The Big Picture: Remembering the Real Jack Thompson

[grumpymooselion]

You're right that Thompson wasn't a monster, just a run of the mill politician using the usual knee jerk reaction subjects to egg people onto his side.


As for games related stuff specifically? The harassing or threatening you see from extreme vocal minority elements on both sides - that's terrible, no one should be threatening or harassing anyone. That goes for both extremes though, you see just as much nastiness from vocal minority elements on both sides. And you see people on both sides picking out those extreme elements to devalue the legitimate messages on both sides, "everyone should be treated fairly and equally" is something we can all get behind. "Corruption is the industry is bad, and we need to get a handle on it" is also something we should all be able to get behind.

As for Anita herself, and people pushing a similar message, in a similar manner? I think this lady summed up the issues with Anita, and people like her, best:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MxqSwzFy5w#t=165

 

[MaximumTheHormone]

This video is a classic example of moving the goalposts.
There are CLEAR similarities between what is argued by Jack Thompson and Anita Sarkeesian, and to just point out differences and personal flaws of jack dosen't change the fact the two have asserted 2 very similar thesis statements.
They both have asserted some way or another that the media we consume has a direct effect on our behavior and what we see in media will directly affect how we act.

This assertion garnered the widespread condemnation of the gaming press and industry when Jack used it as his central thesis for censorship, and now when that same principle is applied to a different context it is ignored or even supported.

And don't try and pretend that censorship was exclusively a Jack issue.
If the central premise that "games/media directly affects how people act" is true than you bet your ass there's going to be some move to censor games.
If that premise holds than there's every reason to ban games which deal with violent or inappropriate sexual themes.
If games are causing sexist attitudes and behaviors then there's reason for that to be acted upon.

The only way Anita is going to be accepted is if the media mans up and analyses her work critically and calls her out on her hyperbole. If we want gaming to be an art form than we not only need criticism and analysis but discussion and debate and the last two of these have been completely shut down by those most vihamently arguing gaming's virtues as an art form.

 

[MaximumTheHormone]

she lied? Then why do these exist???

these videos were all made LONG before Anita ever startered her kickstarter, let alone her video featuring hitman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVElJbjDqOs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnUIvtq87Ug

Seems to me she was spot on as THATS EXACTLY WHAT PEOPLE ARE DOING! You might not be doing it and might not see it that way but guess what? people are doing just what she said.

She has at least hyperbolized it.
Just because people can do something dosen't mean they are encouraged to.
The score deduction you get for killing the characters is clearly an in game dissinsentive to kill the women, so to try and imply that killing these charecters is what the player is 'meant to' do is just dishonest.

"Players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters"

You can kill the characters but its neither encouraged nor helpful.
The characters serve as as points to avoid, not engage.

Its like in GTA, you can kill a hooker or shoot anyone you like but the game punishes you for it.
Just because the game accomodates for a series of events to occur does not mean that those events are therefore encouraged.

There are sickos who will exploit it, but there are sickos who will try and sexualize and exploit everything.
Like those guys who managed to get nude shots of Ellen Page from beyond two souls.
It dosen't mean the game has encouraged them to do it.

If she just said something like this can occur and that some sickos may exploit it and that point would be fine, but she over-dramatized it to try and make a point. Instead of letting the content of hitman make her point she's tried to shape the content of Hitman to fall in line with her general overview. A very dishonest way of boiling things down.

 

[jFr[e]ak93]

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

Did you just start gaming recently (as in the last 4 years or so)?
Do you not live in America?
Did you not follow gaming news for a while?

I think I was just getting excited about gaming again when all this was winding down. I gamed a lot as a kid, gave it up and then got back into it 5 years ago.

Normally I'd say I've been missing out, but I don't think that applies to this guy. At least based on what Bob is saying.

 

[ryukage_sama]

excuse the paraphrasing here
. . . [paraphrasing] . . .
Yes you just read that right at one point the lead writer of Feminist frequency claimed being able to merely control a character in a video game is sexist.

Presenting something you have just paraphrased as clear proof is dubious. What you say she said is clearly absurd, but by admitting that you're paraphrasing, I don't have any means to figure out if she inferred it, stated it explicitly or if you misinterpreted what she said.

Also, somebody has used the word "censorship". Regardless as to whether it was the dumbest voice or the loudest, somebody has accused somebody else of censorship. I've seen it, and believe it certainly comes from a dumber subset in the debate.

 

[The Deadpool]

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.

The thing is, this is a strawman. A gross miss representation of the situation.

Jack Thompson isn't some boogieman. I can't think of anyone talking about him since he was disbarred until Sarkeesian popped up. And the comparisons here ARE important, but not in the way Bob implies.

The narrative Sarkeesian is selling is that games, through sheer volume of sexist imagery and its interactive, normalize the situation and cause people to be more prone to misogyny. She uses the incredible negative reaction to her, including death threats, threats to her family and games made where you can beat her up, as proof that gamers have a problem with WOMEN, not with her argument.

Jack Thompson is then brought up as an example of a MAN, who argued that through sheer volume of violent imagery and its interactive nature, normalize the situation and cause people to be more prone to violent acts. For this he received an incredible negative reaction, including death threats, death to his family and games where you beat him up.

Understand this: Jack Thompson, while a fool, did NOT deserve the harassment any more than Sarkeesian does. The people who do this are terrible people. But the thing is, weird as it sounds, they DO treat men and women who disagree with them the same way (that way may be terribly, but still the same). The people ACTUALLY treating Sarkeesian differently are the people who laughed as Thompson is mistreated (ie the game media and most gamers) and are now appalled at how Sarkeesian is treated (ie the game media and most gamers).

 

[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.

I use caricature simply because I find nothing serious to take in their stance, and I'm tired of explaining it to people who won't listen. Also, by your definition of immaturity I am well within my rights to point it out in a group that paints their opponents as "LW#" or "SJW" or "left-wing radical". Furthermore, while it is given that GG is not entirely made up of white males, they certainly make up the overwhelming majority. Hell, I'm a white male, and I don't have this sense of entitlement that GG seems to have. It's like they've never read "The And and the Grasshopper", or even seen the Disney adaptation; maybe they could learn a thing or two from it.

I also can't stand GG apologists who "aren't pro-GG" yet don't hesitate to rise to their defense at every opportunity. Where are the criticisms of the ridiculous and short sighted demands made by GG that wouldn't actually fix anything that they purport to want fixed? The lack of such criticisms demonstrates a clear bias toward supporting GG.

(I'm talking about you.)

Of course you're talking about me, though I've happily and earnestly jumped pro GGers cases for making bad arguments, painting their whole opposition with ridiculous claims and making "demands" that are total nonsense. I've written posts about how the demand for "more objective reviews" isn't just misguided, but is absurd. If you think I only say the sorts of things I've said to you to anti-GG people, you are flatly mistaken. Claiming that I have a "clear bias toward supporting GG" is merely a tactic to deflect criticism. By trying to lump me in with the group, you can then act as if my argument has no more merit than a group who you've already dismissed.

You paint me with the label of an apologist even though I don't support most of the methods or goals of the GG movement. Such tactics are completely unworthy of anyone who wants to engage in real discussion. Perhaps it is worth considering that the reason people aren't listening to you is that you engage in these tactics?

And I don't care in the least what you think or assert "most" of GG is made up of, even if totally true, it does not excuse your comment in any way. I also don't care if you yourself are a white male, it does not change that what you said was a poorly constructed, juvenile attack devoid of substance. Your race and sex lend no merit whatsoever to what you wrote.

What I can't stand are arguments that are nothing but vitriolic, childish name calling. Pointing out that GG has people who engage in the same behavior simply drags you to their level. Trying to point out that GG has people acting in a way that is equally immature is not a good defense. And If you are tired of people not listening to you, calling them all whiny babies isn't going to help that problem. I have no ill will toward you at all but I do find that your last post and this one are particularly worthy of criticism. If you think me criticizing such posts somehow makes me a GG apologist, you are engaged in a terrible fallacy. It is unworthy of me and unworthy of you too.

 

[l0lwut]

Oh look, another chapter in Bob's tiresome crusade on behalf of Sarkeesian. Nobody has been digging up Jack Thompson, Bob. People are just mentioning his name to refer to the time a non-gamer came and made big, unsubstantiated claims about the real-life effects of the content of games, and how the gaming media completely destroyed him and rushed to argue against his points every time he appeared on tv etc. It's kinda the same what's happening now, except without the media outrage, and she's using the gamer outrage to her advantage because it fits perfectly into her narrative if she spins it right and hey, it's extra money to get out of people.

The point is not comparing exactly what they said. It's how they are treated differently based on gender. One is dismissed while the other is painted a martyr. Please, Bob. Just go back to talking about movies. Again, you're proving you're in way over your head, intellectually.

 

[l0lwut]

What I can't stand are arguments that are nothing but vitriolic, childish name calling. Pointing out that GG has people who engage in the same behavior simply drags you to their level. Trying to point out that GG has people acting in a way that is equally immature is not a good defense. And If you are tired of people not listening to you, calling them all whiny babies isn't going to help that problem. I have no ill will toward you at all but I do find that your last post and this one are particularly worthy of criticism. If you think me criticizing such posts somehow makes me a GG apologist, you are engaged in a terrible fallacy. It is unworthy of me and unworthy of you too.

Totally agreed, exactly the way that I feel. Both sides keep commiting horrible fallacies, as you pointed out. Makes any kind of civilized debate quite impossible. It's the kind of misdirection that has allowed Sarkeesian to deflect questions about lying in her videos, for example. Every time I see someone just stacking up the nonsense fallacies (like delroland), my heart sinks a bit, because that's the kind of brainwashed rethoric that stifles any discussion, and my hopes of ever resolving this issue in an adult fashion.

 

[WhiteNachos]

The best thing about the 'Anita Saarkesian is the new Jack Thompson' comparison every internet idiot and his dog makes is that it's completely ignorant of what BOTH of them were arguing about, instead boiling it down to 'Oh, she's criticizing our games and said they caused things. HE criticized our games and said they caused things. Therefore, she's trying to censor our games!' (side note: I think people are also getting real ignorant of what 'censor' actually means).

When, in reality, they are the proverbial apples and oranges, two things so wildly different from each other that attempting to tell someone they're one in the same will get you laughed out of the building on many an occasion.

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.

When you dismiss an argument by attacking the source of the argument rather than the actual arguments that's called an ad hominem fallacy, which is what you did.

Now why don't you try actually addressing what he said. You can pretend someone else said it if it helps.

However, he does have a clear bias towards feminism and Anita Saarkesian. Since he's not approaching this subject objectively in the slightest, it's safe to say that use of his material as evidence against Anita Saarkesian is opening yourself up to misinformation from a biased source. And I don't know about you, but given the turmoil surrounding this entire shindig I'd rather a non-biased source rather than someone with a clear political standing of 'Anti-Feminist'.

Unless 'Feminism poisons everything' is an objective view, though I *highly* doubt that. Sounds a little too click-baity to be objective to me.

I've seen the video, his main contention is her treatment of the Hitman series, and I've yet to see anyone give a convincing counter argument or show that he's taking her out of context.

 

[WhiteNachos]

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.

Because Anita lied about Hitman.

And if you've ever played through a recent Hitman game, it becomes reeslly obvious she lied about it. She basically killed 2 women for no reason, dragged their bodies around and said and I quote "Players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters."

That's so far away from reality that it's disgusting (speaking as a fan of Hitman games). It becomes really transparent that she's either not doing research or making shit up to complain about.

She may take scenes out of context in some other games, but for this she's just making shit up out of nothing. You wanna know why you can drag bodies around in Hitman? So you can hide them. That's it, and anyone who's played the game for more than a couple of level would know this (and she would've had to have played a good chunk of the game to get to the level she was complaining about).

I'd compare it to Fox News complaining about Mass Effect.

she lied? Then why do these exist???

these videos were all made LONG before Anita ever startered her kickstarter, let alone her video featuring hitman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVElJbjDqOs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnUIvtq87Ug

Seems to me she was spot on as THATS EXACTLY WHAT PEOPLE ARE DOING! You might not be doing it and might not see it that way but guess what? people are doing just what she said.

And people also make videos where they throw themselves off of skyscrapers in GTA, videos where they use the information gained from NPCs in Watch Dogs to target Muslims videos where they act like an NPC in Skyrim (or a serial killer who keeps their victims heads and decapitated bodies in their house).

If something's an option to do in a game people will do it. But that does not mean it's expected or encouraged by the game.

Edit:
Hitman lets you play the games however you want. You can kill everyone in the level, be sneaky and only kill the targets while leaving no other trace you were there, or any way in between.

One of those ways gets you penalized, the other does not and is expected of you. That some people choose to play it more like the former doesn't change this.

Edit2: I could make a video if I wanted of me killing all the male guards in a level and dragging their bodies around, or waiters, or construction workers or whatever else is in the level. What would that prove?

Come to think of it, do they even drag their bodies around and get a perverse kick out of it in the videos you linked?

 

[WhiteNachos]

ak93]

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

Did you just start gaming recently (as in the last 4 years or so)?
Do you not live in America?
Did you not follow gaming news for a while?

I think I was just getting excited about gaming again when all this was winding down. I gamed a lot as a kid, gave it up and then got back into it 5 years ago.

Normally I'd say I've been missing out, but I don't think that applies to this guy. At least based on what Bob is saying.

I looked it up and Thomspon was disbarred in 2008, he quickly lost relevance after that.

As for whether or not you were missing anything, hard to say. A lot of us were worried that the censor video games campaign would succeed (and to give some perspective, the Supreme Court ruling saying games are free speech didn't come till 2011). If you were one of those people then his claims would probably be more worrisome then anything.

However if you were not worried about games being censored then his antics may have been amusing. Because that guy was obsessive and his antics seemed a little nuts.

He once tried to claim Bully was a columbine simulator or something like that even though I'm pretty sure it's not possible to actually kill anyone in that game.

 

[WhiteNachos]

Oh look, another chapter in Bob's tiresome crusade on behalf of Sarkeesian. Nobody has been digging up Jack Thompson, Bob. People are just mentioning his name to refer to the time a non-gamer came and made big, unsubstantiated claims about the real-life effects of the content of games, and how the gaming media completely destroyed him and rushed to argue against his points every time he appeared on tv etc. It's kinda the same what's happening now, except without the media outrage, and she's using the gamer outrage to her advantage because it fits perfectly into her narrative if she spins it right and hey, it's extra money to get out of people.

The point is not comparing exactly what they said. It's how they are treated differently based on gender. One is dismissed while the other is painted a martyr. Please, Bob. Just go back to talking about movies. Again, you're proving you're in way over your head, intellectually.

It's not just gender, she says more than just games cause sexism. In fact those aren't even the claims she gives the most attention to if you get what I mean.

 

[Wuvlycuddles]

What I can't stand are arguments that are nothing but vitriolic, childish name calling. Pointing out that GG has people who engage in the same behavior simply drags you to their level. Trying to point out that GG has people acting in a way that is equally immature is not a good defense. And If you are tired of people not listening to you, calling them all whiny babies isn't going to help that problem. I have no ill will toward you at all but I do find that your last post and this one are particularly worthy of criticism. If you think me criticizing such posts somehow makes me a GG apologist, you are engaged in a terrible fallacy. It is unworthy of me and unworthy of you too.

Totally agreed, exactly the way that I feel. Both sides keep commiting horrible fallacies, as you pointed out. Makes any kind of civilized debate quite impossible. It's the kind of misdirection that has allowed Sarkeesian to deflect questions about lying in her videos, for example. Every time I see someone just stacking up the nonsense fallacies (like delroland), my heart sinks a bit, because that's the kind of brainwashed rethoric that stifles any discussion, and my hopes of ever resolving this issue in an adult fashion.

Sums up my feelings pretty well too. I have found very little in the way of intelligent discourse these past few months, although special credit to people like TotalBiscuit and Stephen Totilo who have actually managed to act like grown ups, but moviebob has not been one of these people. There is no reason to bully, mock or act boorish.

 

[The Deadpool]

While I have heard no calls from critics of video games to censor their production or sale,

I see this argument often, and it makes no sense to me. Yes, Jack Thompson called for censorship, but was the call for censorship the ONLY thing you disagreed with him here?

I'm honestly curious. Is it your contention that believing video games cause children to murder each other because of its high violent content is okay, but expecting the government to monitor and limit something that causes kids to kill other kids is an absurd idea?

 

[bobdole1979]

And people also make videos where they throw themselves off of skyscrapers in GTA, videos where they use the information gained from NPCs in Watch Dogs to target Muslims videos where they act like an NPC in Skyrim (or a serial killer who keeps their victims heads and decapitated bodies in their house).

If something's an option to do in a game people will do it. But that does not mean it's expected or encouraged by the game.

Edit:
Hitman lets you play the games however you want. You can kill everyone in the level, be sneaky and only kill the targets while leaving no other trace you were there, or any way in between.

One of those ways gets you penalized, the other does not and is expected of you. That some people choose to play it more like the former doesn't change this.

Edit2: I could make a video if I wanted of me killing all the male guards in a level and dragging their bodies around, or waiters, or construction workers or whatever else is in the level. What would that prove?

Come to think of it, do they even drag their bodies around and get a perverse kick out of it in the videos you linked?

yeah... that's actually what they are doing in the videos Around 13mins is the pile of bodies and he dissucsses how he is disapointed that he can't kill the strippers with the Gourrot wire.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVElJbjDqOs


This video he goes into great lenghth about how he enjoys killing them, making piles of dead strippers and posing them in different positions.

Hitman lets you play the games however you want.

Ding DING DING! We have a BINGO! You hit the nail on the head here. Yes you can play the game however you want and its advertised as such. Which also means the developers actually programded the game so you can do exactly what he does in the video so when Anita said

"Players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters."

She is NOT Lying she is telling the truth.

 

[MaddKossack115]

Anita, on the other hand, is challenging the CONSEQUENCE-FREE SPEECH

Likewise, she now faces the consequences of her own speech, none of which are legally binding or government supported.

Why the concern over silencing critics when no one is actually being censored?

Ok, so Anita is entitled to criticism from those who don't like her work, but what I meant to say is that the guys who voice that criticism through SEXUAL HARASSMENT and DEATH THREATS will ALSO face the consequences. If that means torpedoing whatever point they had on gaming journalism by twisting it into feminist-bashing, then they should've thought a bit harder about just how people would react when they went overboard on criticizing Anita.

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],

False; Anita made the decision to cancel her talk even after being assured the threat the school had received was not credible by the police. Many college campuses allow guns to be carried, typically in states with similar laws. She's been giving talks at length across the country for some times, she knows these laws exist. Refusing to talk at a previously planned presentation because of death threats she has allegedly been receiving this entire time because of a common firearm law she would have undoubtedly encountered before is disingenuous.

Doens't change the fact people were willing to abuse loopholes from 'common firearm laws' to credibly threaten a public assassination/massacre just because she said things they disagree with. If you're trying to say Anita basically 'staged' her speech cancelation just to criticize both lax gun laws and her more homicidal critics; guess what? I'd totally approve of her exposing how many people seriously want to kill her, and how in some parts of the country they have the perfect opportunity to do so.

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].

False; The threat of posting an address of a public figure, or the address of a public figure's family with nothing more than words to back it up is not a credible threat. Considering Anita continues to make public appearances in well-populated spaces to this day, and much of her personal information can be found online through completely legal means with nothing more than her full name, it is laughable to asserts this had any more reason to 'drive Anita from her home' than any other anonymous death threats.

Also? Gamergate is pretty sure they found 'Kevin Dobson'. He was a Brazilian journalist by the name of Mateus Prado Sousa doing it to stir up controversy: http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2j2gun/identity_of_one_of_anita_sarkeesians_harassers/

Huh. Funny all the sources claiming "Mateus Prado Sousa made this threat" (at least, from what I found by a quick Google search) were all from GamerGate members. Don't get me wrong - looking at Sousa's Youtube channel, he's clearly not one of Anita's fans, and he definitely sounds like a prime suspect to try pulling the 'send death threats to her family' bullshit. But until some other official source outside of GamerGate confirms this story, I'm not going to buy it just yet.

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.

GG has no membership, no leader, no organized methodology. It simply is. Trying to call out anonymous users who engage in bad behavior for no other reason than they used the GG hash tag is beyond impractical.

Yeah, the whole 'no membership, no leader, no organized methodology' thing is NOT going to help GamerGate actually reform the game journalism system. Even the most bottom-up movements needed to figure out who their leaders were and how to properly organize their statements if they wanted to gain traction in their points. Claiming 'no organized methodology' certainly isn't an excuse for GamerGate members to allow anti-feminists and misogynists to run around making threats against Anita. In one of Bob's GameOverthinker episodes, he pointed out how metal music was starting to get controversy over being the 'music of choice' for skinhead Neo-Nazis, and the reason that controversy didn't get out of control (at least, compared to some other metal controversies) was how the metal community as a whole banded together to openly declare that "Neo-Nazis aren't welcome here!" (See 14:18 of this video for the part explaining it).

You can't claim disorganization as an excuse to just ignore the sexist lunatics dragging GamerGate's name through the mud; if the GamerGate community is going to be anything beyond a social punchline, its members NEED to openly say that sexists and misogynists are not welcome, and that their criticisms of the gaming business has nothing to do with anti-feminism, end of discussion.

 

[ryukage_sama]

Well you can check her Twitter yourself and that of @RadicalBytes the writer of Feminist Frequency, just an idea.

No. You make the argument. You know she said it. You tell the rest of us where to find it, or your argument lacks credibility. Its not up to the rest of us to demonstrate that you know what you're talking about. It's up to you.

Also, somebody has used the word "censorship". Regardless as to whether it was the dumbest voice or the loudest, somebody has accused somebody else of censorship. I've seen it, and believe it certainly comes from a dumber subset in the debate.

Again just because no-one on the opposition is explicitly saying censorship doesn't mean it's not a possibility.
No-one calls for censorship they call for protection of morals, defence of the perceived innocent, improvement of the industry, being nice and not offending anyone.
You know things that make it sound like a positive step that you want.

I doubt event North Korea claims what they do is censorship I'd imagine they call it protecting people from Western lies and telling them the "truth".

Just because no-one's dumb enough to outright call for pure censorship doesn't mean no-one wants it.

Recently I've had a number of interactions with someone going by the name Famalies against games who is using Anita's claims & Jack Thompsons against gaming to try and call for a ban on all video games.

If people aren't willing to let art be offensive that how is it truly free expression if it cannot offend ? how can art reflect the darkest of humanity without being allowed to make people feel uncomfortable ?

So even if you believe no-one making these criticisms wants to censor or change games you have to be aware people will use their work to push for just that.

When discussing "Families Against Games", by all means point out how they advocate censorship. When claiming that Anita Sarkeesian wants censorship, you need something more than a vague sense that she would be okay with it. Her being insufficiently anti-censorship isn't evidence. She also hasn't advocated something equivalent to censorship, just by another name. This is the sort of false boogeyman Bob is warning against in his video.

And it's nothing new that ignorant people will use smart arguments stupidly. It shouldn't change how you make arguments. However, it should be taken into account when establishing regulations and laws. Thankfully, there remains a great divide between making an argument and institutionalizing regulations.

 

[MaddKossack115]

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",

Which is all that needs to be said when it comes to explaining one's stance on that. Any ''but'' or ''however'' after that just reeks of implicitly condoning it by way of not condoning it.

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.

Strange how the same thing wasn't asked of the gaming community back when Thompson was receiving death threats.

Almost makes me wish Thompson and his supporters had been more (new) media-savvy, really. It would've been amusing if there'd been ''Actually, it's about free speech!'' internet memes mocking gamers.

I enjoyed watching this video. I'd done some research on Jack and mostly forgot about him (save for that one thread where some 'exceptional individual' compared him to Anita) but having his absurd behavior delivered in a rapid fire beat-after-beat montage of ridiculousness like this really makes it entertaining to go over again.

I really like the message you're saying and though you've said it before, it's worth saying again. I just wish all these people who came here to argue about Anita could see the big picture.

So Jack Thompson was an asshole to people, lots of people - particularly people who are politically active - are. Tell me, did that make him an acceptable target for death threats and harassment?

Ok, I admit it probably wouldn't have been okay for death threats against Thompson IF they could've been carried out (again, the whole "wannabe internet tough threatening to kick your ass in real life probably couldn't" thing), but I'm pretty sure the ones that were staged against Thompson were a load of hot air - even if some idiot was serious about wanting to kill Thompson, I'm pretty sure Thompson, being a politician and all, would've had a professional security team to protect him from most half-ass assassination attempts. Anita, just being an internet celebrity with some outspoken views, DOESN'T have the luxury of armed bodyguards, so the chance of death threats that could have been carried out is way higher.

And frankly, GamerGate probably wouldn't want any of the death threats against Anita to be actually carried out - if there's one thing assassinations have been good for, it's martyring the assassinated, and damning the assassin. If a GamerGate member did hypothetically murder Anita, it would only make her views even more justified to the public, and would make GamerGate ourright pariahs for allowing one of its members to actually do the deed. So, yeah, I think that just because 'Bob jokingly supported unfulfillable death threats on Thompson' doesn't mean 'GamerGate should just ignore (let alone support) credible death threats on Anita'.

 

[The Deadpool]

its members NEED to openly say that sexists and misogynists are not welcome,

By that logic, shouldn't Sarkeesian NEED to openly say people like Meg Lanker-Simons are not welcome?

This seems silly. There is no cause so righteous you cannot find a fool following it. It does not reflect on the cause.