The Big Picture: Remembering the Real Jack Thompson

[The Deadpool]

We do have pre-existing violent tendencies, and most of them are tied into our cultural preconceptions of manhood and masculinity. It is "manly" to be physically strong or to engage in fights for example.

Right, sure. Violence is about men. School shootings are caused by the patriarchy. Women lean toward pacifism. This is true of the the average masses, just not the super enlightened, extra special men who make the argument...

And no, Anita does not draw a causality line between media consumption and our treatment women. She draws up the RELATIONSHIP between the two by pointing out how preexisting trends create stereotypes and how these stereotypes then feed the trends that spawned them. She is arguing that these stereotypes CONTINUE negative trends and thinking in real life, not that they CAUSE them.

So when she says "helps normalize" it has nothing to do with causality at all.

And while she is totally right, it doesn't help enough to offset the fact that the negative trends ARE GOING DOWN ANYWAYS.

So, AGAIN, I ask: Where's the proof?

You keep focusing on this DIRECT causality issue and forgetting an important part of the equation: IT IS GETTING BETTER.

So let us grant you the premise: Preconceived notions (defined by society) make people create media that reinforce these notions. People then consume this media which totally does not cause just reinforces the same preconceived notions.

This is a force feedback loop. The two should be growing, ever stronger, the more and more media we consume... Except, it doesn't. Those preconceived notions are going DOWN, (sadly) slowly but (thankfully) surely.

Since the change isn't coming from the media (according to Sarkeesian) and society is ruled by the Patriarchy that systematically oppress women in every facet of their lives (according to Sarkeesian)... WHAT'S STOPPING IT?

And if the effect of media on the mass unconscious isn't making things worse (and that's evidenced pretty easily) how do you know there's an effect AT ALL?!?

It DOES however prove the point said critic was making about sexist trends being very prominent in the gaming community, which is where the tropes that she criticizes comes from.

So, to recap, games totally do NOT have a causality effect on the audience for sexist trends BUT the group of people who play games are more sexist than average?

Btw, weird as it sounds, the existence of threats against her do NOT prove the source of the threat is sexist. Awful human being, yes. Sexist? Not necessarily.

 

[crimson83]

So what I gathered from that is it's perfectly ok for Anita to voice her opinion on games and geek culture (all without knowing anything about it given how off her arguments are) but it's wrong for people to voice they're opinion on her and her work (all with well researched evidence of her work...at least for the most part anyway). Her "games make people sexist" argument isn't that much different from Thompsons "they make people violent" argument. Just because you want to trust her doesn't mean all of us have to. There are numerous games and numerous genres and sub-genres of games. Yet she focuses on AAA games to prove her point. Look for a problem and you'll find one. When is she going to look for a solution? Maybe fund that game idea she pitched? Nah, that costs money. We're in the business of making money and getting free publicity on news outlets. Why make a cure when u can keep people sick and give them medicine they're whole life...

 

[Silvanus]

Which again, begs the question: What kind of evidence does one have that any effect at all is happening?

Here [http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2008-04614-005] are [http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/107/1/54.short] some [http://dro.deakin.edu.au/view/DU:30001199] studies [http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224490209552118#.VFuA-PRdV2E] on [http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1010397809136#page-1] media [http://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/733627/] influencing [http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/dev/42/5/929/] outlooks [http://scx.sagepub.com/content/29/1/35.short] and [http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10640269708249203#.VFuBrfRdV2E] attitudes [http://jmq.sagepub.com/content/79/2/427.short].

Neither of this have anything to do with what I said.

You said, "[...]YOUR argument as YOU put for-- Well, you haven't put it forth, just believed it in your head". So, yes, my asking what you believe my position is has a lot to do with that.

"Nuh-huh!" is a poor counter. Please present both of their arguments for a compare and contrast.

Oh, for goodness' sake. Feminist Frequency [http://www.feministfrequency.com/] and Jack Thompson [http://www.jackthompson.org/thompsons_words/]. Anita Sarkeesian has never called for censorship. She has criticised negative portrayals, she has claimed that video games influence attitudes and behaviours, she has used sometimes specious reasoning. She has not called for censorship.

Yours is the positive claim, by the way. The onus is on you to support it.

It kinda is.

Look, Smurfs didn't create Communists. Dungeons & Dragons didn't create a group of easily lead automatons. We don't blame A Catcher in the Rye for murders.

EVERY piece of media goes through this: Someone finds some hot button issue, finds some tenuous connection to current extra popular media and blame it on it while declaring themselves somehow immune to its magical, civilization destroying powers. Then arguing goes round and round. Sometimes we get self censorship, sometimes we get government censorship, sometimes we just keep on arguing but sooner or later it ends with a bunch of us just looking back going "wow, were they silly back then!"

I have already addressed, over and over again, that influence is not the same thing as causation.

 

[Lightknight]

I think the thing most people have issues with is her damsel argument. Her women as non-important background or sex toys is generally seen more favorably.

Yes and no. She certainly has stronger ground here, but her lack of experience in gaming shows.

She continually compares NPCs to PCs and finds them wanting. A large portion of her background video "problems" with how these women are treated are a function of them being NPCs and not WOMEN.

Remember, the problem shouldn't be women being treated poorly, it should be women being treated DIFFERENTLY.

Oh, sure, not much disagreement from me. But what I said is that her other points are seen more favorably. Not that they're agreed with, just that they're more legitimate points for her to make.

They also delve into an area of moral subjectivity. That depicting scantily clad women is a bad thing and that depicting appropriately dressed women is a good thing. So it successfully gets away from needing facts to prove its relevance. That makes people be able to say, "Ok, you believe that and that's your prerogative, but that's not what I believe" or to criticize specific elements like you are doing here without outright dismissing her.

The problem comes from the fact that not only does it reinforce that women are objects to be used as goals for male players

Objects to be used as goals? Yeah, it reinforced the idea that people who are in distress are worth saving. Games have goals. If there's no conflict then there's no story. So why would saving a woman's life not be a legitimate form of conflict?

but that they lack any form of agency themselves.

If they could save themselves, then there would be no conflict in the story. The entire point of a damsel in distress is that someone, the villain, has kidnapped a person and has taken away their agency in doing so. I would even say that the villain is actively objectifying the kidnapped individual. So your goal as the hero is to go and give the victim back their dignity and agency.

I would argue that damsel tropes do the opposite of what Anita claims. They teach us that people who would objectify and remove agency from individuals are the villains and should be stopped if we have the means to do so. The central component being that innocent people have a right to liberty and being treated as people with those liberties.

That's a very positive lesson to be taught.

Another comment-er pointed this out, but we live in an age where physical power matters very little in day to day life, so the differences should be moot.

Games aren't about day to day lives. Games are about the days where something extraordinary happens and we have to respond. Now, sometimes you might be fortunate enough to have a gun on you if the situation calls for it, but from what I understand that's a real rarity. So most times these things require physical force. Rape and domestic abuse is absolutely a problem and it disproportionately impacts females because of the power disparity. We live in a world where physical power isn't necessary for a lot of our jobs or regular work, but the disparity of power is always there, lurking in the shadows.

So yes there are differences between men and women, but they shouldn't matter, especially in games where they exaggerate physical prowess to sometimes extreme levels. Lara Croft in the new tomb raider didn't beat all those dudes on that island with sheer physical force, she outsmarted, out maneuvered and out-skilled them all. Come to think of it, it's the exact same way Nathan Drake manages to beat people who are way stronger than himself too.

Ok, so you just listed two protagonists. One male, one female. Protagonists ARE the ones that are supposed to have agency. You'll notice that all the people Lara Croft saved had no agency and needed her just as much as anyone Nathan saved.

It's like people forget that for it to matter for the hero to save people, they actually have to be needed. The 'no one but you can or will do it' is core to story telling. If anyone could do it, if your actions don't matter, then who cares?

The way media influences people is usually to play on existing behaviors. People are usually talking about ads, for example. So if you want to try a new soda, Coca-cola will inform you about a product that caters to your need (or that they claim caters to it).

What people do not mean is that media necessarily makes you sexist or violent. We can tell the difference between reality or fantasy as long as we're not schizophrenic. So I would never once have considered it legitimate to take the lessons on femininity that Princess Peach taught me (which is nothing, FYI, she did not teach me anything at all) and apply them to real life because even as a kid I understood that she was a character.

So, you've got some steep evidence to amass here that Jack Thompson tried and failed to get.

I'd agree with you that media is (far) more likely to reinforce existing behaviour than to create entirely new behaviour, by the way. That's a fairly significant influence. If somebody is already a fairly anti-establishment individual, for example-- suspicious of surveillance, or tyranny-- then reading Nineteen Eighty-Four may well reinforce that outlook. If somebody is already slightly misogynistic, then reading about heroic, suave James Bond treating women as conquests may well reinforce that outlook, too.

Reinforce means to strengthen. It is not different from saying it makes people more X. I disagree, what I was saying is that they use and manipulate existing desires. Not that they make those desires stronger or lesser. If a person is thirsty and likes sugar water then a coke commercial will remind them that they're thirsty and will provide a solution for the problem of them not having sugar water. It doesn't make them more thirsty. It simply points out the existing desire and manipulates it.

I refer to literature, because the idea that literature influences peoples' outlook is pretty widely recognised, I would have thought.

Literature can broaden horizons, give you more perspectives. People do think about what they consume but on a more philosophical level. They aren't tricked into being more sexist or being less sexist by something they hear. They evaluate the information they're given and decide whether it is accurate or not and whether or not they want to accept it.

So, yeah, media can provide the means to influence but it isn't subversive. It presents concepts you may have never thought of before and that creates a change or not change moment in your ideologies once presented. But once decided, seeing the same concept done again shouldn't create that moment again. New information or new perspectives may.

What's more is that fiction is received differently than philosophical literature. We understand that it's fiction and can tell the difference between that and reality. Peter Pan didn't change my ideology. Mario didn't change my ideology. An actual point has to be made. But just that a princess is in trouble? That's not a lesson. That's not making me think that all girls are princesses and are incapable of helping themselves. At most, it's a commentary on how villains kidnap and if you can free someone from wrongful captivity then you should. But generally we read far less into fantasy or fictional writings unless we're made aware of a secret of the works. I mean, would you have been keenly aware of the political implications of Moby Dick had someone not explained them to you or brought them up? A lot of people also make connections that aren't there and end up teaching that an author was making a point that he or she had never intended. Humans like to see patterns, are evolved to see patterns, even if they aren't there because it is more important for us to see patterns that are there than it is for us not to see patterns when they are absent.

 

[Silverspetz]

Right, sure. Violence is about men. School shootings are caused by the patriarchy. Women lean toward pacifism. This is true of the the average masses, just not the super enlightened, extra special men who make the argument...

I never said any of those things. Men are not the cause of violence, but the traditional ideas of masculinity that society puts forth are very toxic because they are intrinsically tied to violence. This helps to explain why such a disproportionate number of violent acts are committed by men.

So when she says "helps normalize" it has nothing to do with causality at all.

No, it doesn't. Tropes "helps to normalize" sexism against women because it helps to keep the negative stereotypes alive in the collective unconsciousness, not because it CAUSES sexism.

And while she is totally right, it doesn't help enough to offset the fact that the negative trends ARE GOING DOWN ANYWAYS.

Um...what? Why would the fact that negative trends are going down have anything to do with her argument? They still exist, and the tropes she criticizes are part of why the trends haven't disappeared completely yet. Which is why it is definitely a good thing to talk about it.

You keep focusing on this DIRECT causality issue and forgetting an important part of the equation: IT IS GETTING BETTER.

Actually no one is saying that there is a direct causality, that I just misquotation. And I think it is you who keep forgetting an important part of the equation, that being WHY things are getting better.

So let us grant you the premise: Preconceived notions (defined by society) make people create media that reinforce these notions. People then consume this media which totally does not cause just reinforces the same preconceived notions.

This is a force feedback loop. The two should be growing, ever stronger, the more and more media we consume... Except, it doesn't. Those preconceived notions are going DOWN, (sadly) slowly but (thankfully) surely.

Since the change isn't coming from the media (according to Sarkeesian) and society is ruled by the Patriarchy that systematically oppress women in every facet of their lives (according to Sarkeesian)... WHAT'S STOPPING IT?

And if the effect of media on the mass unconscious isn't making things worse (and that's evidenced pretty easily) how do you know there's an effect AT ALL?!?

The reason things are getting better is because of criticism and how it has made media better over the years. Over the last few decades we have increased or media-consumption enormously, and we also saw the rise of movements to shape the media away from many of the preconceived notions of the past. The civil-rights movement, feminism, LGBQT-rights all started to pop up and CRITICIZE existing media which helped filmmakers and writers to create more diverse media which in turn helped to REVERSE the negative feedback loop we were stuck with.

Saarkeesian has never said that change isn't coming from the media, only that there still are things that needs changing. You look at the improving trends and think they mean that there isn't a problem since things would be getting WORSE overall if there was. The reality is that things have improved greatly because of critics, but some tropes and trends are more ingrained than others and far harder to get rid of, which shows itself through disproportionate representation. Now feminist critics are turning their eyes to these persistent tropes to get better representation but apparently that is just one step too much for some people. We have made things better, but there is still work to be done.

So, to recap, games totally do NOT have a causality effect on the audience for sexist trends BUT the group of people who play games are more sexist than average?

Btw, weird as it sounds, the existence of threats against her do NOT prove the source of the threat is sexist. Awful human being, yes. Sexist? Not necessarily.

First paragraph: Basically yes, It seems these trends have converged in this community more than others, probably because it has been such a closed and homogenous group for so long.

Second paragraph: When the threats are so clearly gendered like the ones thrown at Quinn and Saarkeesian, they ARE pretty damn sexist too.

 

[daibakuha]

Objects to be used as goals? Yeah, it reinforced the idea that people who are in distress are worth saving. Games have goals. If there's no conflict then there's no story. So why would saving a woman's life not be a legitimate form of conflict?

Because it reinforces the fact that she's an object to be won from beating the game. The person you rescue isn't a character, she's a trophy.

I would argue that damsel tropes do the opposite of what Anita claims. They teach us that people who would objectify and remove agency from individuals are the villains and should be stopped if we have the means to do so. The central component being that innocent people have a right to liberty and being treated as people with those liberties.

That's a very positive lesson to be taught.

The problem comes from the context the story gives these characters. They aren't characters at all. Like I said before, they're a reward, a trophy. Removing agency from someone is a good way for a bad to illustrate he's a bad guy, but the writers do the exact same thing by removing the character from narrative entirely.

Games aren't about day to day lives. Games are about the days where something extraordinary happens and we have to respond. Now, sometimes you might be fortunate enough to have a gun on you if the situation calls for it, but from what I understand that's a real rarity. So most times these things require physical force.

But as I just pointed out with examples I used at the end, they don't always require physical force. Lara Croft doesn't fist fight a bunch of dudes in that game. Nathan Drake rarely goes bare-knuckle as well, wanna know why? Because they'd both get overpowered by the sheer number of enemies and their enemies are much strong than they are physically.

Rape and domestic abuse is absolutely a problem and it disproportionately impacts females because of the power disparity. We live in a world where physical power isn't necessary for a lot of our jobs or regular work, but the disparity of power is always there, lurking in the shadows.

I have no idea what this tangent is about, but weapons like a pistol, pepper spray, a taser and even a whistle are effective countermeasures against would be physical attacks.

Ok, so you just listed two protagonists. One male, one female. Protagonists ARE the ones that are supposed to have agency. You'll notice that all the people Lara Croft saved had no agency and needed her just as much as anyone Nathan saved.

It's like people forget that for it to matter for the hero to save people, they actually have to be needed. The 'no one but you can or will do it' is core to story telling. If anyone could do it, if your actions don't matter, then who cares?

But for the most part, they do have agency. Lara Croft doesn't rescue all of her friends on the island, she finds some and rescues 1. I think you have both a very narrow definition of what a protagonist is, and what conflict should be in a story. There are ways to tell even a straight hero story without removing female agency or anyone's agency really.

 

[altdoom]

He never effected my gaming so I never gave him much thought. He just seems like any other political puppet.

 

[Something Amyss]

Oh, for goodness' sake. Feminist Frequency [http://www.feministfrequency.com/] and Jack Thompson [http://www.jackthompson.org/thompsons_words/]. Anita Sarkeesian has never called for censorship. She has criticised negative portrayals, she has claimed that video games influence attitudes and behaviours, she has used sometimes specious reasoning. She has not called for censorship.

To that end, it's worth noting that the one got pretty much a universally negative response from the media in question, whereas the other has actually had their criticism (not demands or lawsuits or threats, just criticism) responded to, acknowledged, even positively received. And while it's not direct evidence that Anita's not a threat, one does have to wonder why the industry itself isn't circling the wagons.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

Wait, people still talk about the guy?

I've seen maybe 3 people in the last 4 years mention him, one of whom was saying "Hey, you know, the harassment HE got wasn't right either, you know" and the other two were certified idiots.

*scratches head* Who else is talking about him and hasn't gotten over him?

 

[UFriday]

I'm with Jojo and Darxide here. I can't remember the last time Jack Thompson was relevant, and it seems like to most gamers he's more of an old joke than a "boogieman".

Also? I think anger about Thompson wasn't so much about "he's gunna take our vidya away" than frustration at someone being so blindly prejudiced against gamers, while at the same time arrogantly and condescendingly putting down any counter-arguments. There's something about being labelled or tied to something negative just because of your hobbies or beliefs that just gets people's goat, for some reason.

 

[Lightknight]

Because it reinforces the fact that she's an object to be won from beating the game. The person you rescue isn't a character, she's a trophy.

Yes, I too liked the part in Aladdin where he (Aladdin) accidentally fell to that comment from the princess.

The idea isn't that she has no choice in the matter. Yes, if you do good things for people, especially daring things for people, it is not unreasonable to think that they would consider you more highly.

This isn't morally reprehensible. Likewise, I've never seen it stated that she has no say in the matter or that she is somehow obligated to give you more than gratitude. In fact, in a lot of scenarios you already have an existing relationship with the individual.

So, at best, you are maybe making an argument for a very specific scenario that I haven't seen in games yet.

The problem comes from the context the story gives these characters. They aren't characters at all.

Ok? Do you believe in a moral imperative of some kind that you have to know everything about a person before their life is worth saving? Or is their life saving purely because of the sanctity of life?

Besides, most damsel games have a preexisting relationship where they are characterized, so you're only discussing very specific sub-plots within the trope and even those aren't necessarily bad.

Like I said before, they're a reward, a trophy. Removing agency from someone is a good way for a bad to illustrate he's a bad guy, but the writers do the exact same thing by removing the character from narrative entirely.

Agency is the ability to act. If you can act freely then you don't need to be saved. Hero might as well sit at home doing nothing.

Their lack of agency is the conflict of the narrative that is to be overcome. It is central unless you're doing a Monkey Island-esque parody of the hero being a buffoon which works in a comedic game.

But as I just pointed out with examples I used at the end, they don't always require physical force. Lara Croft doesn't fist fight a bunch of dudes in that game.

The climbing alone would have been the most extreme level of physical endurance. Hanging off ledges by your fingers and even moving along said ledge with your fingers is a peak human feat that takes significant endurance and effort.

Likewise, I'm pretty sure I bopped more than a few skulls with a weapon and took quite a few strikes to the head too. Also, there were quite a few quick time events where a guy was overpowering her if you recall.

Lara Croft does it all. Physical, mental, all. I've got no problem with it. I wouldn't want my protagonist to be weak as hell so I'm happy that Croft has unlikely physical skills as a young girl against grizzled battle-hardened grown men/stranded sailors/pirates.

Nathan Drake rarely goes bare-knuckle as well, wanna know why? Because they'd both get overpowered by the sheer number of enemies and their enemies are much strong than they are physically.

Eh, I'd say Nathan gets into some pretty big brawls. They just don't gang up and bum-rush him in traditional action film fashion (where the potential enemies are just shuffling in the background to give the appearance of danger when the hero is actually only fighting one or two at any given time).

<youtube=8rHHMwWyyLg>

Look, most games are unrealistic. My point of contention is with Anita's claim against gender dimorphism which most people generally agree is incorrect and observably false.

I have no idea what this tangent is about, but weapons like a pistol, pepper spray, a taser and even a whistle are effective countermeasures against would be physical attacks.

A whistle? You mean a means to call for help from someone with the physical means to stop what's happening? All of these things are great if you're prepared for an assault. But if it comes down to trying to pull pepper spray out of your purse when the guy already has you then physical strength would make a big difference.

The idea is this, physical strength can be very relevant when people are trying to harm you. You're basically making the argument that Batman can beat Superman given enough time to prepare. True... but that's seldom the luxury we have as people.

But for the most part, they do have agency. Lara Croft doesn't rescue all of her friends on the island, she finds some and rescues 1. I think you have both a very narrow definition of what a protagonist is, and what conflict should be in a story. There are ways to tell even a straight hero story without removing female agency or anyone's agency really.

Um... first off, let's be clear. No one is actually having agency removed. The characters, even the protagonist, are just 1's and 0's. They don't have free will, they don't have agency, they're nothing. They are things. So morality isn't even slightly in question here.

Secondly, I'm explaining that in the damsel in distress, the individual needing to be saved IS the conflict in those narratives. If the individual does not need to be saved, then it's a different narrative altogether.

I'm sorry that people think it is somehow unethical to craft a story in which someone's life is at stake. But I find that to be particularly irrational to demand that a story not be told because the person being saved is a girl.

Please keep in mind, Anita's argument is not that these games are bad. It's that it's happening to a female. She doesn't care about a character having their agency taken away, she has a problem with it being a girl.

She says so in the third damsel trope video when discussing spleunky at the 6 minute mark. She explains that there's nothing wrong with damsel-ling the male character or dog and that only the female damsel is unethical to depict. So, either she is sexist and thinks that bad mechanics are justified against men or her objection is something else regarding it specifically happening to the female.

She says that the female damsel reinforced stereotypes about women being the weaker gender because they're frail/fragile/vulnerable. Which, as we are discussing, isn't a stereotype but is a measurable distinction between our genders albeit on average.

1. True: Saying that women are weaker than men as a gender (aggregate).
2. True: Saying that Sally is most likely (statistically likely but not necessarily) weaker than Tom because she is female.
3. False: Saying that Sally is automatically weak because she is a woman. There's a huge difference between the first two and the last one. But Anita is disagreeing with both medical fact and stereotyping when only stereotyping is wrong.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

Bob, we get it; You like Anita Sarkeesian and what she preaches. That's fine.

But a lot of us don't. Stop trying to make us feel guilty for disagreeing with somebody whose arguments aren't all that airtight to begin with. It's getting a bit tiresome.

OT: Interesting video, considering I didn't really pay much attention to the Jack Thompson debacle when it was happening because that was another American issue that had no effect on me. So he was just a two-bit political wannabe in the end? Who'd have guessed?

I don't think he's trying to make people feel guilty for disagreeing with her.

I think he's just arguing that comparing Jack Thompson to Anita Sarkeesiann is unfounded.

 

[Lightknight]

Wait, people still talk about the guy?

I've seen maybe 3 people in the last 4 years mention him, one of whom was saying "Hey, you know, the harassment HE got wasn't right either, you know" and the other two were certified idiots.

*scratches head* Who else is talking about him and hasn't gotten over him?

MovieBob is complaining about people comparing Anita's claim that games reinforce and perpetuate sexism with Thompson's claim that games encourage violence behaviors. He is being subtle about it but you'll see his intention at the 4:52 minute mark and if you're aware that Anita is the one being accused of claiming that games are harmful in the same way Thompson did.

It is apparently beyond Bob's comprehension that two people claiming that games do X which is harmful could warrant comparison.

It's almost as if he has a dog in this fight. But it's not like Bob would make an entire article on the matter just to defend a friend or anything without disclosing a friendly relationship with said friend after this whole shitstorm of gamergate broke, right (FYI, Bob is the one in black and I'm betting both of the below pictures were taken on the same day even though Anita is wearing a larger jacket in one)?

http://www.gamebits.net/wp-content/uploads/gallery/femfreq/feministfrequency5.jpg

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w3/randomfox12245/1387160436306_zps5d0b1d80.png

Perhaps he thinks that because it was subtle and that he didn't mention her by name he didn't have to explain that he's an avid fan of hers. But she's the only one who is getting compared to him right now. So, even without him using pictures of her work when discussing who is being compared we would know exactly who he is talking about.

 

[Lightknight]

Bob, we get it; You like Anita Sarkeesian and what she preaches. That's fine.

But a lot of us don't. Stop trying to make us feel guilty for disagreeing with somebody whose arguments aren't all that airtight to begin with. It's getting a bit tiresome.

OT: Interesting video, considering I didn't really pay much attention to the Jack Thompson debacle when it was happening because that was another American issue that had no effect on me. So he was just a two-bit political wannabe in the end? Who'd have guessed?

I don't think he's trying to make people feel guilty for disagreeing with her.

I think he's just arguing that comparing Jack Thompson to Anita Sarkeesiann is unfounded.

That does appear to be his intention.

He just doesn't see how:

X believes that Y games are harmful because Z

Can apply to both individuals.

Jack believes violent games are harmful because they incite violence.
Anita believes sexist games are harmful because they reinforce and perpetuate sexism.

Anita has even directly called the games harmful but people seem to miss it because she uses the word "pernicious" which has fallen out of use in the common vernacular.

My only guess is that he thinks this comparison is to imply that Anita is trying to censor these things. But that's not always the case with the reference. It's that she's making an unfounded claim that games do harm. At least Jack Thompson found and provided studies that seemed to back him up until they were thrown out by the Supreme Court as incorrect.

Thompson was a far greater threat because he tried to use the government to censor these things. But their arguments are the same thing. It is just silly to pretend like they're not and it's wrong Bob for dismissing what is a legitimate comparison just because it casts a friend of his in a bad light when it's a valid criticism of her claims.

 

[DANEgerous]

Okay so title alone here are my prediction 1) A defense of Anita Sarkeesian. It is Movie Bob talking about Jack Thompson it may even be his key feature. 2) Reasons why Jack Thompson or perhaps just censorship is important. 3) generally undermining gamers as assholes or identity of being a gamer as irrelevant. Off to watch it.

Point one one made it in but was far less of a focus than I thought it would be and was a rather apt point even if I do generally dislike Anita Sarkeesian. I have never found her goal as negative, her stated goal of a better image for women is a fantastic point she just make it poorly, contradicts herself,paints with a brush that is a mile to wide and denies discussion all at a very slow pace, but it is true she is not gaming bogyman.

Point two is not what I thought he would say at all, and was rather well put. Yeah Jack Thompson is old news but he was never big news. His main point was more or less Anita Sarkeesian is not female Jack Thompson. I do not agree and feel in many ways he is all be it to a far lesser extent.

Point three is there through out the video, eh at least he counts himself in the group.

 

[QuietlyListening]

I think the concern over the impact of violence in videogames is a valid one. The claim that violence train kids to be killers is not. This is the claim Thompson made.
I think that the concern over the impact of gender portrayals in videogames is a valid one. To draw a parallel would mean that Sarkeesian claimed that videogames train people to rape or abuse women. This is not her claim.

The influence of culture on attitudes is pretty well established. It's part of the reason why we study and criticize culture. It's central to the idea of "games are art." If art were meaningless, then who cares if games qualify or not? If we accept that art is important, we have to recognize how it can be important in both good ways AND bad.

 

[Lightknight]

Point one one made it in but was far less of a focus than I thought it would be and was a rather apt point even if I do generally dislike Anita Sarkeesian. I have never found her goal as negative, her stated goal of a better image for women is a fantastic point she just make it poorly, contradicts herself,paints with a brush that is a mile to wide and denies discussion all at a very slow pace, but it is true she is not gaming bogyman.

People don't generally compare her to Thompson regarding her statement that women should have better representation in gaming. A lot of people agree completely with her on that in many ways.

What people do compare her with Thompson on is that she calls sexist games pernicious (her words, aka, Harmful) because the reinforce and perpetuate sexism. This is comparable to Thompson's claim that violent games are harmful because they make people violent.

This point is almost entirely lost on people who disagree with it. It is axiomatically similar.

I think the concern over the impact of violence in videogames is a valid one.

Cite yourself. There are several studies that claim overall aggression and frustration decrease with gaming. Even violent gaming as a nonviolent way to destress.If games did make people have more violent thoughts, then it would make them more violent. So Thompson wouldn't have been wrong even if he was exaggerating the degree.

 

[bobdole1979]

I find it hillarious the Gamergate people say that Anita denies discussion.. How does she do that? Has she gotten a law passed that says no one can disscuss sexism in video games????

 

[sexy=sexist]

Jack is nothing like Anita... for example we could criticizes Jack and when it was found his argument was lacking he was raked over the coals.
Have any big gaming sites done the basic respectful thing and examine Anita's arguments?

Bob really missed the point.

 

[itsmeyouidiot]

What I feel is often lost on people in these discussions is an understanding of nuance. A 2010 meta-analysis [http://www.accers.net/Files/school/English/3rd%20Paper/Research/Anderson%20et%20al,%202010.pdf] of 136 papers detailing 381 tests involving 130,296 research participants found that violent gameplay led to a significant desensitization to violence, increases in aggression, and decreases in empathy.

But this isn't the same as saying these games cause violence, as Jack Thompson had argued so vehemently in the past. Likewise, Anita isn't saying games cause sexism, only that they can reinforce and perpetuate it, as in it doesn't cause it so much as strengthen what's already there.

The way that this sort of thing generally works is that if you see an idea repeated ad nauseum, then you begin to see it as normal, even as expected. It doesn't necessarily cause you to behave in a certain way, but it tends to make you see certain things as more "natural."