The Big Picture: Remembering the Real Jack Thompson

[Gorrath]

Dunno, Bob. I hadn't heard the name Jack Thompson in years until I watched this video.

I had. His name has popped up a lot in discussion threads where people oppose those who try to give a critical analysis to something they like.

Critical analysis on top of claiming they cause sexism, and can desensitize people to sexual violence.

Now, I hear people say that, but it's never been sourced. I've watched some of her videos and I've never heard her expressly say that. Not "causing" sexism anyway. More, I hear her saying they show a dependence on old tropes that have sexism built into them because they are outdated, more or less. And as for desensitizing people to sexual violence, that's a thing. Just as TV can desensitize people to other forms of violence, or how nobody's bothered by swearing anymore because it's constant in movies. It's a thing that can happen.

I have a problem with the claim that desensitizing people to sexual violence is a thing. No, no it is not. The idea that any media portrayal of violence can "desensitize" someone to an actual act is just not at all supported. I grew up watching endless gore-filled horror fests, 70's and 80's action flicks with massive body counts and exploitation films. None of that desensitized me to the very real violence of war. Some people may act on impulses or imitate what they see in media, but the claim that people in general can be desensitized to violence because of media is simply not a supported fact. If you do have some literature that says otherwise, I'd be happy to read it. The only way you can be desensitized to violence is to be surrounded by actual violence.

I have very good reasons to believe that if you watched every war movie ever made and then hopped a plane to Syria, all of that movie watching wouldn't mean anything as far as how sensitive you were to what's going on there. Obviously that's not going to happen, so I don't want to lay some impossible burden on you as some kind of truth, but I can at least say that either science (to my understanding) nor personal experience bear this claim out.

 

[iTomes]

I wouldnt necessarily say its a false equivalence. Jack Thompsons primary line of arguing was (from what I can tell, Im not from the US so I did not follow that particular debate too closely, though we had essentially the same debate but worse over here in Germany) "Videogames make you X (X in Thompsons case being "violent"), hence the logical conclusion would be censorship". If we were to assume that that statement was indeed true, then yes, he would be correct. However, the issue and the reason that Thompsons argument fell apart and as a result his case was that theres actually no evidence that videogames do in fact make you violent or anything else for that matter, in fact trends within society (ie crime rate etc) would show the opposite if anything, from what I can tell.

As a result of this it would seem to be perfectly valid to point back towards Thompson when somebody claims "Videogames make you X" and ask "what changed?". After all, having the same debate over and over again only changing the X seems silly and rather redundant. As a result a lot of people, myself inclued, want to either see what new evidence has been revealed to show that something has changed (so far neither Sarkeesian nor any of her supporters have provided any) or want the argument dismissed because, quite frankly, having the same discussion with the same type of idiots and the same stupid and thus far unproven or even factually wrong talking points again is something that can generally be considered undesirable.

In that case, the parallel is not between Thompson and Sarkeesian, who are arguing fundamentally different things. The only thing in common would be that some of the same research may be used as supportive evidence.

Both make the same fundamental statement, "playing games causes X (X being something negative)", Thompson only had the gall to go through with the logical conclusion of that line of thought which is to ban games in general or at least strongly restrict access to them. Sarkeesian on the other hand largely stops elaborating (or thinking) after making the initial statement. However, since the initial statement was ultimately where Thompsons line of arguing failed the comparison is most certainly valid.

 

[Bocaj2000]

\At the very LEAST, the GamerGate members who DON'T support trying to outright kill Anita just to shut her up should call out any of their members who tried to do so, if only in a "GUYS!! Stop making US look bad!" motive.

We do. The problem is that we get dismissed, censored, and fought against whenever we do. This is an obnoxiously slanderous Scotsman fallacy used by the other side to dismiss the rational majority at every turn.

Rational majority of what? I'll answer that. A leaderless mob of angry people who use a hashtag where the only requirement to be in this angry mob is to use the hashtag... That about sums up #GG's image problem. Please stop saying GamerGate has a rational majority because any rational person would realize why it is not rational to associate themselves with leaderless angry mob.

I don't go on Twitter. As far as I'm concerned, Twitter is more toxic than 4chan no matter which "angry mob" you belong to. Outside of that website you will find the fabled rational majority that you don't believe exists. You are so focused on specific people, you forget about the message as a whole. Anti-GG relies on nothing but ad hominem and Scotsman fallacy to discredit a movement about anti-censorship, journalistic ethics, and anti-corrupt independent gaming. This is ironic because all this yellow journalism just proves that GG was right.

We are NOT an "angry mob". You are simply one of the thousands tricked into believing such slander by the unethical journalism that GG is fighting so hard against.

NOTE: I am not saying that the Twitter harassment doesn't exist or intend to minimize the fact that this is an issue. I only intend to state that extremists do not represent an ideology. Should radical anti-sex feminists represent all feminists? No. Should Twitter doxxers represent GG? No. (And no, this is NOT false equivalence. This is as close as I can get.)

Captcha: Thank You

 

[cleric of the order]

One or two people on Twitter brought up Jack Thompson, nobody's bringing him up as much as Bob is exaggerating they are. What he is definitely doing though is using his program to knowingly/unknowingly inject new lifeblood into the "Anita is the new Jack Thompson" argument. As for your statement on a gamer identity, I agree.

Thompson gets brought up fairly often, here;

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.863280-What-is-the-difference-between-Anita-Sarkeesian-and-Jack-Thompson

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.863877-Gaming-vs-Jack-Thompson-An-Actual-Ethical-Failing-a-short-pseudo-essay

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.856153-Question-If-Anita-Sarkeesian-is-Right-why-is-Jack-Thompson-Wrong

...Then there's other stuff, after a brief google-forage;

http://www.donotlink.com/cdkm

http://www.zenofdesign.com/i-watch-anita-sarkeesian-so-you-dont-have-to-but-you-should/ (the second comment makes the parallel).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixhr8mjy1fs

That's kind of a small pool considering how Jack infamous the man was and that it was all directed towards her in general.
But I do fall into the camp that see Anita as a homage to that man.
She in general is sort of a hack and I've yet to see an reason to discuss her works at all and while I don't like thunderfoot he has a point in his videos about her.
Frankly I give it a couple years and her work will regarded as a different sort of Jack Thompson.
Personally what I'd have liked if bob was going to white knight the woman is a big picture about why she is doing things that are necessary or even well by academic standards, that could have been cool. I'd have been all over hearing about how she has redeeming values.
And it erks me that we will not have this discussion, there is moderation and give and take.
But to date, within my ideological approaches of Jungian psych (i'd never claim to be an amateur psychologist, physician heal they self), find a bit of fault with her work.
She made a number of assumptions that would put the information through the unconscious mind, fluster cluck city and a lot of them do not pan out through my approaches.

Even it's nice to see your doing well Silvanus, this has to be the 4th or 5th time we've both been roped into these sorts of discussions, I'd have to wish you the best of luck in whatever you're trying to discuss even if I often find myself on the opposed perspective.
have a nice day man

 

[bobdole1979]

except as people defending it have pointed out THERE IS NO WRONG WAY TO PLAY THE GAME. The game designers had to program the game so this was all possible. They had to program the strippers AI so they cower in fear instead of fighting back or running away. The only reason they would be designed in such a way is as she said as to give the players pleasure in killing them. The strippers will even stand still and not notice that you have killed the girl standing right next to them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPqTm3KgABM

Ok here we go.

While there is no inherently off limits way to play the game, the game itself doe have systems contained within in that encourage or discourage certain approaches.

The most evident one is losing score and as such rating if you decide to play the game a different way. It won't end your experience instantly but it will place sanctions. There sanctions instantly are less score, slightly later it might be higher alter from guards making the game harder.

In older some of the older Hitman games they tried a notoriety mechanic where by your performance or lack there of in previous missions would cause you to be more or less easily spotted thus actively punishing you for not playing the game a certain way.


The same argument you're applying to Hitman for allowing these behaviours can be levelled at The Sims


Now while the Sims doesn't even as actively punish people for creating a Sim just to be mean to. You can do it. The game does punish you in a way by slowing progress.

So is that problematic in the Sims that you can create people just to torture them ?
The only reason the pool was in the Sims was to drown Sims.
The only reason Knives exist is to stab people.
Can you see a problem yet with only allowing one interpretation to be allowed ?

As for the Stipper Standing still and not realising........ poor AI coding the AI coding most likely was done such that they only realise when they have line of sight of a body. Remember these are the equivalent of programmed robots trying to act human. Trying to claim it was malicious because it's not realistic enough discounts the far more simple explanation. The designer was lazy or didn't have the time / money to make the coding more complex.

As for the stripper. The other NPCS fight back, run away and notice you killing other people. That means they were coded NOT to do those things.

The sims does punish you for torturing others. Your mood and behavoir of your main character is greatly affected by acting mean to other characters. Not to mention in the Sims there is permantnet death.

But you are missing the greater point of this. The sims characters YOU make aren't NPCS. They are characters you have made and placed into the game world. In Hitman the strippers are there for one purpose. They can not be altered from that purpose.

I find it funny the only people i have ever met who play and enjoy hitman are people who support Gamergate. I've never met anyone in real life who has ever said they enjoy the hitman games.

 

[bobdole1979]

except as people defending it have pointed out THERE IS NO WRONG WAY TO PLAY THE GAME. The game designers had to program the game so this was all possible. They had to program the strippers AI so they cower in fear instead of fighting back or running away. The only reason they would be designed in such a way is as she said as to give the players pleasure in killing them. The strippers will even stand still and not notice that you have killed the girl standing right next to them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPqTm3KgABM

Ok here we go.

While there is no inherently off limits way to play the game, the game itself doe have systems contained within in that encourage or discourage certain approaches.

The most evident one is losing score and as such rating if you decide to play the game a different way. It won't end your experience instantly but it will place sanctions. There sanctions instantly are less score, slightly later it might be higher alter from guards making the game harder.

In older some of the older Hitman games they tried a notoriety mechanic where by your performance or lack there of in previous missions would cause you to be more or less easily spotted thus actively punishing you for not playing the game a certain way.


The same argument you're applying to Hitman for allowing these behaviours can be levelled at The Sims


Now while the Sims doesn't even as actively punish people for creating a Sim just to be mean to. You can do it. The game does punish you in a way by slowing progress.

So is that problematic in the Sims that you can create people just to torture them ?
The only reason the pool was in the Sims was to drown Sims.
The only reason Knives exist is to stab people.
Can you see a problem yet with only allowing one interpretation to be allowed ?

As for the Stipper Standing still and not realising........ poor AI coding the AI coding most likely was done such that they only realise when they have line of sight of a body. Remember these are the equivalent of programmed robots trying to act human. Trying to claim it was malicious because it's not realistic enough discounts the far more simple explanation. The designer was lazy or didn't have the time / money to make the coding more complex.

As for the stripper. The other NPCS fight back, run away and notice you killing other people. That means they were coded NOT to do those things.

The sims does punish you for torturing others. Your mood and behavoir of your main character is greatly affected by acting mean to other characters. Not to mention in the Sims there is permantnet death.

But you are missing the greater point of this. The sims characters YOU make aren't NPCS. They are characters you have made and placed into the game world. In Hitman the strippers are there for one purpose. They can not be altered from that purpose.

I find it funny the only people i have ever met who play and enjoy hitman are people who support Gamergate. I've never met anyone in real life who has ever said they enjoy the hitman games.

of course... if Gamergate really is about ethics in Journalism then Anita should never be brought up as she isn't a games journalist or a game developer. She has absolutely nothing to do with Gamergate if it is indeed about ethics in journalism

 

[GloatingSwine]

I find it funny the only people i have ever met who play and enjoy hitman are people who support Gamergate. I've never met anyone in real life who has ever said they enjoy the hitman games.

That's because the Hitman games are actually pretty obscure and don't have some of the comfort features that AAA gamers are used to.

Also because the last one came out eight years ago and even people who do like the Hitman games don't really like Absolution because it isn't a very good Hitman game.

 

[CaitSeith]

I wouldnt necessarily say its a false equivalence. Jack Thompsons primary line of arguing was (from what I can tell, Im not from the US so I did not follow that particular debate too closely, though we had essentially the same debate but worse over here in Germany) "Videogames make you X (X in Thompsons case being "violent"), hence the logical conclusion would be censorship". If we were to assume that that statement was indeed true, then yes, he would be correct. However, the issue and the reason that Thompsons argument fell apart and as a result his case was that theres actually no evidence that videogames do in fact make you violent or anything else for that matter, in fact trends within society (ie crime rate etc) would show the opposite if anything, from what I can tell.

As a result of this it would seem to be perfectly valid to point back towards Thompson when somebody claims "Videogames make you X" and ask "what changed?". After all, having the same debate over and over again only changing the X seems silly and rather redundant. As a result a lot of people, myself inclued, want to either see what new evidence has been revealed to show that something has changed (so far neither Sarkeesian nor any of her supporters have provided any) or want the argument dismissed because, quite frankly, having the same discussion with the same type of idiots and the same stupid and thus far unproven or even factually wrong talking points again is something that can generally be considered undesirable.

In that case, the parallel is not between Thompson and Sarkeesian, who are arguing fundamentally different things. The only thing in common would be that some of the same research may be used as supportive evidence.

Both make the same fundamental statement, "playing games causes X (X being something negative)", Thompson only had the gall to go through with the logical conclusion of that line of thought which is to ban games in general or at least strongly restrict access to them. Sarkeesian on the other hand largely stops elaborating (or thinking) after making the initial statement. However, since the initial statement was ultimately where Thompsons line of arguing failed the comparison is most certainly valid.

Then you got the fundamental statement wrong (I think). Her statement was "games contain X (negative thing), because X already exists in society, and playing it just reinforces it". A lot of people just dump the middle part, because they don't consider society that important in the videogame universe. Is her statement wrong? That's a topic for another thread. My point is, the statements are different because hers involve something different to "videogames are the cause of X".

 

[Silvanus]

Both make the same fundamental statement, "playing games causes X (X being something negative)", Thompson only had the gall to go through with the logical conclusion of that line of thought which is to ban games in general or at least strongly restrict access to them. Sarkeesian on the other hand largely stops elaborating (or thinking) after making the initial statement. However, since the initial statement was ultimately where Thompsons line of arguing failed the comparison is most certainly valid.

Who says that's the "logical conclusion"? People criticise media all the time without advocating its censorship.

Hey, you're criticising my comment, are you not? It's not the "logical conclusion" of it that you want my comment censored.

That's kind of a small pool considering how Jack infamous the man was and that it was all directed towards her in general.

Fair point. I must admit, he's not more commonly mentioned than a thousand other topics, and even then, it's all forum bluster.

Frankly I give it a couple years and her work will regarded as a different sort of Jack Thompson.

That's a fairly interesting question. I'm sure Thompson is remembered, in part, because of a host of other controversial issues he waded into (his virulent views on sexuality, for example, as the video mentioned), and his fall from grace after attaining a public platform. Sarkeesian is no lawyer, or politician. She just makes videos.

Even it's nice to see your doing well Silvanus, this has to be the 4th or 5th time we've both been roped into these sorts of discussions, I'd have to wish you the best of luck in whatever you're trying to discuss even if I often find myself on the opposed perspective.
have a nice day man

You too. We'll have periodic truces, I don't doubt.

 

[iTomes]

Both make the same fundamental statement, "playing games causes X (X being something negative)", Thompson only had the gall to go through with the logical conclusion of that line of thought which is to ban games in general or at least strongly restrict access to them. Sarkeesian on the other hand largely stops elaborating (or thinking) after making the initial statement. However, since the initial statement was ultimately where Thompsons line of arguing failed the comparison is most certainly valid.

Who says that's the "logical conclusion"? People criticise media all the time without advocating its censorship.

Hey, you're criticising my comment, are you not? It's not the "logical conclusion" of it that you want my comment censored.

Id argue that theres a difference between criticizing something and between claiming it is harmful (as in, causing something negative in people). Most western societies do in fact restrain access to substances that cause people to endure negative changes to their personality, ie drugs. If videogames were to do that as well then strongly restricting or removing access to them would be a logical conclusion.

 

[Jaytr13]

except as people defending it have pointed out THERE IS NO WRONG WAY TO PLAY THE GAME. The game designers had to program the game so this was all possible. They had to program the strippers AI so they cower in fear instead of fighting back or running away. The only reason they would be designed in such a way is as she said as to give the players pleasure in killing them. The strippers will even stand still and not notice that you have killed the girl standing right next to them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPqTm3KgABM

Ok here we go.

While there is no inherently off limits way to play the game, the game itself doe have systems contained within in that encourage or discourage certain approaches.

The most evident one is losing score and as such rating if you decide to play the game a different way. It won't end your experience instantly but it will place sanctions. There sanctions instantly are less score, slightly later it might be higher alter from guards making the game harder.

In older some of the older Hitman games they tried a notoriety mechanic where by your performance or lack there of in previous missions would cause you to be more or less easily spotted thus actively punishing you for not playing the game a certain way.


The same argument you're applying to Hitman for allowing these behaviours can be levelled at The Sims


Now while the Sims doesn't even as actively punish people for creating a Sim just to be mean to. You can do it. The game does punish you in a way by slowing progress.

So is that problematic in the Sims that you can create people just to torture them ?
The only reason the pool was in the Sims was to drown Sims.
The only reason Knives exist is to stab people.
Can you see a problem yet with only allowing one interpretation to be allowed ?

As for the Stripper Standing still and not realizing........ poor AI coding the AI coding most likely was done such that they only realise when they have line of sight of a body. Remember these are the equivalent of programmed robots trying to act human. Trying to claim it was malicious because it's not realistic enough discounts the far more simple explanation. The designer was lazy or didn't have the time / money to make the coding more complex.

Of course... if Gamergate really is about ethics in Journalism then Anita should never be brought up as she isn't a games journalist or a game developer. She has absolutely nothing to do with Gamergate if it is indeed about ethics in journalism

It IS about ethics in games journalism. Anita went on the Colbert report to talk with him about GamerGate. Did you forget that? because I didn't.

Also, GamerGate is everyone's issue. Just because she isn't a journalist doesn't mean she can't talk about it. She has a voice now, even though I hate that she does.

She's going to express her thoughts on it. Only thing i don't agree with is using her newly found voice to try and co-opt our medium as a fall back for a career opportunity. You realize she gets funding for the stuff she's done, right? Jonathan McIntosh writes for her series.

 

[iTomes]

I wouldnt necessarily say its a false equivalence. Jack Thompsons primary line of arguing was (from what I can tell, Im not from the US so I did not follow that particular debate too closely, though we had essentially the same debate but worse over here in Germany) "Videogames make you X (X in Thompsons case being "violent"), hence the logical conclusion would be censorship". If we were to assume that that statement was indeed true, then yes, he would be correct. However, the issue and the reason that Thompsons argument fell apart and as a result his case was that theres actually no evidence that videogames do in fact make you violent or anything else for that matter, in fact trends within society (ie crime rate etc) would show the opposite if anything, from what I can tell.

As a result of this it would seem to be perfectly valid to point back towards Thompson when somebody claims "Videogames make you X" and ask "what changed?". After all, having the same debate over and over again only changing the X seems silly and rather redundant. As a result a lot of people, myself inclued, want to either see what new evidence has been revealed to show that something has changed (so far neither Sarkeesian nor any of her supporters have provided any) or want the argument dismissed because, quite frankly, having the same discussion with the same type of idiots and the same stupid and thus far unproven or even factually wrong talking points again is something that can generally be considered undesirable.

In that case, the parallel is not between Thompson and Sarkeesian, who are arguing fundamentally different things. The only thing in common would be that some of the same research may be used as supportive evidence.

Both make the same fundamental statement, "playing games causes X (X being something negative)", Thompson only had the gall to go through with the logical conclusion of that line of thought which is to ban games in general or at least strongly restrict access to them. Sarkeesian on the other hand largely stops elaborating (or thinking) after making the initial statement. However, since the initial statement was ultimately where Thompsons line of arguing failed the comparison is most certainly valid.

Then you got the fundamental statement wrong (I think). Her statement was "games contain X (negative thing), because X already exists in society, and playing it just reinforces it". A lot of people just dump the middle part, because they don't consider society that important in the videogame universe. Is her statement wrong? That's a topic for another thread. My point is, the statements are different because hers involve something different to "videogames are the cause of X".

From the transcript of her "women as background decoration part I video:

"In other words, viewing media that frames women as objects or sexual playthings, profoundly impacts how real life women are perceived and treated in the world around us. And that is all without even taking into account how video games allow for the more participatory form of objectification that we?ve been discussing in this episode.

Compounding the problem is the widespread belief that, despite all the evidence, exposure to media has no real world impact. While it may be comforting to think we all have a personal force field protecting us from outside influences, this is simply not the case. Scholars sometimes refer to this type of denial as the ?third person effect?, which is the tendency for people to believe that they are personally immune to media?s effects even if others may be influenced or manipulated. Paradoxically and somewhat ironically, those who most strongly believe that media is just harmless entertainment are also the ones most likely to uncritically internalize harmful media messages.

In short, the more you think you cannot be affected, the more likely you are to be affected."

And no, she does not deliver anything that would qualify as proof of that statement.

 

[The Deadpool]

Have you already forgotten about that nugget of intelligence that went something to the tune of, "the more you think you aren't affected, the more you are"

I just wanted to say that there's lots of research into the third-person effect, and I'm actually surprised that more GG-supporters don't use it and first-person effect in their arguments against critiques that focus on social equality.

Then wouldn't that make Sarkeesian, a person who just supposedly played a hundred misogynistic games and thinks she's a feminist (ie unaffected) be affected more than ANYONE? She should be punching women as she walks down the street!

Okay, that's a bit flippant, but seriously... Whenever I see people screaming about the negative effects of games, or comics, or movies, or whatever the hot button topic of the decade is, it is NEVER THEM. Whoever is pointing it out is always somehow completely immune to its effects. It's just the rest of us poor, puny, brainless masses that just can't help ourselves...

 

[Lightknight]

So... I'm late to the party in this... but Bob is being a bit ridiculous in dismissing the credence of people who are associating Anita's claims that games make people more sexist (she says games maintain and perpetuate sexism in our society) and Jack Thompson's claim that games make people violent. That doesn't necessarily mean that she is hitting all of the Thompson's marks. She isn't directly calling for censorship, she isn't pursuing legal means to enforce her beliefs, and Thompson's claims that games lead to murder are certainly more harmful than making people stay sexist or become more sexist (reinforced sexism, her words).

Sorry Bob, but critiquing Anita's argument and using relevant examples as the contrast isn't bad. It isn't saying that women shouldn't be represented better or anything like that. It is perfectly fair for us to compare her argument's claims with someone that made other claims. Supporting legitimate discourse on a subject she raised is the most beneficial thing we can have to progress the issue of equality.

Because either games cause harm (she used the word pernicious), or they don't. The conclusion of saying that games are harmful is that they should be altered in some way.

That doesn't mean that she (Anita) is explicitly calling for censorship. She actively avoids that in her interviews and understandably so. But she's establishing the groundwork for that kind of action to be taken. People will take her unverified claims that sexist games cause harm (are pernicious, her words) and use that to stop said harm. To the unverified comment, at least Jack Thompson provided several falsified studies to back his argument up in his day. Anita just hasn't bothered to prove that games teaching me that kidnapping women is bad are somehow teaching me that women are stupid or incompetent. If anything, games taught me to respect women's right to agency and to do everything I can to assist the powerless against those who have taken their power. Not that women belong in the kitchen or some sort incredibly backwards belief.

So please, don't confuse legitimate criticism of her points with some kind of delusional criticism of feminism or mere name-summoning of Thompson in a Godwin-esque law fashion. Sometimes, whether you're willing to see it or not, a comparison is apt to use.

Seeing as this video was likely spawned to protect individuals like Anita (you specifically use pictures of her anyways in your video) from having their arguments discussed fairly on the merits of their points, if you are on friendly terms with her you should probably have disclosed that. Though the pictures below may just have been some kind of photo op from the same convention on the same day (her earrings are the same and you're dressed the same in both). So I'm not sure what would really qualify the need for disclosure of compromising bias. It's not like you haven't already made clear your position on this.

http://www.gamebits.net/wp-content/uploads/gallery/femfreq/feministfrequency5.jpg

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w3/randomfox12245/1387160436306_zps5d0b1d80.png

Just because you know her and I'm guessing that you like her (platonic respect for her as a person or whatever is all I'm implying, nothing more) doesn't discredit the validity of our argument that her saying sexist games are harmful is similar to Thompson's argument that violent games are harmful. It's just that she's in no way the sort of boogeyman that he absolutely was. She's just structuring the first step without taking the others that people like you may take. But pointing out similarities between their arguments isn't claiming that feminism has no validity and it also isn't necessarily saying that she's trying to censor things. It's merely calling her specific argument into question. That's supposed to be fair and reasonable to do, isn't it? That isn't supporting harassment or dismissing her other points about the medium. That's just having a discussion which is her entire reason for reporting on it. Being intolerant of that kind of intellectual discourse is just sad no matter who it comes from.

 

[The Choke]

Have you already forgotten about that nugget of intelligence that went something to the tune of, "the more you think you aren't affected, the more you are"

I just wanted to say that there's lots of research into the third-person effect, and I'm actually surprised that more GG-supporters don't use it and first-person effect in their arguments against critiques that focus on social equality.

Then wouldn't that make Sarkeesian, a person who just supposedly played a hundred misogynistic games and thinks she's a feminist (ie unaffected) be affected more than ANYONE? She should be punching women as she walks down the street!

There you go. That's what I was talking about. (Though, um, it sort of misses the effect of critical thought and its role in the hypothesis. But you're getting the hang of it!)

 

[The Deadpool]

In that case, the parallel is not between Thompson and Sarkeesian, who are arguing fundamentally different things. The only thing in common would be that some of the same research may be used as supportive evidence.

Fundamentally, they are arguing the same thing: That media influences our outlook in life as opposed to our outlook in life influencing media.

Jack picked Violence. Anita picked Sexism. Otherwise, their argument is essentially the same.

Actually, Jack is a bit stronger: He has far more confirmed examples of games glorify and incentivize violence in general. Most of her attempts have fallen short because she keeps comparing NPCs to PCs (surely I'm not the only one who laughs at mentioning Peach from Super Mario as someone without agency and forgetting the half a dozen Toads who also have zero agency and exist for no reason than to be saved).

BUT, as has been pointed out, the biggest comparison is the REACTION. Jack received the same negative reaction Anita got (harassment, death threats, games where you can kill him in horrific ways). What he didn't get was anyone defending him...

 

[CaitSeith]

snip

Both make the same fundamental statement, "playing games causes X (X being something negative)", Thompson only had the gall to go through with the logical conclusion of that line of thought which is to ban games in general or at least strongly restrict access to them. Sarkeesian on the other hand largely stops elaborating (or thinking) after making the initial statement. However, since the initial statement was ultimately where Thompsons line of arguing failed the comparison is most certainly valid.

Then you got the fundamental statement wrong (I think). Her statement was "games contain X (negative thing), because X already exists in society, and playing it just reinforces it". A lot of people just dump the middle part, because they don't consider society that important in the videogame universe. Is her statement wrong? That's a topic for another thread. My point is, the statements are different because hers involve something different to "videogames are the cause of X".

From the transcript of her "women as background decoration part I video:

"In other words, viewing media that frames women as objects or sexual playthings, profoundly impacts how real life women are perceived and treated in the world around us. And that is all without even taking into account how video games allow for the more participatory form of objectification that we?ve been discussing in this episode.

Compounding the problem is the widespread belief that, despite all the evidence, exposure to media has no real world impact. While it may be comforting to think we all have a personal force field protecting us from outside influences, this is simply not the case. Scholars sometimes refer to this type of denial as the ?third person effect?, which is the tendency for people to believe that they are personally immune to media?s effects even if others may be influenced or manipulated. Paradoxically and somewhat ironically, those who most strongly believe that media is just harmless entertainment are also the ones most likely to uncritically internalize harmful media messages.

In short, the more you think you cannot be affected, the more likely you are to be affected."

And no, she does not deliver anything that would qualify as proof of that statement.

From her video Damsel on distress Part 1:

The belief that women are somehow a ?naturally weaker gender? is a deeply ingrained socially constructed myth, which of course is completely false- but the notion is reinforced and perpetuated when women are continuously portrayed as frail, fragile, and vulnerable creatures.

Just to be clear, I am not saying that all games using the damsel in distress as a plot device are automatically sexist or have no value. But it?s undeniable that popular culture is a powerful influence in or lives and the Damsel in Distress trope as a recurring trend does help to normalize extremely toxic, patronizing and paternalistic attitudes about women.

She doesn't deliver proof of this statement either, but that's not the point we're arguing right now.

EDIT: Finally got the quotes right. Sorry.

 

[bobdole1979]

It IS about ethics in games journalism. Anita went on the Colbert report to talk with him about GamerGate. Did you forget that? because I didn't.

Also, GamerGate is everyone's issue. Just because she isn't a journalist doesn't mean she can't talk about it. She has a voice now, even though I hate that she does.

She's going to express her thoughts on it. Only thing i don't agree with is using her newly found voice to try and co-opt our medium as a fall back for a career opportunity. You realize she gets funding for the stuff she's done, right? Jonathan McIntosh writes for her series.

but she has absolutely nothing to do with game journalism. Yes she went on Colbert to talk about the harassment she received from gamergate people.


So how does she even factor into the Gamergate push for ethics in journalism if it is really about that?

 

[The Deadpool]

Have you already forgotten about that nugget of intelligence that went something to the tune of, "the more you think you aren't affected, the more you are"

I just wanted to say that there's lots of research into the third-person effect, and I'm actually surprised that more GG-supporters don't use it and first-person effect in their arguments against critiques that focus on social equality.

Then wouldn't that make Sarkeesian, a person who just supposedly played a hundred misogynistic games and thinks she's a feminist (ie unaffected) be affected more than ANYONE? She should be punching women as she walks down the street!

There you go. That's what I was talking about. (Though, um, it sort of misses the effect of critical thought and its role in the hypothesis. But you're getting the hang of it!)

Ahhh, but just because you THINK critical thought protects you, then it means it harms you MORE!

It's silly. Her very popularity disproves her point: If games made gamers misogynistic then there would be no gamers to agree with her. The fact that most of her stuff is met with approval from gamers proves that gamers aren't affected by games that badly...

 

[Lightknight]

In that case, the parallel is not between Thompson and Sarkeesian, who are arguing fundamentally different things. The only thing in common would be that some of the same research may be used as supportive evidence.

Fundamentally, they are arguing the same thing: That media influences our outlook in life as opposed to our outlook in life influencing media.

Jack picked Violence. Anita picked Sexism. Otherwise, their argument is essentially the same.

Exactly.

Both are the same argument. Certain games are harmful because X.

The only difference between the two is what they then do with that statement of belief which is irrelevant when the comparison has already been established. Jack pursued legal avenues to actually censor it while Anita is merely gaining social support on the issue and trying to raise awareness. While admittedly the result could be the same if she had her way (such as us no longer having games where we get to rescue females we love or that merely need our assistance), the likelihood of it is far less likely than had Thompson gotten a few judgements thrown his way. So the seriousness of threat is far less with Anita.

What's more is that our comparison with her argument that games make people sexist is just one of her arguments. Her call for more valid representations of females is an entirely separate argument that has nothing to do with Thompson. So rejecting her baseless argument in one area doesn't mean she's necessarily wrong all around. It certainly doesn't dismiss arguments that a female consumer should count for the same as a male consumer. That's something many if not most of us are fine with. Many of us think fair and equal treatment where one dollar counts for one dollar no matter the chromosome it comes from is the right thing to support.

But that this somehow means we can't call her argument wrong where it is? That's ridiculous. People shouldn't be afraid of open discussion and actual critiquing of points. That's how we learn and grow as a culture. Not pooling ignorance and closing our eyes.