The Big Picture: Remembering the Real Jack Thompson

[Dr. Crawver]

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 different mindsets. They're just blaming inanimate objects on different things.

Because find me at any point where Anita ever said that they cause sexism. I've seen plenty of times when she's said that just being a gamer doesn't mean your sexist.

That's the reason why it's a silly comparison, because one said those things, and the other has been constantly assumed to have said those things.

 

[Dr. Crawver]

Does anyone here actually take Bob seriously when it comes to video games? Maybe he says some few things that you agree with, but does anyone actually respect his opinion on this subject?

I don't. Frankly, he should stick to what he's good at, at least with this show.

Eh, sometimes he says something I agree with, sometimes he doesn't. I respect his opinion enough to listen to it and judge it on its' own merits, but I don't go out seeking it.

So in that case he's not overly important to me in the dialogue (Jimothy holds that place for me), but I wouldn't ever dismiss what he says, or what anyone else says, simply because they've said it.

 

[SnowWookie]

You know what
here
I feel this was a much better and hell much more interesting attempt to analyze things.
And better yet I feel pretty fucking hopeful about the game industry then when I've had the misfortune to watch Anita's regurgitation.

This - so many times this. KiteTales' vid is a great counterpoint to Anita's onesided BS.

Please Moviebob: Get your facts straight

So I'm less than 90 seconds in and she's already made two completely spurious points.

at 1:00 Sarkeesian believes Damsel In Distress "should be completely retired from use". Nope. Failure to understand the difference between saying "this trope is incredibly prevalent" and "this trope should never be used again".

And then a few seconds later, she completely misunderstands the nature of the trope she's discussing.
"A single act of misfortune upon a female character somehow ... invalidates any opportunity to be considered a hero".
Except that the definition of the Damsel in Distress trope is exactly that. If Mario turned up to rescue the princess, and found she'd already defeated Bowser, that would be a subversion of the trope. (See the first Monkey Island for a great example of a female character that didn't need rescuing). But he doesn't. The princess has no agency and never does anything other than get captured. She may as well be her crown.

She then goes on about how victimhood doesn't negate positive traits, etc. Except we don't see those traits. The princess gets captured and Mario saves her. That is the extent of her characterisation. There's nothing about her stoic resistance to Bowser.

So 2 minutes in, and this video is already a grasping attempt to put her reading of the characters onto a blank slate. I'm not botheresd watching the rest.

 

[bobdole1979]

Please read my response to Uriel. Whereas he's willfully being intellectually dishonest,

You're the one being dishonest here from what I can tell. If you take issue with my points and/or conduct then adress me directly (and it's be nice if you'd quote me in the normal way so that I'd be noticed, just saying). Trying to drag others into it is not classy.

sigh.... there is no right or wrong answer when it comes to a humanities view of a culture.

This isn't a scientific study its a humanities project learn the difference internet.

 

[maximara]

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 problem is some people still remember Patricia Pulling who was part or the whole D&D causes suicide and is part of Satanic cult insanity of the 1980s. Unlike Jack Thompson people took Pulling seriously with cops and public officials actually listening to her.

Saying Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011) has won the battle because the Supreme Court ruled games are protected under the 1st amendment is IMHO pathetical naive.

2013 saw at least two attempt to ban video games in some way:

Linda Stender a New Jersey assemblywoman in 2013 tried to get ban violent video games in public

Jim Matheson of Utah introduced a bill (Video Games Ratings Enforcement Act, H.R. 287) very similar to the one the US Supreme Court struck down in 2011

Jack Thompson himself may be out of the picture but his views are still out there and there are people who don't give a fig WHAT the US Supreme Court ruled and might find enough people to believe them and pass some insane law.

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" - supposedly Thomas Jefferson

 

[Jumplion]

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".

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.

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...

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.

 

[bobdole1979]

Anita hasn't hit a damn single one of the problems on the head yet. Not really. She came close one but in reality she's off chasing her boogeymen and keeps getting oh so close to hitting an actual problem and then ends up saying something dumb like the Hitman advertising posters were trying to sexualise dead women (well done Anita for suggesting the posters were trying to promote necrophilia so close to managing a valid no stupid point and then you turn right off at an angle and missed)

.....wtf??? you are actually trying to claim that this ad right here wasn't mean to be sexulalized? A woman naked in a bath tub isn't sexual? remove the toaster and guess what its a Maxim cover photo.

but lets assume you are right saying 1 thing that is wrong doesn't invalidate anything else she has said.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

Bravo Mr. Chipman. I fully support all you said in this episode. Though I get the feeling that now you've kicked the hornet's nest, we're gonna have a big backlash. Scratch that, not kicked the hornet's nest. More like ripped it into pieces, poured sulphuric acid over the pieces and then took a piss on it.

Spoiler: In case you didn't realize it yet

 

[Gorrath]

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.

 

[itsmeyouidiot]

You know what
here
I feel this was a much better and hell much more interesting attempt to analyze things.
And better yet I feel pretty fucking hopeful about the game industry then when I've had the misfortune to watch Anita's regurgitation.

This - so many times this. KiteTales' vid is a great counterpoint to Anita's onesided BS.

Please Moviebob: Get your facts straight

So I'm less than 90 seconds in and she's already made two completely spurious points.

at 1:00 Sarkeesian believes Damsel In Distress "should be completely retired from use". Nope. Failure to understand the difference between saying "this trope is incredibly prevalent" and "this trope should never be used again".

And then a few seconds later, she completely misunderstands the nature of the trope she's discussing.
"A single act of misfortune upon a female character somehow ... invalidates any opportunity to be considered a hero".
Except that the definition of the Damsel in Distress trope is exactly that. If Mario turned up to rescue the princess, and found she'd already defeated Bowser, that would be a subversion of the trope. (See the first Monkey Island for a great example of a female character that didn't need rescuing). But he doesn't. The princess has no agency and never does anything other than get captured. She may as well be her crown.

She then goes on about how victimhood doesn't negate positive traits, etc. Except we don't see those traits. The princess gets captured and Mario saves her. That is the extent of her characterisation. There's nothing about her stoic resistance to Bowser.

So 2 minutes in, and this video is already a grasping attempt to put her reading of the characters onto a blank slate. I'm not botheresd watching the rest.

YES, THIS. I'm so tired of people linking to KiteTails and her grasping at straws. I'm willing to guess that the main reason she's so popular is because the anti-Anita crowd thinks that having a woman agree with their opinion on gender politics somehow validates them.

 

[Gorrath]

Anita hasn't hit a damn single one of the problems on the head yet. Not really. She came close one but in reality she's off chasing her boogeymen and keeps getting oh so close to hitting an actual problem and then ends up saying something dumb like the Hitman advertising posters were trying to sexualise dead women (well done Anita for suggesting the posters were trying to promote necrophilia so close to managing a valid no stupid point and then you turn right off at an angle and missed)

.....wtf??? you are actually trying to claim that this ad right here wasn't mean to be sexulalized? A woman naked in a bath tub isn't sexual?

Spoiler

but lets assume you are right saying 1 thing that is wrong doesn't invalidate anything else she has said.

A naked woman in a bathtub isn't necessarily sexualized; it depends on the context. If I were to tell you that I made a painting of a bunny with her offspring out in a lush green field on a bright sunny day, you might think this image is "cute." If I then show you the image and it turns out I missed explaining a few details, such as the fact that the rabbits are all dead from an exploded bomb which has scattered their bodies around, I don't imagine your reaction would still be "cute!" So no, a woman in a bathtub does not automatically denote sexualization.

As for the specific image you posted, some might find it sexual in nature. Out of curiosity, if the woman in the image were obese, would you still consider it sexualized? Art's funny that way; we imprint our own thoughts, feelings and bias on it. I see nothing sexual about that image, even if it is centered on a lovely, naked woman. For me, the fact that she's dead takes any semblance of sexuality out of it. For others, they might find the image very sexual. Neither me nor that hypothetical person are "right" though.

 

[Mythmaker]

Does anyone here actually take Bob seriously when it comes to video games? Maybe he says some few things that you agree with, but does anyone actually respect his opinion on this subject?

I don't. Frankly, he should stick to what he's good at, at least with this show.

Eh, sometimes he says something I agree with, sometimes he doesn't. I respect his opinion enough to listen to it and judge it on its' own merits, but I don't go out seeking it.

So in that case he's not overly important to me in the dialogue (Jimothy holds that place for me), but I wouldn't ever dismiss what he says, or what anyone else says, simply because they've said it.

I suppose it could be that I just burnt myself out with his Game Overthinker show. At first it was awkward and unfocused, but I thought it would smooth out overtime. After a while, though, the spite and venom he was piling towards certain segments of the gaming population, coupled with his condescending and shallow analysis of issues he felt compelled to speak about, really soured me on his view of gaming. He came off as very closed-minded, and a lot of the points he was making (and still is making) were much better done by other people.

Honestly, I see him as someone who is fairly uninformed and out-of-touch with the issues he's speaking on.

 

[Nomanslander]

Anita and Jack may be different in terms of goals and sucess,Thompson was a nut case while Anita knew what she was doing and got big because of it.Their views on gaming however are two sides of the same coin,one believes video games cause violence and violent tendencies in people while the other believes they contain sexist elements and can strengthen sexist ideas by playing them.

Both are from two contrasting yet similar mindsets imo.

That and one is a harmless critic that's only stressing an observation to people on youtube, and the other was a power hungry lawyer that tried to take gaming in its entirety to court.

:/