The Big Picture: Remembering the Real Jack Thompson

[sageoftruth]

Yikes. Mr. Thompson was far far worse than I realized. And that's saying something considering how I already felt about him.

 

[SilverUchiha]

I get the message and the point of the video.
What I don't get is the recent resurgence of Jack Thompson at all. I'd like to think I'm fairly in the loop with gaming news and community opinions towards certain topics for the most part. But THIS video (and some of Bob's tweets on the subject) are the ONLY places I've seen ANY mention of Jack Thompson in... well... YEARS. So either I'm not in as much of the loop as I thought I was or people drawing comparisons TO Jack Thompson are in such a minority that unless you are in the trenches looking for the discussions, you'll never actually see said conversation/comparisons taking place.

And all this video does is perpetuate that discussion further by making it more public and more in our face. Sure, perhaps the history lesson is worthwhile. But for those of us who are either neutral or in agreement with Anita (I'm mostly just neutral, but agree that the hate towards her and the hostility in general is completely unnecessary), this episode doesn't really do anything other than just tell us the obvious and reaffirm that we're still the level headed ones of the gaming community. And since I doubt most of the "gamersgate" people Bob is arguing against with this video will watch this (or be persuaded to reason by it) it seems like an altogether pointless video by an large.

 

[Uriel_Hayabusa]

Did gaming media fuck up? Yeah, they threw gasoline onto the fire

Well, we can agree on that if nothing else.

However, the disparity in treatment towards Thompson and Sarkeesian is the root of them being advocates for different things in entirely different methods, not because one has a vagina and that gaming media is full of white knights who think they'll get laid if they're nice to somebody online.

Who's using strawmen now? It's true that I've joked that Jack Thompson was probably too ''privileged'' to be deemed worth defending in the eyes of some people but I never called any man supporting Anita a ''white knight'' (and I actually find the term ridiculous).

 

[deleted+75193]

DELETED

 

[Logience]

Bob, stop trying to make us like Sarkeesian. She's a political activism troll who just wants free money by pretending to hit on buzzwords.

Now stop trying to get involved with Gamergate. 4chan can fight their own wars. It's almost Guy Fawkes Day for crying out loud!

 

[Zontar]

How exactly are unfounded claims that games cause violence different from unfounded claims that games cause misogyny?

Well, for starters one actualy happened while the other one is a complete misrepresentation/outright lie.

They are both unfounded, though, with no evidence supporting either and plenty of evidence countering both.

The only real difference between the two is that Anita doesn't try to make her tone sound as crazy as Thomson (though her message is just as crazy) and that she's a woman. I'd almost go so far as to call the support of her by the gaming media a case of systemic sexism if it wasn't for how ideologically driving it was.

How can a position that never once existed be "unfounded"? Anita has never claimed that games cause violence or misogyny, and her craziest suggestion basically amounts to "let's try to move away from these tropes". It is exactly this overblown hyperbole you people keep feeding that makes you so easy to debunk.

She actually does stated that games cause, or at least promote, misogyny. If she message is anything other then that, well then it's bad writing on Macintosh's part. Words have meanings, using them in some ways has implications, and saying media effects the way we think, that those who don't think it does are more susceptible to suggestion from it, and that they are in fact misogynistic, then yes, she IS stating they make people misogynists. If it isn't her intent Mac needs to learn to write better.

 

[KazeAizen]

Them being dead is in reality not the important detail in the pictures.

As for Anita Being wrong on one example.

Anyone that actually uses a Thunderf00t video as "evidence" is probably not going to be taken seriously. When the man makes a video titled "Feminism poisons everything" there is no real logic there. No real discussion is wanting to be had. He's not the best person to go to. For any of this stuff. Like at all.

So you're saying you don't bother to judge a the validity of a point on the point itself but the person making it and if you agree with enough of their other points of view ?

Am I right in that ?

Or was that just an accidental ad hominem attack there sneaking out ?

His video title is so all consuming there really is no reason to check it out. There are no valid points to be had from someone who believes that because anyone in their right mind knows better.

 

[Jux]

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.

Eh, I actually came here to listen to him rant about this. Seriously hoping that he does a deconstruction of gamergate once this shitstorm is over and done with too.

Keep up the good work Bob.

 

[Silverspetz]

How exactly are unfounded claims that games cause violence different from unfounded claims that games cause misogyny?

Well, for starters one actualy happened while the other one is a complete misrepresentation/outright lie.

They are both unfounded, though, with no evidence supporting either and plenty of evidence countering both.

The only real difference between the two is that Anita doesn't try to make her tone sound as crazy as Thomson (though her message is just as crazy) and that she's a woman. I'd almost go so far as to call the support of her by the gaming media a case of systemic sexism if it wasn't for how ideologically driving it was.

How can a position that never once existed be "unfounded"? Anita has never claimed that games cause violence or misogyny, and her craziest suggestion basically amounts to "let's try to move away from these tropes". It is exactly this overblown hyperbole you people keep feeding that makes you so easy to debunk.

She actually does stated that games cause, or at least promote, misogyny. If she message is anything other then that, well then it's bad writing on Macintosh's part. Words have meanings, using them in some ways has implications, and saying media effects the way we think, that those who don't think it does are more susceptible to suggestion from it, and that they are in fact misogynistic, then yes, she IS stating they make people misogynists. If it isn't her intent Mac needs to learn to write better.

Yeah, no. Saying that media can affect the way we view things and saying that they outright CAUSE certain behaviors are as different as night and day. Anita is of the opinion that the current trends in video-games are a reflection of sexist trends within society, and that continuing these tropes further normalizes the harmful trends, not that they cause them. Comparing the two is far more ignorant, dishonest and/or sensationalist than anything she has ever said. It is a FACT that seeing something more often makes us less likely to think about it. It is FICTION that seeing something often makes us more likely to imitate it.

 

[Mikeyfell]

Very often, her most recent TVW video was full of statements like "When a woman... blah blah blah" which is putting a clear divide between how she feels about the exact same action directed at a man or a woman.

Great use of quotes and providing evidence for your claim. As Ghandi stated, "The British have imperialistic power of India... blah blah blah".

This is how this is going to go? are you serious?
You know what you just said is against the rules on the Escapist.

Anyways, the reason I didn't bother to finish the quote is because the rest of what she said wasn't relevant.

Because in the statement "When a woman does anything" implies a distinct difference than "When a man does anything"
When someone who crusades for gender equality uses language that implies that she does not care about gender equality she comes off as being full of crap.

When a woman drives a car, they could crash
When a man drives a car, they could crash
When someone drives a car, they could crash

See how 2 of those statements have a connotation that implies gender bias.

In her rant on Watch_Dogs and how it's so bad that there's a side mission where a woman gets beaten up, then immediately shows a man getting beaten up and says that's "acceptable" because of the way the violence was "framed"

She never states anything like that [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5i_RPr9DwMA&list=UU7Edgk9RxP7Fm7vjQ1d-cDA], nor mentions anything about "acceptability" (15:15 of the video). She only notes that men and women are framed in different ways during these scenarios, with women often being passive victims while men are shown to at the very least be able to defend themselves with a depiction of agency in the event.

She showed those scenarios in contrast to show that there was a contrast

You can't talk about sexism being bad if you believe the gender of the subject has an effect on the connotation of the exact same action.

...sexism is based on gender and how it affects us...

I'm not sure I see the relevance of that.
Yes, that is true

The point is that Anita Sarkeesian is pro sexism. She is anti-misogyny. Which is specific to woman.
The between-the-lines theme of all her videos is that men are inherently misogynistic, and that every shirt skirt and side boob was put there by a mustache twirling woman hater for the express purpose of keeping women down.

That's what her message comes off as filtered through her biases.
She looks at overused archetypes and sees "representation of all women" That's the foundation of the whole TVW series is.
She cherry picks her examples and uses tricks of language bordering on logical fallacies to subtly reinforce her viewpoint.
That's how she can take a concept as basic as "Sex sells" and warp it to make video games look sexist
Or such a basic story telling tool like "The bad guy does something bad, and warp that to make video games look sexist
and the worst part is that people fall for it.

when talking about GTA or other open world games she tries to say that the female NPC's are only there to give male gamers something pretty to shoot (Or some nonsense like that) Does it even register to you how fucked up a statement like that is?

No, it doesn't, because she never said that. I rewatched both of her most recent videos and there is nothing like that stated.

Again, great job providing your evidence.

I made a mistake it wasn't about GTA it was about Sleeping Dogs. In the first part of "women as background decorations" and it starts 17:47
"In many open world or sand box style games developers construct their virtual worlds in such a way as to enable players to directly abuse nonplayable sex objects"
So tell me again how she never said that?
Great job rewatching both of her most recent videos.


And there's more from that video 8:25 when she says "We need to consider the 'fact' that players are 'encouraged' to participate directly in the objectification of women"
or 10:00 when she says "These active viewing mechanics encourage players to collaborate with developers in sexual objectification... blah blah blah"

How 'bout 16:10
"When men are depicted using female npc's as tools or commodities" I'll continue with the quote but do you see how she said "men" and "female npc's"
She's putting arbitrary gender divides into her speech
She is the one doing the dehumanizing.

"Their actions are portrayed as part of what makes them powerful"
and that's bullshit for lots of reasons most obviously of which adding a mechanic that makes a male character reliant on a female character for health and stat buffs portrays them as weak not powerful.

You as a player would feel more powerful if you didn't need to rely on the buffs or health recovery to play the game.

Secondly she's personifying the male character based on an unprovable assumption based on her own gender bias.

Third she's not personifying the female character at all.
If she assumes the male gets a feeling of power from sleeping with the female, how can she not assume that the female gets something equal out of it?

She does a lot of talking down to whores in those videos. but women can like sex, if women didn't like sex there wouldn't be nearly as many humans. She says a lot of things that imply that female video game characters have no agency, and a lot of things that imply that male video game characters do have agency.

So, in the story where a stripper has sex with a guy who turned her on. Maybe the moral is that the stripper had sex with a guy because he turned her on.

See how all her bullshit falls apart when you treat each gender equally?


If this seems disjointed it's because I responded to this post out of order.
Her message isn't the problem. The problem is the hypocritical counter intuitive way she presents her points.

 

[Silverspetz]

How exactly are unfounded claims that games cause violence different from unfounded claims that games cause misogyny?

Well, for starters one actualy happened while the other one is a complete misrepresentation/outright lie.

They are both unfounded, though, with no evidence supporting either and plenty of evidence countering both.

The only real difference between the two is that Anita doesn't try to make her tone sound as crazy as Thomson (though her message is just as crazy) and that she's a woman. I'd almost go so far as to call the support of her by the gaming media a case of systemic sexism if it wasn't for how ideologically driving it was.

How can a position that never once existed be "unfounded"? Anita has never claimed that games cause violence or misogyny, and her craziest suggestion basically amounts to "let's try to move away from these tropes". It is exactly this overblown hyperbole you people keep feeding that makes you so easy to debunk.

She actually does stated that games cause, or at least promote, misogyny. If she message is anything other then that, well then it's bad writing on Macintosh's part. Words have meanings, using them in some ways has implications, and saying media effects the way we think, that those who don't think it does are more susceptible to suggestion from it, and that they are in fact misogynistic, then yes, she IS stating they make people misogynists. If it isn't her intent Mac needs to learn to write better.

Yeah, no. Saying that media can affect the way we view things and saying that they outright CAUSE certain behaviors are as different as night and day. Anita is of the opinion that the current trends in video-games are a reflection of sexist trends within society, and that continuing these tropes further normalizes the harmful trends, not that they cause them. Comparing the two is far more ignorant, dishonest and/or sensationalist than anything she has ever said. It is a FACT that seeing something more often makes us less likely to think about it. It is FICTION that seeing something often makes us more likely to imitate it.

There have been countless arguments saying how violence in video games causes people to be desensitized to it.Which is exactly the message Anita is trying to convey,that sexist tropes in games and women being treated as objects can lead to players not really giving it any thought.

How are the two arguments not different?

Because becoming less observant of certain bad trends and actively partaking in them are two widely different things. How is that I have to explain something THAT simple to you people.

 

[cthulhuspawn82]

Here is what I got from this video. Jack Thompson wasn't sincere in his beliefs and was just seeking political gain; making him a "fake" video game hating bogeyman. Anita, however, is sincere in her beliefs; an actual game hating bogeyman. She actually is what we all thought Jack Thompson was.