Was it fair how Jack Thompson was treated?

[Someone Depressing]

While him being disbarred was the only rational thing to do, I think the masses of raving lunatics threatening his life, no matter how much he did or didn't deserve it (and he really didn't. He made some incompetent, frivolous attacks on a culture. He didn't blow up a million starving orphans, and their dogs.), only went on to partially prove his point.

Then again, the GIFT exists so we'll never be sure.

If someone like him did what he did nowadays, it would get buried under the tons of garbage and vaguely sensical nonsense that if the Gamergate discussion after having its little five minutes of fame.

 

[JohnFei]

To those who say Thompson never received death and rape threats, I'll just leave this here.
https://archive.today/U048c

All these horrible comments, just because she's a woman. Just because she's a woman she has to put up with this torrent of abuse, threats of rape, death threats, and people wishing terminal diseases upon her. It's no wonder she turned off comments on her video series.

Just because she's a woman, a woman, just because she's a woman, a woman, no man would ever get this kind of abuse, no man would ever get this abuse, ever get this abuse, get this abuse, except of course....

All the above quotes were actually directed at Jack Thompson, infamous game industry opponent and self professed 'male'. So why in the hell was he recieving RAPE THREATS? Surely this is a women's issue? Surely only women get this kind of abuse?

NO THEY DON'T.

 

[JohnFei]

BTW the comparison with Thompson is mainly because his inane and utterly un-scientific crackpot argument, that video games will make you into a ______.


Oh but culture and media works in mysterious ways! 


Nope. Playing Bayonetta doesn't turn people into sexists. Sorry. 


But by all means, keep talking about how Thompson being a lawyer makes him a credible threat, which somehow means we can ignore the threats and justify the harassments against him. Looking at you moviebob.

 

[Supdupadog]

People where saying some of the nastiest shit about him back in the day. Though, this was before 4chan had gotten it's recipe for online harrasment crapstorm down.

What put Jack in the next level was the actual money and time being wasted on all his shenanigans. Not just blogposts or something. He bought his own infamy and life destroying before the internet was really good at that.

But from the experience, we did kinda lose the ability to discuss those parts of game culture. Even to this day, trying to start a discussion about violence in video games gets met with the same knee jerk talking points we held on to back then. People still treat the topic like congress is about to outlaw it. And I feel it had a pretty big effect on the culture for the longest time, as anyone wanting to say something about the aggression present in most video games get called a Jack Thompson. So it went unchecked, and hand waved to not to appear like those media types.

He may not have gotten anything outlawed, but I feel he did hurt video games in a way he didn't intend. Him and the other bleeding hearts at the time.

 

[DirgeNovak]

Oh look it's that thread again. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.856153-Question-If-Anita-Sarkeesian-is-Right-why-is-Jack-Thompson-Wrong]

I'm so tired of this Anita Sarkeesian / Jack Thompson comparison. You may not name her, but your question is transparent. Thompson actively wanted games to be banned and called game developers accessories to murder. Sarkeesian is saying "Hey, maybe stop objectifying women so much in your games". Disagree with her all you want, but comparing her to this madman only serves to make you look bad.

But since you were sensible enough to phrase the question differently, I'll bite. There was definitely a change in culture over the past six years since Thompson was ridiculed and disbarred, primarily with the popularization of social media. Harassing and making threats is now easier than ever, and also more public than ever. Back then, the only harassment and threats Thompson could receive were through mail, e-mail and phone, as Facebook and Twitter barely existed back when he was active, and he didn't have a platform where he could easily share any threats received.

Would gaming media have reported on the harassment and threats he received had he been active today? I think they would have mentioned it in passing, but not anymore than that, and I wouldn't have blamed them. Why? Because of perspective. Thompson's point of view was something that no gamer could ever endorse. Restricting the sale of games because of their content is unimaginable to anyone who plays games (and, since we're talking about media, reads about them). He obviously didn't deserve any threats or harassment, because nobody does, but I don't see anyone in games media going up in arms over it because he was wholly unsympathetic to them and their readership. There's nothing there to gain for anyone writing about Jack Thompson's woes. Sarkeesian, on the other hand, has a point of view that is shared by many gamers and members of the gaming press (whether you like it or not) and reporting on it will gather pageviews (again, whether you like it or not).

 

[Uriel_Hayabusa]

You are quote mining. The previous sentence says:

Since any criticism of games from a socio-political standpoint from "outsiders" was inevitably going to be seized on by Thompson etc as "evidence," we trained ourselves to respond to such criticism in only one way: "No it doesn't. You're wrong. Games effect nothing. It's just games. Go away."

THEN it goes on to how this (circling the wagons, and rejecting the premises of criticism) was justifiable behavior at the time. There is no discussion of harrasment, he repeats some of the same words he already said years ago when discussing the treatment of violence in video games specifically, and harrasment was not the subject of that either.

That's not quote-mining, that's just quoting the relevant part. And Bob doesn't make reference to Jack Thompson being harassed because he's either in denial about it or because he knows it'll hurt his case.

I'm so tired of this Anita Sarkeesian / Jack Thompson comparison. You may not name her, but your question is transparent. Thompson actively wanted games to be banned and called game developers accessories to murder. Sarkeesian is saying "Hey, maybe stop objectifying women so much in your games". Disagree with her all you want, but comparing her to this madman only serves to make you look bad.

There was definitely a change in culture over the past six years since Thompson was ridiculed and disbarred, primarily with the popularization of social media. Harassing and making threats is now easier than ever, and also more public than ever. Back then, the only harassment and threats Thompson could receive were through mail, e-mail and phone, as Facebook and Twitter barely existed back when he was active, and he didn't have a platform where he could easily share any threats received.

Would gaming media have reported on the harassment and threats he received had he been active today? I think they would have mentioned it in passing, but not anymore than that, and I wouldn't have blamed them. Why? Because of perspective. Thompson's point of view was something that no gamer could ever endorse. Restricting the sale of games because of their content is unimaginable to anyone who plays games (and, since we're talking about media, reads about them). He obviously didn't deserve any threats or harassment, because nobody does, but I don't see anyone in games media going up in arms over it because he was wholly unsympathetic to them and their readership. There's nothing there to gain for anyone writing about Jack Thompson's woes.

I'd argue that sugar-coating or (implicitly) condoning the death threats and harassment thrown at Jack Thompson while waving your finger at anyone who so much as disagrees with Sarkeesian makes you (and those who share your viewpoint) look bad. The part where you say that ''He obviously didn't deserve any threats or harassment,'' feels more like an afterthought than an actual showing of empathy since you go out of your way to list extenuating circumstances (a supposed change in culture, Thompson being unsympathetic, him not being relevant), as if any of these make it more ''understandable'', while they don't.

I disagree with this in particular:

There's nothing there to gain for anyone writing about Jack Thompson's woes.

How so? If even one gaming-website that had known of the threats and harassment thrown at Thompson had come out and said ''Hey kids! Sending death threats at the guy who says games make people violent just plays into his hand and makes us all look bad. Cut that out.'', that would've been a positive message. It would've shown outsiders that the gaming community was in fact capable of some degree of self-criticism. Instead, the gaming press was all too happy to just stand by and let it happen.

 

[JohnFei]

People like AS and Leigh have zero sympathy in games and gamers. Painting an entire community as misogynistic rapists is not any better than claiming we are all crazed murderers.

Oh look it's that thread again. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.856153-Question-If-Anita-Sarkeesian-is-Right-why-is-Jack-Thompson-Wrong]

I'm so tired of this Anita Sarkeesian / Jack Thompson comparison. You may not name her, but your question is transparent. Thompson actively wanted games to be banned and called game developers accessories to murder. Sarkeesian is saying "Hey, maybe stop objectifying women so much in your games". Disagree with her all you want, but comparing her to this madman only serves to make you look bad.

But since you were sensible enough to phrase the question differently, I'll bite. There was definitely a change in culture over the past six years since Thompson was ridiculed and disbarred, primarily with the popularization of social media. Harassing and making threats is now easier than ever, and also more public than ever. Back then, the only harassment and threats Thompson could receive were through mail, e-mail and phone, as Facebook and Twitter barely existed back when he was active, and he didn't have a platform where he could easily share any threats received.

Would gaming media have reported on the harassment and threats he received had he been active today? I think they would have mentioned it in passing, but not anymore than that, and I wouldn't have blamed them. Why? Because of perspective. Thompson's point of view was something that no gamer could ever endorse. Restricting the sale of games because of their content is unimaginable to anyone who plays games (and, since we're talking about media, reads about them). He obviously didn't deserve any threats or harassment, because nobody does, but I don't see anyone in games media going up in arms over it because he was wholly unsympathetic to them and their readership. There's nothing there to gain for anyone writing about Jack Thompson's woes. Sarkeesian, on the other hand, has a point of view that is shared by many gamers and members of the gaming press (whether you like it or not) and reporting on it will gather pageviews (again, whether you like it or not).

The reason why this comparison keeps coming up is because there is no defense for the tin foil logic that their arguments are both based on. Playing games don't make you a shitty person. Blaming games for your problems makes you a shitty person. Case in point, our favorite anti-gamergate neo nazi:
https://twitter.com/FartToContinue/status/516680272935653376

This comparison is important because both their argument(s) are dumb, no matter how many of your journo pals like it.

This comparison is annoying for you because it highlights the double standards and hypocrisy: that the same hysterical and nonsensical argument was easily rejected back then, and yet embraced as the unquestionable gospel by people like you, just because some trolls wrote some mean messages at the poor woman (who admitted she doesn't care about gaming and even with 150k in her pocket, still can't put out videos on time, and resorts to stealing people's footages)

This comparison is important for Gamergate because it shows how the press can throw an unfavorable voice under the bus, and even justify the questionable actions of people who attack those they dislike. They are doing it right this instant, to all the gg people being doxxed, dehumanized and harassed out of their jobs. They did it to Thompson, and now they're doing to us. Heck, even Thompson got a few mentions of the death threats on gamespot in the end. Gamergate? Nothing.

I suppose they think we are worse than Thompson.

 

[Entitled]

That's not quote-mining, that's just quoting the relevant part. And Bob doesn't make reference to Jack Thompson being harassed because he's either in denial about it or because he knows it'll hurt his case.

Yes, it is quote mining. There is no "relevant part". As you just admitted, Moviebob "doesn't a reference to Jack Thompson being threatened", yet you quoted his opinion on something else (on gamers rejecting criticism), as an example of him being "okay with the fact that Thompson was threatened".

It doesn't matter WHY he talked about this issue instead of the harrasment, the fact is that he did not talk about harrasment. You grabbed a random quote of him where he said that he űwas OK with a certain thing, and positioned it as a demonstration that he was OK with harrasment.

 

[JohnFei]

People where saying some of the nastiest shit about him back in the day. Though, this was before 4chan had gotten it's recipe for online harrasment crapstorm down.

What put Jack in the next level was the actual money and time being wasted on all his shenanigans. Not just blogposts or something. He bought his own infamy and life destroying before the internet was really good at that.

But from the experience, we did kinda lose the ability to discuss those parts of game culture. Even to this day, trying to start a discussion about violence in video games gets met with the same knee jerk talking points we held on to back then. People still treat the topic like congress is about to outlaw it. And I feel it had a pretty big effect on the culture for the longest time, as anyone wanting to say something about the aggression present in most video games get called a Jack Thompson. So it went unchecked, and hand waved to not to appear like those media types.

He may not have gotten anything outlawed, but I feel he did hurt video games in a way he didn't intend. Him and the other bleeding hearts at the time.

It's the same with the issue of gender and diversity in gaming. That conversation is thoroughly monopolized and toxified by AS and her legion of supporters who scream muhsoggyknee at any sign of dissenting criticism.

But in the end it wont matter, because the people actually contributing to gender equality and diversity don't demand a hugbox and safe space to whine. They don't need these sycophantic circlejerks pretending to be academic discussion. They don't need to claim victim and beg for sympathy donations.

They just go and make the game they want to be made.

 

[Winnosh]

Thompson was trying to destroy and ban things he didn't like. What's going on now are people trying to add new things and create something that they do like to exist alongside things other people like.

It's the exact opposite.

 

[Entitled]

This comparison is annoying for you because it highlights the double standards and hypocrisy: that the same hysterical and nonsensical argument was easily rejected back then, and yet embraced as the unquestionable gospel by people like you

Have you considered that maybe the overlap is not what you think it is?

For someone who is offended by others treating the entire gamer community with universal labels, you are sure quick to identify Jack Thompson's rejection with the same monolitic establishment, as the current rejection of gg.

Have you considered, that maybe the same people who most excessively screamed about how gaming community can't effect behavior at all, are the same people who are screaming the same thing now about sexism? Maybe the people who sent Jack Thompson death threats are the same ones who are sending death threats to Sarkeesian now?

Other than the false equivalences between "community influences that we shouldn't encourage" and "directly makes people do things and must be banned", it seems rather straightforward that your problem is with the assumption that the currently mainstream anti-gg opinion leaders have ALWAYS been opinion leaders, and are personally responsible for the general atmosphere that gaming culture used to have a decade ago.

 

[Lieju]

But from the experience, we did kinda lose the ability to discuss those parts of game culture. Even to this day, trying to start a discussion about violence in video games gets met with the same knee jerk talking points we held on to back then. People still treat the topic like congress is about to outlaw it. And I feel it had a pretty big effect on the culture for the longest time, as anyone wanting to say something about the aggression present in most video games get called a Jack Thompson. So it went unchecked, and hand waved to not to appear like those media types.

He may not have gotten anything outlawed, but I feel he did hurt video games in a way he didn't intend. Him and the other bleeding hearts at the time.

Yeah, I agree.

It's not as bad as it once was, but I recall trying to discuss violence in video-games and that I'd like there to be more games where you could take non-violent paths, and the reaction being very hostile.

I got nothing against the existence of violent games, but I feel there are too many of them, that having different options is always a plus, and that it works against the narrative often. (For example like in Dragon Age 2 where the random attacks on the streets were just silly)

 

[JohnFei]

This comparison is annoying for you because it highlights the double standards and hypocrisy: that the same hysterical and nonsensical argument was easily rejected back then, and yet embraced as the unquestionable gospel by people like you

Have you considered that maybe the overlap is not what you think it is?

For someone who is offended by others treating the entire gamer community with universal labels, you are sure quick to identify Jack Thompson's rejection with the same monolitic establishment, as the current rejection of gg.

Have you considered, that maybe the same people who most excessively screamed about how gaming community can't effect behavior at all, are the same people who are screaming the same thing now about sexism? Maybe the people who sent Jack Thompson death threats are the same ones who are sending death threats to Sarkeesian now?

Other than the false equivalences between "community influences that we shouldn't encourage" and "directly makes people do things and must be banned", it seems rather straightforward that your problem is with the assumption that the currently mainstream anti-gg opinion leaders have ALWAYS been opinion leaders, and are personally responsible for the general atmosphere that gaming culture used to have a decade ago.

So...you're saying there's no hypocrisy, the media just got replaced by idiots who buy into tin foil con artists. I can dig that.

Of course, there's always the unfortunate examples like moviebob and Jim sterling, who were right there cutting Thompson up and now is defending the same argument against evil sexists.

 

[subskipper]

I think the biggest issue and one that potentially equates the goals of Thompson and the post-modern pop-critics going after games today is that when push comes to shove, we are essentially talking of censoring or legislating against content in games (and other media). Why? Well, the argument is built on the false premise that games "perpetuate violence against women" and that there is a patriarchy. If you accept that, there really is no two ways about it to be honest. Things need to change across the board, not just by adding alternative content to build on what is already there. Still, the connection is never really made solid, much as Thompson and violence in general. It's an effect that would have far reaching consequences for the entire entertainment industry. The current critics are much smarter than Mr Thompson ever was in terms of their message, and they are working from a much broader base of acceptance in the online community than he was. Thompson (I assume here) did have supporters among right wing conservatives in the US, while the current trend is riding on a much larger movement that have attached itself to several sub-cultures and industries and the message is much more widespread and subtle in what consequences the critique will have.

 

[JohnFei]

Thompson was trying to destroy and ban things he didn't like. What's going on now are people trying to add new things and create something that they do like to exist alongside things other people like.

It's the exact opposite.

Yes because no games were forced to change their vision, and no games were smeared as sexist and misogynistic.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.861639-Lets-Drop-our-Flags-and-discuss-the-issues-surrounding-Gamergate?page=5#21455125

And the recipient of that post, who stubbornly refused to respond, is right here claiming there are too many violent games. Maybe we should remove combat from DA2 altogether, wouldn't that be a sight.

 

[Uriel_Hayabusa]

You grabbed a random quote of him where he said that he űwas OK with a certain thing, and positioned it as a demonstration that he was OK with harrasment.

Yes, because I inferred that to be his position on the matter based on that quote in addition to other statements I've seen him make on Twitter. In his mind, Thompson and those who think like him are/were a ''real enemy'' who had to be fought back by any means necessary. That's the impression he gives off, at least.

Have you considered, that maybe the same people who most excessively screamed about how gaming community can't effect behavior at all, are the same people who are screaming the same thing now about sexism? Maybe the people who sent Jack Thompson death threats are the same ones who are sending death threats to Sarkeesian now?

Even if that's true, there's still a world of difference between the way the gaming-press reacted to Thompson being threatened and the way they reacted to Sarkeesian being threatened. Or rather, there actually was a reaction and much-deserved condemnation when there was news of the latter receiving death threats for her work. No such courtesy was extended to Thompson.

 

[Nukekitten]

When I think back years ago during the whole chaos that ensued because of the criticism by Jack Thompson I have to wonder if the Game media would condemn the community for threats and harassment aimed at Thompson.

Why did they not at least condemn gamers for their behavior rather then vilifying him along with the gamer community. Would it have made any difference in the past if the criticism had come from a woman?

How do you think Thompson would be treated by Games media today if he had appeared now and not in the past. Even though he may have been wrong did he deserve all the harassment and death threats he received.

Was his view point about games really all the different from suggestion that video games can impact woman and how they are treated which may cause more sexism? While I understand it not taken quite as far as Thompson I think its still in the same ballpark as what we are hearing today from Pop culture critics. To be fair I don't think they are that close together in their ideology but its something to consider.

No-one deserves physical threats for expressing their views in a relatively civil manner. Doesn't matter who they are. I think disbarring him was right, and I don't think it happened soon enough - but some people took it way too far.

Though I suspect the games media would ignore threats to Thompson fairly readily today as well - they don't have an angle on it that's likely to gather page views... he's not a sympathetic character.

 

[Dizchu]

Thompson was trying to destroy and ban things he didn't like. What's going on now are people trying to add new things and create something that they do like to exist alongside things other people like.

It's the exact opposite.

I wish this was what was happening. I wish Anita Sarkeesian used her gigantic budget (of which only $8000 was needed for her video series) to fund a game which has depictions of women SHE endorses. Imagine how much more credibility she'd have if she had the writing credits to an actually good game with actually good female characters (assuming she'd be able to write decent female characters, but she'd at least avoid the stereotypes that bother her).

I actually don't know what her motive was. I don't believe she was trying to censor games. I also don't think she actively cared enough to endorse games with good female characters in them (leaving that topic until her final video which will probably never get made). Personally I think she wanted a soapbox to stand on to complain about trivialities and exaggerated problems while donations paid her bills.

When it comes to other "feminist" speakers and "critics" in games media at the moment... I don't think any of them are doing much to address the homogeneous nature of mainstream games, and the ones that are don't get nearly as much publicity as the ones that just want to complain and shout misogyny.