The Big Picture: Remembering the Real Jack Thompson

[webkilla]

Ok... my thoughts on this vid:

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

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

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

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

 

[themilo504]

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

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

 

[Evonisia]

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

 

[Twinmill5000]

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

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

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

 

[Ukomba]

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

 

[Ukomba]

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

 

[MorganL4]

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

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

 

[Rowan93]

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

 

[elvor0]

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

How is it a stupid comparison?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Uriel_Hayabusa]

I always remember Jack Thompson as being an ineffectual laughing stock, even at the height of his 'power'.

Laughingstock or not, hack or not. The way the gaming media and gaming community responded to him very poorly. Thompson also received death threats and harassment from gamers and you'll be hard-pressed to find any articles on big game sites calling it out.

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/teen-charged-with-harassing-antigame-activist/1100-6141010/

Here's one of the few articles covering it, and even then it goes out of its way to make Thompson come off as the jerk rather than the harasser.

And here's a few of the comments:

----------------
''I PROBABLY would have done the same thing''

''That kid is ownage''

''I think that this was a stunt by jack to make us look bad.''

''sucks he didnt get to go through with the torture''

''Jack Thompson should be tried for treason and if convicted, executed.''

''This nimrod has a history of fabricating things in order to make himself more sympathetic.''

''If ony the kid hadn't been arrested and had carried out the deed.''
----------------

Then there's this tweet from Moviebob:

https://twitter.com/the_moviebob/status/527993572734537728

Yeesh.

Bottom line:

Both Jack Thompson and Anita Sarkeesian received death threats and harassment for criticizing gaming, but when Thompson was the target, the gaming media very clearly sided with the harassers

That's an ugly little truth that Bob and many others like him are still unwilling to face, and it's an ugly little truth that those GamerGate bastards can still cling to so long as it's still whitewashed as some sort of ''justifiable act of war'' or whatever self-serving lie is being told.

 

[Trishbot]

I don't always agree with Bob, but he makes a valid point.

I've frequently been called out on invoking the spirit of Jack Thompson just by nature of defending the right to criticize (not censor) gaming, because I believe games are art and thus open to criticism.

It got annoying very fast, but it was an easy and thoughtless argument to bring up. "You're out to destroy gaming like Jack Thompson!"

 

[Slayer4472]

"Jack Thompson is irrelevant"
>Spends 5 minute video talking about him

He's obviously still relevant if we're still talking about him and his legacy.

 

[WindKnight]

Haven't people gotten over him? I've barely heard about him during the years since he was debarred, except being brought up a couple of times recently with people turning over the harassment he allegedly caught back in the day and whether that was right or justified, given that harassment is a hot button issue in gaming right now. This episode felt like it was desperately skating around the elephant in the room, Gamergate, without having the confidence to sink it's teeth in until the veiled reference at the end.

The man himself is pretty irrelevant, but he's frequently used as a boogieman comparison to paint Sarkeesian etc as an equal threat out to ban/destroy/castrate games/gamers.

As a side note, a lot of the GG 'champions' are right wing opportunists with no interest in gaming (and in some cases have been hostile towards gamers/games companies), who've latched onto the cause to happily use others for their own gain...

 

[Uriel_Hayabusa]

Maybe because the differences between the two, plus the lack of social media at the time to enable the communication that this was happening

Please illustrate those differences that made Thompson an acceptable target for death threats and harassment in your (and Bob's) opinion. And the lack of social media is completely irrelevant.

 

[RJ Dalton]

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. He's brought up in a context irrelevant to what he was actually doing. It does happen.
And I'm with Bob, it's just as nuts as the shit Jack Thompson was actually doing. And, yeah, I think Thompson should be dismissed at this point because he lost (at everything he was trying to do) and has been disbarred. He, and people with his agenda, no longer matter.

 

[PainInTheAssInternet]

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

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

And why is that I wonder?

Thompson portrayed games and those who played them as responsible for all of society's ills. He was also ridiculously sue-happy and desired to alienate everyone around him, solid in his conviction that he was on a quest from God with the intent on outright shutting down an entire medium. He was a hateful, spiteful man. I don't agree with the hate he got, though.

Sarkeesian criticizes them and is immersing herself in the culture in the process. She attempted to have a dialogue on the subject, similar to the dialogue she had on other subjects. The basis of her arguments is that harmful base assumptions about society maintains itself through a feedback loop of people forging media that contain these widely accepted tropes, which reinforces what the society already believes. She has the desire to see greater depth in video game narratives, though it is from her particular point of view which many (myself included) don't agree on the finer details. She received a truly inordinate amount of hatred that has spent every day since attempting to justify itself, one way being to say she's indistinguishable from Thompson and only protected because she's a SJW female.

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/teen-charged-with-harassing-antigame-activist/1100-6141010/ < Dec 9, 2005
Someone was actually charged over creating a game with the goal of harming him. Benjamin Daniel has not.

 

[Slayer4472]

That's an ugly little truth that Bob and many others like him are still unwilling to face, and it's an ugly little truth that those GamerGate bastards can still cling to so long as it's still whitewashed as some sort of ''justifiable act of war'' or whatever self-serving lie is being told.

Maybe because the differences between the two, plus the lack of social media at the time to enable the communication that this was happening, were already addressed in another thread you made about this and ignored any responses because you already made your mind up?

Premise A: If it was acceptable to send death threats to Thompson, then it is acceptable to send death threats to Sarkeesian.
Premise B: It is not acceptable to send death threats to Sarkeesian.
Therefor, it was not acceptable to send death threats to Thompson.

If you believe that the death threats against Thompson were in any way different than the ones being sent to Sarkeesian, then you need to get your pants off your head. Threatening to murder someone is NOT acceptable under ANY circumstances.