro-GamerGate commenters. So, I think it is valuable for Bob to reassert that the goals of the anti-violence critics are very different from the anti-sexism critics.

Edit: I realize that I wasn't clear in my original post. I originally posted "While I have heard no calls from critics of video games to censor their production or sale, I do hear this from pro-GamerGate commenters." I meant "I have heard no calls from feminist critics of video games to censor."

 

[Shymer]

I respect what Bob was going for here about symbols needing to be more representative of current figures, but I had no idea who this guy was until about a minute ago. That may just be a perk of living in New Zealand though.

I agree with this sentiment. I live in the UK and grew up with computer games throughout the eighties and nineties. I have never heard of Jack Thompson. Knowledge of him seems to be largely a US-phenomenon - regardless of the impact he may have had on global gaming (or at least US game development) if he succeeded.

So my understanding of gaming culture - and my definition of gaming community - is not defined by a hero's relationship/opposition to this gentleman. In fact I struggle to think of a villain that helps define my understanding of gaming culture (a very UK-centric middle-class view). My heroes might be Sir Clive Sinclair? The Darling brothers? Richard Garriott? Braben and Bell? Peter Molyneux? The Gollop brothers? Meeting any of these people would be like meeting childhood heroes. Where is the enemy here?

Perhaps MovieBob's initial premise for the video - that gaming (like other cultural groups) is "built on the worship of hero figures", which, by necessity means having villain(s) is not everyone's experience? I cannot think of a foil to the heroes I 'worship'. In many cases they all seem to have been their own worst enemies.

I still secretly want to meet and impress them though. I may be over forty, but that bubble hasn't quite burst yet.

 

[Turbo_ski]

The only reason people relate Jack Thompson to Anita Sarkessian is because they both make the claim that video games cause real world violence. Neither follow that claim up with any evidence like peer-reviewed studies.

Thunderf00t has an entire series rebutting Anita on solely facts. If you care about the truth and not being blacklisted by other journalists, you'll watch it and take it to heart.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJeX6F-Q63I&list=PLQJW3WMsx1q3BAZh3XsK1cSwCiaqjSulc

 

[Schadrach]

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 and sway to censor 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, 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 can't hear Ollie North without that American Dad song

And now he's on fox neeeeeeews!

Thompson was a lawyer fighting a legal war, Sarkeesian is a communications major fighting a PR war. They're preaching the same fight with slightly different targets but a similar goal, to change gaming in accordance with their respective causes because it should be morally repugnant if not illegal to offend them.

 

[Uriel_Hayabusa]

Thank you for calling "gamer identity" absurd - "gamer" is one of the most useless labels in existence and absolutely does not do justice to the diversity of 'those who play (video) games'.

The label may mean nothing to you, but who are you to decide that others shouldn't be allowed to define themselves as a ''gamer''? Lots of people refer to themselves based on things they're a fan of: metalheads, Little Monsters, geeks, bronies. ''Gamer'' is hardly an anomaly, and this is coming from someone who has no attachment to the label.

I feel like the gaming community used to be so positive and now I can't say anything without someone assuming something about me or watching people take sides over stupid things.

I don't know. I've been frequenting gaming forums for well over 10 years and found it every bit as unpleasant back then. For example: talking about how much I loved The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time would earn sneering dismissal from devoted Link to the Past fans; and you can bet that any fan of Final Fantasy VII will have had a ''Lemme guess, it was your first RPG'' accusation flung at them.

So yeah, I don't understand what some people are on about when they say Gamergate ''gave the community a bad name''. It's always been unpleasant, long before Gamer Gate, long before Anita Sarkeesian and long before Jack Thompson even.

 

[WarBossTilt]

there is a good chance this will be the last or one of the last vidoes of yours i watch

 

[Monsterfurby]

Thank you for calling "gamer identity" absurd - "gamer" is one of the most useless labels in existence and absolutely does not do justice to the diversity of 'those who play (video) games'.

The label may mean nothing to you, but who are you to decide that others shouldn't be allowed to define themselves as a ''gamer''? Lots of people refer to themselves based on things they're a fan of: metalheads, Little Monsters, geeks, bronies. ''Gamer'' is hardly an anomaly, and this is coming from someone who has no attachment to the label.

I'm overall opposed to self-defining by some broad label. That might of course be because I associate with practically every subculture and community from LARPers to professional marketers to being active in both a major conservative political party AND a union. I think that accepting these labels creates justification for the exact "us vs. them" thinking that is destroying proper debate in the games industry right now.

 

[Riot3000]

Thank you for calling "gamer identity" absurd - "gamer" is one of the most useless labels in existence and absolutely does not do justice to the diversity of 'those who play (video) games'.

The label may mean nothing to you, but who are you to decide that others shouldn't be allowed to define themselves as a ''gamer''? Lots of people refer to themselves based on things they're a fan of: metalheads, Little Monsters, geeks, bronies. ''Gamer'' is hardly an anomaly, and this is coming from someone who has no attachment to the label.

I feel like the gaming community used to be so positive and now I can't say anything without someone assuming something about me or watching people take sides over stupid things.

I don't know. I've been frequenting gaming forums for well over 10 years and found it every bit as unpleasant back then. For example: talking about how much I loved The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time would earn sneering dismissal from devoted Link to the Past fans; and you can bet that any fan of Final Fantasy VII will have had a ''Lemme guess, it was your first RPG'' accusation flung at them.

So yeah, I don't understand what some people are on about when they say Gamergate ''gave the community a bad name''. It's always been unpleasant, long before Gamer Gate, long before Anita Sarkeesian and long before Jack Thompson even.

Yeah the community has always had those annoying parts I would not call it all toxic but not sunshine and rainbows either.
At least it was about games and not this weird torrent we have now where we don't know where the gaming begins and the personal political and personal begins and vice versa.

 

[Teoes]

Typical. The banhammer is out.

I am cancelling my publisher's club subscription. It is obvious the Escapist is not interested in gamers.

Three warnings have been given in this thread. Two have been for obvious low contents posts and yours, presumably, for insulting a member of the Escapist staff. I'd love to hear how this equates to the Escapist not caring about gamers. Is it the Escapist's fault that you broke the rules?

 

[erbkaiser]

Three warnings have been given in this thread.

I count four at least, as of now. Plus I didn't insult Bob -- I pointed out that by focusing purely on one side, he was coming across as ignorant and foolish. I never actually claimed he was either of the two.

But I'm not going to discuss this (further) with moderators let alone other forum members, just pointing out my disappointment in the moderating staff in general out of frustration. This was supposed to be a safe haven.

Quitting this thread and I hope I can keep myself from viewing future content by Bob. It's obvious there's nothing in there for me.

 

[Teoes]

Three warnings have been given in this thread.

I count four at least, as of now.

And what was the fourth for? If the three I counted have been given for legitimate reasons and the fourth has also been given legitimately, I return to my original points: how does this equate to the Escapist not caring about gamers and is it their fault you were wrathed for breaking the rules?

edit: you edited your post while I was typing. The fourth, I think I found, was for insulting other users. So legitimate warning.

We're getting close to arguing over semantics but I'd say there's a fair difference between

"..pointed out that by focusing purely on one side, he was coming across as ignorant and foolish."

and what you actually said, which was

Bob, your blind SJW campaigning is making you look like an ignorant fool.

and I'd agree that difference is what made your post warning-worthy. I'm sure you're not the only one who's disappointed in others' conduct.

Plus, you know, you used "SJW" with a straight face.