The Big Picture: Remembering the Real Jack Thompson

[Silvanus]

not quite sure what you need as an admission of it happening I mean that article you linked says

Shortly after that, in early April, Nathan and Zoe began a romantic relationship. He has not written about her since

I mean how much more do you need that they were together a full sex tape ?

The accusations being denied was positive coverage for sex (which strictly speaking is true he never did exchange that while at Kotaku) unless of course someone gets Matti Lesham to give an alternative version of the events at Gamejam

Good lord. I know they had a relationship. Nobody is debating that.

I've been saying, from the beginning, that accusations of sexual misconduct had nothing to support them. That is true. There is nothing but lurid speculation that this was untoward.

Inconclusive evidence. As defined by the people searching it.

Uhrm, yes, as I said.

We do not need conclusive evidence for the null hypothesis to stop being the default.

"The action of producing effect" and "the producer of an effect" are "noticeably different"?

Surely, you jest...

"To act as a compelling force" is noticeably different from "acts [...] in such a way as something happens as a result".

It IS irrelevant because the premise is WRONG. It doesn't matter what you want to do about the sky being pink: It's still blue.

Thompson wasn't wrong because he wanted the government to regulate something that causes children to murder children. He was wrong because he thought video games don't cause children to murder children.

He was wrong in my book because he argued for censorship, and because he (almost certainly) vastly overstated the extent of the influence.

Repeating that it's "wrong" that media can influence anybody, and presenting nothing to support that, is not compelling. It is not the default position any more.

And, as we've covered, your belief isn't in discussion. Hers is.

Although I am confused. Are you saying the average gamer does NOT have a noticeably greater pressure towards misogyny than the average non gamer?

I'd say it's inconclusive.

We've been over this (several times). I am not arguing that games make people bad. I am arguing that media has an influence, and not that all of it is bad.

Do not conflate my position with Anita Sarkeesian's. They are not the same.

 

[Netrigan]

And Absurdity has a sub-basement.

Not sure what ass you pulled "Perfect Pasta sauce" out of, because it's got absolutely nothing to do with anything I'm talking about.

I'm not suggesting the industry build the perfect game that appeals to everyone, but saying we need a whole bunch of voices speaking to as many types of consumers as we can, so they can make an informed choice about what games are for them.

And I'm still struggling to figure out why you're so up in arms about "blaming the game". If you don't like something, you don't like it. Call that "blaming the game" if you like, but if a reviewer can't inform customers about things he didn't enjoy about the game because it violates "Kodu's Rules For Writing Game Reviews" then what good are your rules?

By all means, follow your own rules when writing game reviews, because you clearly believe in them and there are a fair number of fans who want reviews like that... but stop pretending like it's Perfect Pasta sauce. It's just one way of writing game reviews. Other customers don't find them useful at all. They shouldn't be denied reviews they find useful because it violates the Kodu's personal preferences.

There's understanding and addressing ones own personal bias and blaming a product for not catering to that bias.

You see perfect Pasta sauce has far more to do with this than you may think.


There's a difference between the fairly obvious admission of subjectivity "this game contained depicts of the use of fossil fuels which I felt didn't work" and the false claim of objectivity or objective truth "This game contains depicts of the use of fossil fuels which entirely break the game and have no purpose being there".

If you want to go and be more subjective them be subjective but admit that it is subjective to you not try to pass it as some objective truth.

So when I say that we should have more voices, spreading more opinions, to serve the needs of the many different kinds of customers out there... you hear, we should have one perfect pasta sauce.

I preach for more opinions (yours included), you preach for fewer (keep personal opinions out)... and you think I'm the one who wants the perfect pasta sauce.

Did I wake up on Bizarro World? Is this Opposite Day? Is water running uphill? I'm saying words and you're insisting I mean the opposite... repeatedly.

If you want your reviews to be a laundry list of Approved Criteria; then more power to you. That's clearly the kind of review that you find valuable and customers like you should find a reviewing outlet that serves your needs as a customer.

But there's tens of millions of Gamers out there. You favorite pasta sauce may not be to their tastes and if they want Conservative Video Game Reviews or Christian Video Game Reviews or Animal Rights Video Game Reviews or Parental Video Game Reviews or Social Justice Warrior Game Reviews, then I would hope those customers are free to find outlets that serve their needs as a customer.

And by all means, feel free to criticize a review for whatever reason... but do not support an opinion silencing obscenity like Operation: Bayonetta because your needs aren't be serviced by one particular site. There is no Perfect Pasta Sauce. Your recipe is valid, but so are many, many others. Just because you, Kodo, don't find a particular review conforms to your needs as a customer does not mean that it doesn't conform to the needs of other customers.

 

[bobdole1979]

There's understanding and addressing ones own personal bias and blaming a product for not catering to that bias.

You see perfect Pasta sauce has far more to do with this than you may think.


There's a difference between the fairly obvious admission of subjectivity "this game contained depicts of the use of fossil fuels which I felt didn't work" and the false claim of objectivity or objective truth "This game contains depicts of the use of fossil fuels which entirely break the game and have no purpose being there".

If you want to go and be more subjective them be subjective but admit that it is subjective to you not try to pass it as some objective truth.

funny you bring up Jim Sterling



and of course http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/9860-Final-Fantasy-XIII-A-Completely-Objective-Review

 

[Netrigan]

There's understanding and addressing ones own personal bias and blaming a product for not catering to that bias.

You see perfect Pasta sauce has far more to do with this than you may think.


There's a difference between the fairly obvious admission of subjectivity "this game contained depicts of the use of fossil fuels which I felt didn't work" and the false claim of objectivity or objective truth "This game contains depicts of the use of fossil fuels which entirely break the game and have no purpose being there".

If you want to go and be more subjective them be subjective but admit that it is subjective to you not try to pass it as some objective truth.

funny you bring up Jim Sterling



and of course http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/9860-Final-Fantasy-XIII-A-Completely-Objective-Review

I see your Jim Sterling and raise you, Ashly Burch.


I'm not entirely sure why I think that's appropriate, but I did it. Deal.

After-the-fact justification: there is no Perfect Pasta Sauce... except Saints Row.

 

[sexy=sexist]

But when it came to Gamergaters giving the whole a bad name, you were outraged. You called for personal responsibility and said THEY, the dreaded THEY were against personal responsibility. Now you're....concerned that people are getting a bad name? Why not just stick to personal responsibility, which you claim Gamergate is about?

I get annoyed when Gamergate gets generalised via a stereotype, just like with feminism. When people claiming to speak for Gamergate spread ridiculous conspiracy theories and lies, it's bad for their "movement". Just like with feminism.

Gamergate is actually very similar to feminism in structure. Gamergate claims to be about one thing (journalistic ethics) and the belief in that one thing is the only clear qualification for entry. Feminism claims to be about one thing (gender equality/women's rights), that too is the only necessary belief. Beyond that peoples' beliefs are extremely dissonant, they can be all over the political spectrum, they can even be downright fascistic.

But people attacking Gamergate have claimed it has used the ethics thing as a cover-up for harassment. People that attack feminism claim the equality thing is a cover-up for conspiracy theories and misandry. Now I have a similar relationship with both GG and feminism. I don't outright call myself a participant in either but I am an ally of people that identify with each that have views I agree with.

When we give Feminist Frequency attention it inevitably detracts from the countless moderate feminists out there. When we give trolls (who don't even identify with GG) attention when GG discussion is getting heated, it detracts from the moderates within GG. I wanted people to be held accountable and for people not to rely on guilt-by-association to win arguments. Yeah I used a nebulous "they" in that argument. I screwed up.

Feminist Frequency are a microcosm of Tumblr feminism.

Itself an unwarranted generalisation. Based on a stereotype. Sort of like the "angry white males" thing that set GGers into a tizzy.

How come? The stereotype exists for a reason, a certain problematic form of feminism has made its home on Tumblr. The kind that devalues the agency of women and treats patriarchy like a conspiracy. The most ridiculous views are the ones that get the most attention (for better or for worse). Feminist Frequency continue to get exposure for two reasons. Their backlash and the ridiculous, provocative things they say. Not in their videos but in their social media interactions. The stuff they've said about Bayonetta 2 is like people claiming Family Guy is Illuminati propaganda.

You probably don't want to hear "Gamergate is a microcosm of gamers as angry white males," so why would you visit it elsewhere?

Feminist Frequency have very specific views that can (and should be) ridiculed. Gamergate is filled with people with wildly varying beliefs, the only constant factor is the ethics part (which I don't even agree with but it's what they claim to believe).

Wise words. As someone who calls myself a feminist, and fallow GG I say you pretty much nailed it.

 

[Dizchu]

Zoe Quinn's name is not being dragged through the mud by anyone but herself.
She could have apologised to TFYC but chose to pretend to be blameless.
She could have apologised to Mundane Matt but she chose to claim youtubers were parasites.
She could have chose to not retweet the personal doccuments of a lawyer but she chose not to.
She could have chosen to give her side of the story but she chose to call anyone who dared ask a terrorist.
She could have chosen to not try to put a gagging order on her ex but she chose not to.

Everyone just needs to realise that she's not gonna apologise for shit.
This is not a person that takes her treatment of other people seriously.
This is a person that is part of a clique that loves to condescend and use social justice lingo as a means to patronise people they deem as "less civilised".

She reacted with the accusations of abuse with a RESTRAINING ORDER. She is beyond taking responsibility.

Let's just face the facts. Until she slips up again (in a way everyone can agree on), there's no point arguing about her. It is absolutely not relevant.

well the whole thing of Gamergate started with Zoe Quinn, supposedly its all about ethics in journalisim.

Not quite. The Zoe Quinn thing was what initially got people angry. It was the response from various media outlets that sparked Gamergate.

Operation Bayonetta is fucking obscene and an attempt to skull fuck the very concept of Journalistic Ethics in game reviews.

Now, I don't agree that people should have become so riled up about the Bayonetta review but I do see where they are coming from.

Imagine that you're writing for a music site that covers all sorts of genres. Would it be wise for a person with no experience with death metal or jazz to write about them? I wouldn't imagine a guy who listens to pop and indie folk having a good enough grasp on death metal to be able to write a comprehensive review on it. "This music is so angry and dissonant, I don't like it" would be a pathetic thing to say seeing as death metal is ALL ABOUT anger and dissonance.

The same with Bayonetta 2. You can cry about how sexualised Bayonetta is all day long, but without that element Bayonetta would not be Bayonetta. What would a Bayonetta game sans the eroticism be? It'd be like saying "Doom is a good game mechanically, but it's a shame that it's so violent".

 

[sexy=sexist]

Now, I don't agree that people should have become so riled up about the Bayonetta review but I do see where they are coming from.

Imagine that you're writing for a music site that covers all sorts of genres. Would it be wise for a person with no experience with death metal or jazz to write about them? I wouldn't imagine a guy who listens to pop and indie folk having a good enough grasp on death metal to be able to write a comprehensive review on it. "This music is so angry and dissonant, I don't like it" would be a pathetic thing to say seeing as death metal is ALL ABOUT anger and dissonance.

The same with Bayonetta 2. You can cry about how sexualised Bayonetta is all day long, but without that element Bayonetta would not be Bayonetta. What would a Bayonetta game sans the eroticism be? It'd be like saying "Doom is a good game mechanically, but it's a shame that it's so violent".

Personally I like that kind of review as I find it funny and interesting to see what a outsider thinks. I have not seen the review myself but I can imagine what it might being saying and that sort of makes me roll my eyes a bit.

 

[Dizchu]

Personally I like that kind of review as I find it funny and interesting to see what a outsider thinks. I have not seen the review myself but I can imagine what it might being saying and that sort of makes me roll my eyes a bit.

Oh of course reviews like that are entertaining. It's funny to see people that are not accustomed to a certain genre try to wrap their heads around it. After all, it's that approach that was the basis for the "Moms hate Dead Space 2" advertising campaign.

But Polygon (the site in question) consider themselves "serious" journalists. They're not being Yahtzee they're being actual critics that are trying to inform their readers what's worth buying and what isn't.

I'm personally not upset at the review. Opinions are opinions. I just understand what the criticisms are (perhaps better than most of the people throwing a tantrum).

Polygon's analysis of Bayonetta 2 is nowhere near as batshit insane as Feminist Frequency's though, who are reacting to Bayonetta 2 the same way fundamentalist Christians react to Harry Potter for "promoting witchcraft".

 

[sexy=sexist]

Polygon's analysis of Bayonetta 2 is nowhere near as batshit insane as Feminist Frequency's though, who are reacting to Bayonetta 2 the same way fundamentalist Christians react to Harry Potter for "promoting witchcraft".

Yah no kidding. Calling her a fighting f**k toy also hardly sounds feminist to me. She really really hates sexy depictions of women. I can understand annoyance, or even anger that very sexy women are mostly what you will find in gaming... but her hate, I thing the word for it is misogyny.

 

[Netrigan]

Operation Bayonetta is fucking obscene and an attempt to skull fuck the very concept of Journalistic Ethics in game reviews.

Now, I don't agree that people should have become so riled up about the Bayonetta review but I do see where they are coming from.

Imagine that you're writing for a music site that covers all sorts of genres. Would it be wise for a person with no experience with death metal or jazz to write about them? I wouldn't imagine a guy who listens to pop and indie folk having a good enough grasp on death metal to be able to write a comprehensive review on it. "This music is so angry and dissonant, I don't like it" would be a pathetic thing to say seeing as death metal is ALL ABOUT anger and dissonance.

The same with Bayonetta 2. You can cry about how sexualised Bayonetta is all day long, but without that element Bayonetta would not be Bayonetta. What would a Bayonetta game sans the eroticism be? It'd be like saying "Doom is a good game mechanically, but it's a shame that it's so violent".

I was just listening to this podcast about Punisher: War Zone with Patton Oswald and a bunch of folks, and one of the things they were talking about was how so many people were just shocked and put off that a Punisher movie would be so violent... many of whom were fans of the comic.

Last night I was reading Jim Sterling's Duke Nukem Forever review (2/10) where he went after (among other things) the completely unfunny sexist behavior.

And there's Greg Tito's GTA 5 review where he found the three protagonists to be so unpleasant that he simply couldn't enjoy the game.

Point is, sometimes you can expect something, be willing to enjoy that something, and not like the presentation. They can go too far (War Zone) or not execute it properly (Duke Nukem) or just not be to your taste (GTA V).

And sometimes the reviewer just doesn't like the idea of something and reviews it to hate on it.

I said later on that you should feel free to criticize any review, but the objection I have to Operation: Bayonetta is it's encouraging a game publisher to pull future review material... because they didn't the review. And from a group that is so "concerned" about journalistic ethics.

All because they don't like the opinions expressed by a games reviewer.

 

[Dizchu]

snip

There's not much I can argue with in your response, I agree with almost all of it.

People are overreacting. They're just reviews. I write reviews and I specifically avoid reviewing anything that I'm not familiar with or I don't understand.

Duke Nukem Forever and Bayonetta is a very interesting comparison when it comes to depiction of sexualised women in games. Duke Nukem Forever is in extremely poor taste (its humour is literally scatological), designed by men for men. It's a self-indulgent mess with no self-awareness and its treatment of female characters is apalling.

Bayonetta is similarly ludicrous... however the main character was designed by a woman for her own self-expression. Instead of being in "poor taste" it ramps up the camp factor to ludicrous levels. It's very self-aware and even artistically beautiful sometimes.

It's strange how a few small distinctions can make a huge difference.

 

[Netrigan]

snip

There's not much I can argue with in your response, I agree with almost all of it.

People are overreacting. They're just reviews. I write reviews and I specifically avoid reviewing anything that I'm not familiar with or I don't understand.

Duke Nukem Forever and Bayonetta is a very interesting comparison when it comes to depiction of sexualised women in games. Duke Nukem Forever is in extremely poor taste (its humour is literally scatological), designed by men for men. It's a self-indulgent mess with no self-awareness and its treatment of female characters is apalling.

Bayonetta is similarly ludicrous... however the main character was designed by a woman for her own self-expression. Instead of being in "poor taste" it ramps up the camp factor to ludicrous levels. It's very self-aware and even artistically beautiful sometimes.

It's strange how a few small distinctions can make a huge difference.

But there's no One True Opinion about her sexualization. A bit too much salt can spoil the taste for some.

I can easily see someone wanting to like Bayonetta and having a problem with the Fan Service shots... because they do seem to be on the excessive side.

I've found myself on many occasions trying to express my problem with violence in certain violent movies. The highly mockable way to describe it is mean-spirited violence, where the character doing the killing is so repellant and the movie/game is so into his actions, that I'm turned off by it. I love violence but I hate this for its violence.

And its incredibly tough to articulate because the moment you start, some dickhead is saying "if you don't like violent movies don't watch them."

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

Also can we please stop talking about Zoe Quinn?

Yeah I've said plenty of stuff about the abuse and manipulation she's caused and her insane views of entitlement but... let it go.

What is anyone trying to prove? Yeah Zoe Quinn is an awful person. Her abused ex boyfriend's not exactly an angel either. But the thing is, there's no convincing anybody at this point. It's also absolutely not relevant when discussing video game topics.

If this were a forum about abuse, fine. Talk about her. But it's not. And the more she gets dragged into video game discussions the worse it is for everyone, including her.

As much as I loathe her she deserves to be cut some slack. Let's just be the better people here and let people with more experience and context in the matter deal with it. That goes for people attacking and defending her.

Let's stop caring about her.

Also let's stop caring about Anita (the person) and focus our attacks on Feminist Frequency. You want a crazy feminist? It's not Anita, It's Jonathan McIntosh.

Bringing their names up just causes more and more anger. Also ditch the "literally who" thing too.

well the whole thing of Gamergate started with Zoe Quinn, supposedly its all about ethics in journalisim.

And WW1 started with an archduke getting killed, what's your freaking point?

 

[Farther than stars]

Well, no, it can still matter. If you earn 10 dollars for every 9 dollars you lose by paying for stuff, your net wealth increases by 1 dollar for every 10 earned, but that doesn't mean the 9 dollars are negligible. Losing 7 dollars for every 10 earned, for instance, would still make your net wealth grow more rapidly.

And there would be an easily noticeable difference between the person spending 9 an hour (gamers with the noticeably increased tendency towards misogyny) and those spending 7 an hour (NON gamers) at the end of the week (336 dollars more).

Again, this is not what we find. The people who play the most games and are most involved in the community are not shown to be any more sexist than the people who play the least or not at all.

The use of control groups, that's a step in the right direction. But personally I'm not convinced. That statement is still a value judgement and I don't see it that way. By no means do I think gamers are less sexist than non-gamers. In an age when even construction workers don't dare to wolf-whistle for fear of causing offence, I don't see similar behaviour in the forums and social media surrounding gaming. The Escapist may seem like an egalitarian utopia, but that's because it's heavily censored to produce that outcome.
But pointing out that ecological fallacy was just an academic exercise. Personally, I don't think there needs to be a demonstrable effect on society in order to be wary of sexism in games. I'd say the risks of any harmful effects are enough to warrant a meaningful discussion, because the slight discomfort of having that discussion is so much smaller than the negative fallout of sexism plaguing society.

 

[sexy=sexist]

Well Farther than stars I disagree with you. I think gaming culture is overall more fair and less sexist.

Yes I agree the conversation about sexism is needed but if your going to claim something is harmful then proof will be needed or the argument can be ignored. Also this sometimes feels less like a conversation and more like a lecture that that tends to make heavy use of censorship.

 

[rayen020]

Yes bob but the "Liberty Valance" effect is in full effect here.

For those who don't know, the "Liberty Valance" Effect; "When the Legend becomes fact, print the legend."

Start at 4:50

 

[gridsleep]

If Bob's excellent "article" (in the way a book-on-tape is a novel) hasn't sunk in for some I would suggest watching the movie "Elmer Gantry" (also the earlier "A Face In The Crowd") or (for those who still can) read the novel by Sinclair Lewis. Then go read everything else by Lewis. Then read everything by John Brunner.

 

[Brockyman]

Pre Watching: Chipman there is no reason to believe your delusions of their delusions. They are all delusions.
(Yeah I'll take does word back if he proves me wrong, but I doubt it)

Post Watching: How ironic is it of Chipman to ask people to stop seeing a person as a symbol. I guess "hypercritical" is more the word actually.

I do agree with the sentiment that people need to get over Jack Thompson, not because of the gamergate bullshit, but because of everyone who reacted to; "[We, the Red Cross, want semi realistic, modern military shooters to acknowledge the existence of War Crimes.]" with; "[OMG, they are just like Jack Thompson, trying to censor Grand Theft Auto.]"

My reaction to the Red Cross statement was more along the lines of "Don't they have better things to spend their time thinking about than video games?"

Honestly, I've never seen anything that in a game that comes close to a War Crime, unless it's perpetrated by the villains, who are punished by way before they make it to the Hague. (which was referenced in COD Advanced Warfare when talking about SPOILERS Atlas' bioweapon Manticore)

 

[Brockyman]

Three things:

-Oh dear, this will blow up in massive flames at this rate

-Honestly, I'm trying to step back and view the whole thing from above but this whole Gamergate thing is nuts so here is my probably controversial statement. How about instead of making a figurehead enemy that would unite the people but lead to nothing, you target something that is more ambiguous but will yield better results: lack of intelligence. It would seem that internet discourse has degraded into what I sadly call Neanderthal head bashing. Basic argument structure in a debate is as follows: constructing the argument, someone makes a refutation, you make a refutation of that refutation that supports your initial argument and so on. Instead, I see a whole lot of personal attacks and topic diverting. I understand that people are angry and pissed but in the long run leaving your rage at the door will enable you to articulate your point better. I admit I have not fully demonstrated that principle given my reaction threads but at the same time, the pissing contest is making me very very tired and annoyed.

- I don't quite understand why we are targeting critics? I don't like Anita on grounds of lack of citation, updates, or even basic academic research but the points themselves have merit. Gaming culture wanted to be treated on the same level as movies and books but we only want the positive in terms of acceptance and influence, not the negative in terms of unfortunate implications and tired tropes being brought up.

This is why I've personally never wanted to see games like movies/art/books are seen. It adds a level of pretentiousness and over thinking to the medium. Everything has to become a symbol/movement/political statement instead of just being there for fun or because it's good story telling.

As far as Anita goes, I have no issue with her doing her thing on YouTube, or talks or whatever. She has freedom of speech rights just like we all do, and no one should threaten her life ect. But that being said, I can criticize her in return, by being to heavy handed in her critique and finding tropes when (in some cases) there are none, or may not have been the true intention of the creator of the content.