The Big Picture: Remembering the Real Jack Thompson
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'm a feminist who has been gaming since my Atari 2600 and Commodore 64 days. It's far more my medium than yours. Though granted, back then I wouldn't have identified as a feminist because I was a young, immature nerd who didn't have the slightest idea what feminism was. (A-hem) Not sure how inthe world you think you can claim a media that makes more money than movies and music together.Jaytr13 said:
Of course people are more than welcome to listen to anyone they want and voice opinions wherever they want (within legality) If you don't like current gaming journalism, go start your own site. If you don't like critical analysis of games, don't read it. No one is forcing you to go to sites and interact with stories you don't like. You are more than welcome to your opinions. But, to paraphrase President Humphry, your right to voice your opinion does not mean you have the right to be taken seriously. Moronic Strawman that feminist analysis is mutually exclusive to being a gamer is a laughingstock. People can say it all they want, but that won't stop the contempt or the eventual annoyance at someone yelling it every five minutes .
Thank you! I hate TF, his grasp of feminism is so very little it seems non existent, but you know, he's a chemist, so obviously he's as much an authority on modern feminism and religion as anyone else.KazeAizen said:
I watched his videos and subscribed to his channel before even his first videos on the subject. Despite never really questioning him, I had something in my gut saying "He's really not making too compelling of points and getting to smug for really tiny victories". Once I finally got around to watching criticism Anita's videos after watching his and other "critics", I found a person who I generally feel was a mixed bag out of Anita and a hypocrite and fool out of Phil Mason[footnote] He hates when you use his actual name.[/footnote]. Some of her examples work, some don't, yet I still generally agree with her conclusions, certain tropes are just plain bad. One I know I hate is the magic love potion, if it doesn't have a consequence. Think about it, you basically completely disregard someone else's autonomy to satisfy your own romantic/sexual intrigue in them. I just find that sick! Thankfully, that trope has been rarely used, and when used, has consequences, but many of Anita's can be seen as just as bad, see damsels in distress as a fairly close one.
And I'm actually still a critic of Anita, unfortunately, I hate the bad criticism she gets even more, and I feel a lot of these "white knights" are much the same. I find it comparable to just not caring what someone has to say or having a discussion, but just wanting to "win". This kind of thinking leads to just making logical fallacy after logical fallacy. I will now show a clip kind of illustrating what the problems seem to be. You can stop anytime.
Seriously, I would advise checking out tooltime9901 on his analysis of both Anita and her "critics". Tropes VS AS are for the critics, FF series is to analyze Anita Also, the channel I used some really good content on the subject too. I shall link this and this . Seriously, I'm not one to say "this channel is amazing!", but I find it really enjoyable and agreeable, even if I find the user to be a bit more jerkish in his comment section.
Bob, you make the same mistake as every US based person on the internet: You think there is no other country in the world as the USA.
Well, i'm from germany and i'm in my mid 30's.
I play video games since i'm 9 years old and i heard the name Jack Thomson for the first time , i believe 5-7 years ago.
I did not need JT to feel like a gamer, nor did other people outside of the USA need him to form a gamer culture.
We "build" our gamer culture by simply playing games, meet with others who played games and discussed games.
That said, if you want to talk about "the sarkeesian", please mention it in the title. So i have the chance to skip this video. I avoid as much of the gamergate crap as possible.
Well, i'm from germany and i'm in my mid 30's.
I play video games since i'm 9 years old and i heard the name Jack Thomson for the first time , i believe 5-7 years ago.
I did not need JT to feel like a gamer, nor did other people outside of the USA need him to form a gamer culture.
We "build" our gamer culture by simply playing games, meet with others who played games and discussed games.
That said, if you want to talk about "the sarkeesian", please mention it in the title. So i have the chance to skip this video. I avoid as much of the gamergate crap as possible.
It's not double standard. They are different scenarios. But you know what? I bet in 4 years few people from the general public will remember that Sarkeesian's death treats were such a big deal (the same way Thompson's and Atkinson's are remembered right now)Magmarock said:
Ya know... I was going to go into a long-winded post attempting to rationally discuss my grievances with Miss Sarkeesian 'criticism' and drawing redundant attention to Bob's startling continued dalliance with hypocrisy...but then I read all of the comments. So, instead, I'll go into a long-winded griping/concern trollish rant.
It's the same people.
It's the same people, over and over and over and over again, repeating the same points, on either side of the 'debate.'
The same self-important snark.
The same righteous indignation.
The same smarmy, thinly veiled insults. (You know who you are.)
The same smarmy, direct insults. (The mods know who you are.)
The usual suspects. Each and every thread. And I guess I'd be considered one of them by this point.
Can I make a sincere appeal here?
Can we all just... I don't know... not be complete and utter jackasses to one another for one day? Just one?
How about an entire day on these forums with vaguely polite or light-hearted discussion? Or, failing that, perhaps dialogue that doesn't contain so much in the way of petty ad hominem bullshit?
Please?
You all do seem like nice enough people. Well, most of you, with few glaring exceptions that fill me with a strong sense of pity, more so than anything resembling anger or irritation. I'm sure you've all got the capability to be level-headed and decent to one another.
This includes you, Bob.
Maybe swallow the hate for a bit, take a step back, and look at yourself? Maybe? Please? I'd like to be able to watch your videos again, as the movie reviews and comic stuff was quite interesting/entertaining, for the most part, without constantly having your ridiculous tweets cropping up in the back of my mind.
Rant over.
TL;DR: Lost is weary of impotent forum warriorizening and would like to hug many of you.
It's the same people.
It's the same people, over and over and over and over again, repeating the same points, on either side of the 'debate.'
The same self-important snark.
The same righteous indignation.
The same smarmy, thinly veiled insults. (You know who you are.)
The same smarmy, direct insults. (The mods know who you are.)
The usual suspects. Each and every thread. And I guess I'd be considered one of them by this point.
Can I make a sincere appeal here?
Can we all just... I don't know... not be complete and utter jackasses to one another for one day? Just one?
How about an entire day on these forums with vaguely polite or light-hearted discussion? Or, failing that, perhaps dialogue that doesn't contain so much in the way of petty ad hominem bullshit?
Please?
You all do seem like nice enough people. Well, most of you, with few glaring exceptions that fill me with a strong sense of pity, more so than anything resembling anger or irritation. I'm sure you've all got the capability to be level-headed and decent to one another.
This includes you, Bob.
Maybe swallow the hate for a bit, take a step back, and look at yourself? Maybe? Please? I'd like to be able to watch your videos again, as the movie reviews and comic stuff was quite interesting/entertaining, for the most part, without constantly having your ridiculous tweets cropping up in the back of my mind.
Rant over.
TL;DR: Lost is weary of impotent forum warriorizening and would like to hug many of you.
Nice logical fallacy yourself. "I played video games before you were born, therefore I own them more than you. You're an immature nerd, and you can't claim this medium but I can." No evidence, nothing to back up your assertions, using your own subjective life experiences as ammo for your arguments..you don't understand the first thing about strawman and logical fallacies, lol.Belaam said:
Not how games journalism works. For someone who says you own the medium more than I do you sure are quick to dismiss games journalism issues. When you see something wrong, we have this thing called "vote with your wallet and call people out on their bullshit". Because we have the right to do so as game consumers.Belaam said:
That's what GG was SUPPOSED to be about, ethics in games journalism before everyone started getting their political agendas involved.
Sure. Just like you for example, I don't have to take everything seriously and I don't have to take Ms. Sarkeesian's "analysis" of games seriously either. I can call BS when I see it.Belaam said:
Sounds like a fair trade-off to me, President Humphry was a fair guy, he'd make a good games journalist, we need more of those.
So if it isn't why are feminists so afraid of analysis of themselves then? it really just sounds like a double standard to me. So you're saying, people like thunderf00t can't analyze Anita and are just "idiots" when he makes counter-points against her, but Anita is allowed to analyze something you like because you like it and because she's talking about something you like, that makes it A OK. I think I got the gist of it now.Belaam said:
Serious question: Do you genuinely believe that your inverted commas "side" argues better than the GG people?delroland said:
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.
Arguing corruption in journalism has fallen to the fucking wayside as bigots feud amongst themselves and use GamerGate as a tag either pro or con to push whatever agenda they may have had.
GamerGate is infested with people who want to have an entirely different argument and that's what it's been about since damn near the entire things inception.
And I know it's damn near pointless pointing this out because the odds of anyone quoted listening is pretty fucking miniscule but I had hoped we were better than this.
OT: Can't speak for all gamers, but Bob's behaviour during this whole debacle has not endeared me towards him so I didn't even watch the video. Getting a little tired of being insulted for my hobby.
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.CaptainMarvelous said:
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.
That was not your initial statement. But lets suppose I did misquote you, which I admit might be probable when looking at the mineutia of what you said. It's still a wrong statement that does not understand the concept of sexism. If we take the contrast of your argument; "If you believe gender effects how people, or events are percieved, then you can't claim sexism is bad." it falls completely flat and doesn't make sense due to what sexism actually is.Mikeyfell said:
I have not seen a single example of this. Maybe her parable of Miyamoto and the "Dinosaur Planet" game, but even then that's more rhetoric than actively attacking anyone. Simply criticizing an aspect of a game does not mean she's "attacking" individual developers. And, if anything, she actively states against the idea that the products are "inherently misogynistic" like how she says (paraphrasing) "It would be ridiculous to suggest that women should never be harmed in our media," or in the Damsel video how "That's not to say that women should never need help or rely upon other." She is not against the use of these tropes, or portraying women in these certain scenarios, but the extreme prevalence of these types of representations is problematic.
And developers are adults. They can take criticism [https://twitter.com/nullspeak/status/504045057507217408].
Are male NPCs often portrayed in sexually provacative ways? Are male NPCs portrayed exactly the same way as female NPCs and in as much prevalence? You're trying to say that men and women are portrayed equally in every way, when that is ostensibly not the case.
And even if you ignored that, it's a moot point. She's not talking about male representation. She doesn't have to. She's talking about specifically female representation in games. They are two very similar, but very different topics under a whole branch of gender topics.
Being "active aggressors" doesn't mean they "had it coming", which is a complete projection on your part. All she stated was that in these events, men are generally portrayed to have more agency or a more active role in the event. The prevalence of men constantly being portrayed as "aggressive" and using violence as a solution is a whole 'nuther issue entirely, and one that I feel she semi-touches upon in the example we are talking about.
Has anyone been prevented at releasing any one of the games she has cited as having problematic representations of women? Has any other developer been prevented from releasing games with portrayals of women however they see fit since? For that matter, has Roger Ebert's criticisms of films and their portrayals of violence, women, minorities, etc... prevented anybody from making whatever movie they desired?
Also, it's quite possible to be uncreative and sexist at the same time. Because, like I and Sarkeesian and so many others state, these tropes are used out of laziness.
You are being disengenuous.
You originally stated "she looks at these archetypes and sees 'representations of all women'". I pointed out this was wrong. Her entire series is about women, the general concept (like how I can use "you" as a general term when regarding an audience) and how many of them are represented within these certain tropes.
You reduced storytelling in games to "The bad guy does something bad..." and then bemoaned how others, as you perceive it, look "too deeply" so to say to find things they believe are sexist. This viewpoint does not allow us to look critically into our media.
Um, yes it does? Your original claim was Sarkeesian stated that "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)" and I stated that, no, she did not say anything remotely close to that. You then proceeded to take direct quotes from her, which were nothing that extreme nor did they represent what your original argument was about.
Your decision to apply "arbitrary-ness" is itself arbitrary. There is plenty logical reason to refer to NPCs as male and female, mainly in how they are portrayed differently in games.
She's not being sexist. Especially considering that she considers the song to be equally creepy when sung by either gender, just with different connotations. Because there are different contexts and connotations to people when we look at their gender, ethnicity, orientation, etc... When a man is harsh and commanding, he's "the boss". When a woman does so, she's "bossy" or "bitchy". When a white NFL player is aggressive in celebration, he's "pumped". When a black NFL player is aggressive in celebration, he's a "thug" [http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24417234].
Regardless of all that, she does not express "bigotry" towards men in that clip, she merely notes that, when looked at a certain way, the song can be expressive of a possesive relationship mentality that is a whole 'nuther topic all together.
As a Brit, the hell happened America? There is bile against video games here, but no way near enough to launch a political career out of.
LostGryphon said:
Not trying to be snide taking a step back and knowing where you are coming. Every time I see a certain topic and gage how the thread will play out and who will say what, who will piggy back on which comments, which cliques will form and almost easily guess how sentiment and discussion will devolve into. Even I fell into this crap myself early on sometimes you just have one of those days. I mean some people in other topics with less hostility are usually fine others I will admit I could care less about their approval or how they wish to see me and others but so is life. Then again your post allowed me to have some context to post some ease the tension songs so thanks for that.
Personally, I think that the real argument here should be about is knowing the difference between "free speech" and "consequence-free speech", as shown on this clip from The Daily Show:
Basically, the point of the clip is that, while you CAN say anything you want, and not get censored by the government because your view conflict with the governments. HOWEVER, that doesn't give people the ability to say anything they want without being mocked and scorned by society at large. Jack Thompson's campaign infringed on FREE SPEECH, because he wanted all violent games banned, and tried to claim that video game violence didn't just "desensitize" people to violence (i.e. more apathetic to violence around them), but also tried to construe the interactive nature of video games as either making people more liable to act out violent impulses, or to give those with violent impulses more creative ways to carry out those impulses.
Anita, on the other hand, is challenging the CONSEQUENCE-FREE SPEECH that leaves the majority of video games using tropes that, when used improperly (as some companies and games still frequently do) marginalize women compared to men, and also how some gamers think even this criticism is equivalent to infringing on FREE SPEECH. She's not asking the government to ban sexist video games for the good of society. She's just trying to get more social awareness of potentially sexist issues in gaming. And if that society thinks that games, game companies, or gamers that enforce that sexism should be called out for it: well, they're not infringing on your FREE SPEECH, they're making sure it isn't CONSEQUENCE-FREE SPEECH where anybody say whatever they want without the judgement of their peers.
Oh, and for the people trying to frame Bob as a hypocrite for "supporting" a death threat on Thompson (link here [https://twitter.com/the_moviebob/status/527993572734537728]), I can't see anything that openly supported death threats - sure, he said he "had it coming", but it was likely the harassment of being called an idiot blowhard, and for being a scumbag politician long before he carried his 'moral guardian crusade' to videogames. I'm sure he wouldn't have approved outright death threats, if only so gamers didn't shoot themselves in the foot on the "video gamers aren't more violent because of video games" argument, but even then he could've laughed them off if they couldn't be followed up on, i.e. the "online gamer threatening to kick your ass in real life probably couldn't do that" phenomenon. The death threats against Anita can't be shrugged off when she had to cancel a presentation because the threat of a school shooting could've been carried out thanks to how guns weren't banned from the school she was presenting [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/138046-School-Shooting-Threat-Sent-to-USU-about-Anita-Sarkeesian], and when she was forced to flee her own house after the threats to break in and murder her family proved all to real not to brush off as a sick joke or empty boast [http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/27/6075179/anita-sarkeesian-says-she-was-driven-out-of-house-by-threats].
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.
Basically, the point of the clip is that, while you CAN say anything you want, and not get censored by the government because your view conflict with the governments. HOWEVER, that doesn't give people the ability to say anything they want without being mocked and scorned by society at large. Jack Thompson's campaign infringed on FREE SPEECH, because he wanted all violent games banned, and tried to claim that video game violence didn't just "desensitize" people to violence (i.e. more apathetic to violence around them), but also tried to construe the interactive nature of video games as either making people more liable to act out violent impulses, or to give those with violent impulses more creative ways to carry out those impulses.
Anita, on the other hand, is challenging the CONSEQUENCE-FREE SPEECH that leaves the majority of video games using tropes that, when used improperly (as some companies and games still frequently do) marginalize women compared to men, and also how some gamers think even this criticism is equivalent to infringing on FREE SPEECH. She's not asking the government to ban sexist video games for the good of society. She's just trying to get more social awareness of potentially sexist issues in gaming. And if that society thinks that games, game companies, or gamers that enforce that sexism should be called out for it: well, they're not infringing on your FREE SPEECH, they're making sure it isn't CONSEQUENCE-FREE SPEECH where anybody say whatever they want without the judgement of their peers.
Oh, and for the people trying to frame Bob as a hypocrite for "supporting" a death threat on Thompson (link here [https://twitter.com/the_moviebob/status/527993572734537728]), I can't see anything that openly supported death threats - sure, he said he "had it coming", but it was likely the harassment of being called an idiot blowhard, and for being a scumbag politician long before he carried his 'moral guardian crusade' to videogames. I'm sure he wouldn't have approved outright death threats, if only so gamers didn't shoot themselves in the foot on the "video gamers aren't more violent because of video games" argument, but even then he could've laughed them off if they couldn't be followed up on, i.e. the "online gamer threatening to kick your ass in real life probably couldn't do that" phenomenon. The death threats against Anita can't be shrugged off when she had to cancel a presentation because the threat of a school shooting could've been carried out thanks to how guns weren't banned from the school she was presenting [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/138046-School-Shooting-Threat-Sent-to-USU-about-Anita-Sarkeesian], and when she was forced to flee her own house after the threats to break in and murder her family proved all to real not to brush off as a sick joke or empty boast [http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/27/6075179/anita-sarkeesian-says-she-was-driven-out-of-house-by-threats].
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.
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.
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.
Liking videos is scary? Let me tell you about this great horror series from the 90s called Siskel and Ebert. I definitely wouldn't watch it before bed. There are some other good video liking shows on now like Tosh.0 or @ Midnight, but they aren't as good.Zontar said:
Jumplion said:
I was referring to this
http://youtu.be/5i_RPr9DwMA?t=6m34s
Seeing sexism there is silly. That pimp is a bad guy. Was Anita expecting him to be a perfect gentleman
She brought up the "Dastardly" achievement earlier in the video, and yeah that's sexist, I don't think anyone would argue with that.
But then she goes and ruins it by being stupid.
Everything else you said was so far off base it's not worth responding to.
Except this,
And I'm still not going to respond to it, I'll just let you ruminate on what you said.
Shocking, and you should apologize to literally everyone, including your parents.