Was it fair how Jack Thompson was treated?

[Nukekitten]

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.

How much did she get? If we're talking a quarter of a million or so, that's really not a lot when it comes to making reasonable quality games. Quite aside from the fact that people who know an extremely limited amount about running a company in an industry are likely to throw away their money trying to get things done.

 

[Entitled]

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.

No, you misunderstood me, I'm saying the idiots are the ones who got sidelined along with gg.

In the past they were tolerated, because no one wanted to be the guy to point out that their reactionary "ENTERTAINMENT DOESN'T INFLUENCE ANYTHING AT ALL" defensiveness is full of shit, because no one wanted to see their own introspective complaints about violence culture being quote mined by Thompson and Fox News as fodder for a game ban.

Now that game bans are unlikely, and the next waves of criticism, (the ones about gender), are more down to earth, talking about cultural influence of art, rather than drug-like direct mind manipulation, normal people feel more comfortable joining in introspection, while the ones who like to fall back to mindless defensiveness, are more obviously revealed as such.

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.

Kind of a bad example. Even at the beginning of his show, Bob made his distaste for gun culture as clear as he could get away with under that climate, and as much as he already discussed sexist video game tropes even at the same time, so there is no missing consistency there.

And Jim's attitude evolved so much since the good old days of calling people ?feminazi slut? on twitter, that there is not much expectation of consistency there.

 

[Silvanus]

2) At one point Jack or one of his camp was trying to push EU courts to have anyone who had copies of certain games tried as war criminals for crimes against humanity. No really they were trying to have people tried for genocide and war crimes for playing Call of Duty.

I'm going to need a source on this, because it doesn't sound like something that actually happened in reality.

Yes because no games were forced to change their vision, and no games were smeared as sexist and misogynistic.

Forced to change their vision? Being put under pressure, receiving criticism, these are not the same as being forced; they are not the same as something being banned.

People can criticise. People can express their displeasure. Those you disagree with are doing it, but so are you; so is everybody here. Do not imagine that those you disagree with are exercising some kind of undue influence simply by criticising, but that somehow you are not exerting precisely the same pressure when you express your opposing opinion.

It's the same, and it's not force.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

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.

No, you misunderstood me, I'm saying the idiots are the ones who got sidelined along with gg.

In the past they were tolerated, because no one wanted to be the guy to point out that their reactionary "ENTERTAINMENT DOESN'T INFLUENCE ANYTHING AT ALL" defensiveness is full of shit, because no one wanted to see their own introspective complaints about violence culture being quote mined by Thompson and Fox News as fodder for a game ban.

Now that game bans are unlikely, and the next waves of criticism, (the ones about gender), are more down to earth, talking about cultural influence of art, rather than drug-like direct mind manipulation, normal people feel more comfortable joining in introspection, while the ones who like to fall back to mindless defensiveness, are more obviously revealed as such.

...really?

the next waves of criticism, (the ones about gender), are more down to earth, talking about cultural influence of art, rather than drug-like direct mind manipulation

Seriously...?

are more down to earth

I...I can't take you seriously. By all means, explain to me how this:

"Players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual characters. It's a rush streaming from a carefully concocted mix of sexual arousal connected to the act of controlling and punishing representations of female sexuality."

Is something that should be considered "down to earth" and "talking about cultural influence of art" and not "drug-like direct mind maniupulation."

Please. I'd love to see the mental gymnastics required for such a feat.



More or less on topic:

Thompson was decidedly nuts and held a moderate amount of power that was ultimately taken from him due to the overly frivolous nature of his attempted suits and volatile behavior/public presence he projected. He was harassed and threatened, including threats of violent rape/murder, but received no attention from the gaming media for it.

Current ideologues are regarded a bit more highly by the gaming press and, as such, are reported on to a nauseating degree.

Yes. Of course it's hypocritical.

To say, as some posters in here have, that people like Sarkeesian do not have power (a "megaphone" if you will) or sway in the current environment, through journalists espousing similar viewpoints, blogs, and a centralized culture of shaming, is just declarative of willful ignorance of the role of news media in shaping the direction of public opinion and discourse.

 

[JohnFei]

No, you misunderstood me, I'm saying the idiots are the ones who got sidelined along with gg.

In the past they were tolerated, because no one wanted to be the guy to point out that their reactionary "ENTERTAINMENT DOESN'T INFLUENCE ANYTHING AT ALL" defensiveness is full of shit, because no one wanted to see their own introspective complaints about violence culture being quote mined by Thompson and Fox News as fodder for a game ban.

A lot of words that does nothing to prove video games will make you into a mass murderer and rapist.

And Jim's attitude evolved so much since the good old days of calling people ?feminazi slut? on twitter, that there is not much expectation of consistency there.

So you admit there IS hypocrisy. GLad to see we're on the same page.

 

[JohnFei]

Forced to change their vision?

Semantics.

Read the post I was responding to. Winnosh claims that they only want to add stuff, but evidence paints a very different picture. It appears most of GMF efforts is directed at smearing things they don't like, in the hopes that devs will be shamed into self-censorship.

I would LOVE to see GMFs put their money where their mouth is and actually add something positive instead of constantly being negative and dismissive. Sadly, that is not the case.

 

[Uriel_Hayabusa]

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.

Kind of a bad example. Even at the beginning of his show, Bob made his distaste for gun culture as clear as he could get away with under that climate, and as much as he already discussed sexist video game tropes even at the same time, so there is no missing consistency there.

And Jim's attitude evolved so much since the good old days of calling people ?feminazi slut? on twitter, that there is not much expectation of consistency there.

That's not what he means at all. His point is that both Bob and Jim are are unambigiously against the idea that violent games could encourage violent behavior, so much that they'll refer to people who think otherwise as idiots, hypocrites or worse. And while you're trying your hardest to ignore it I'll say it again: Bob thought of Jack Thompson and those like him as a real enemy who had to be fought back by any means necessary. Up to and including (endorsing) harassment.

I think that was necessary at the time, in the same way that I think sometimes ?civil disobedience? protests about far more important things DO have to break a window or vandalize a wall sometimes to get the point across: It was a ?war,? at least as much of one as the situation could allow, we did what we had to do at the time.

Can you imagine how Bob and Jim would react if someone harassed (or condoned harassment of) Anita Sarkeesian by saying that they're ''doing what they have to do''? Oh, no need to imagine. Bob has made his unambiguous disdain for that very clear already. It's too bad he (and many gaming journalists and/or ''personalities'' with him) refused to extend the same courtesy to Jack Thompson.

Then again, Thompson's a white, Christian, cis, hetero man; so maybe he was too ''privileged''?

 

[Silvanus]

Semantics.

Read the post I was responding to. Winnosh claims that they only want to add stuff, but evidence paints a very different picture. It appears most of GMF efforts is directed at smearing things they don't like, in the hopes that devs will be shamed into self-censorship.

I would LOVE to see GMFs put their money where their mouth is and actually add something positive instead of constantly being negative and dismissive. Sadly, that is not the case.

No, it is not a difference of semantics. You are referring to criticism, and creators changing their works as a result. This is simply not the same thing as forcing them to change anything. If you didn't mean the word, then you shouldn't have used it.

Everybody criticises art. It's the purpose of this entire forum. It is a fundamental part of the process, and artists will often intentionally seek out criticism. Hell, if they want to cater to their audience, then criticism is essential.

I also see no reason to dismiss what Winnosh said. She referred to herself, and expressed what she wanted. Your response is only to generalise her with others; to dismiss what she has said just because you've seen other people express other things.

Can you imagine how Bob and Jim would react if someone harassed (or condoned harassment of) Anita Sarkeesian by saying that they're ''doing what they have to do''? Oh, no need to imagine. Bob has made his unambiguous disdain for that very clear already. It's too bad he (and many gaming journalists and/or ''personalities'' with him) refused to extend the same courtesy to Jack Thompson.

Then again, Thompson's a white, Christian, cis, hetero man; so maybe he was too ''privileged''?

Now, I don't agree with his statement, but this is a rather baseless assumption. Wouldn't it be more likely that his approach to the two figures is different because the two figures believe very different things?

 

[Lightknight]

I think the biggest difference between Jack Thompson and what you mention is that Mr. Thompson was actively trying to have video games censored under a law forbidding their sale to people under a certain age, if they could be sold at all. Given Mr Thompson was an actual lawyer under the bar, he posed what could be considered a real and emminent threat to not only video games, but culture as a whole, given his status.

On the other side, I haven't actually heard anyone I would take serious on the feminist side advocate for banning video gamjes with negative depictions of female characters. They mostly just ask for stronger, or at least more fairly treated, female characters in video gaming.

Depends on the feminist. If they are merely advocating for more diverse representation and catering to their demographic as a viable consumer market, then sure. But if they are advocating that games are harmful to society and make people sexist by perpetuating gender roles (as Anita has claimed in her first video) then the natural conclusion of that line of discussion is that certain topics should be censored or actively avoided because of their harm. Whether you make people change their art by legal censorship or by social pressure, the same effect occurs. What's worse is that Anita's entire argument on the side of games being harmful remains entirely unproven just like Jack's shenanigans. It all hinges on Anita's belief that women are just as strong as males physically (which is a scientifically disprovable falsehood) so that depicting women as weaker than men is perpetuating a "culturally cultivated myth" even though it's scientifically true that the average woman would have to double her upper body strength to just begin to break even with the average man. Additionally, she holds that acting upon someone is objectification while that's actually just the definition of a grammatical object in a sentence. Like "I talked with David" would be me objectifying David by Anita's misuse of the term. Unless by "Anita defends feminists" she is somehow objectifying them. In a damsel game, the damsel is being objectified by the villain (being treated as a thing without respect for their dignity) and the hero's goal is to take away the villain's ability to continue doing so. So the point of damsel tropes is actually to stop the objectification which makes Anita's argument hilariously ironic by definition.

She also has to hold to the idea that we are incapable of distinguishing fantasy from reality. I never once thought that a character in any medium I've ever enjoyed was the literal embodiment of women. I get that those are stories and not real because I'm not schizophrenic. I'm also not prejudiced, so I can look at women and realize that not all women are the same. That there are some that could knock me out in seconds even if the majority of women are weaker than me. So Anita is also calling gamers prejudiced and quick to stereotype.

It's all very similar to Jack's argument that games make people violent. It's exactly the same but with sexist in place of violence.

 

[DataSnake]

There's a pretty huge difference between "videogames will turn you into a serial killer" and "sexist tropes in videogames, just like those in any other medium, can reinforce patriarchal attitudes already present in society". Even ignoring the fact that calling for censorship is pretty fucking different from calling for introspection, their claims are also pretty much incomparable. Thompson claimed that violent games would cause real-world murder, directly affecting behavior in a way counter to societal norms. Sarkeesian claims that sexist tropes in games can reinforce existing sexist attitudes, affecting perception in a way consistent with social norms. Let's look at those bolded points one by one:
1. "Cause" vs "reinforce": most people are not inherently prone to killing sprees. By contrast, just about everyone has some prejudiced beliefs. It's a lot easier to get someone to accept an argument they mostly agree with (for instance, convincing someone who's already questioning their religious beliefs that God doesn't exist after all) than one they naturally oppose (for instance, convincing the head of the NAACP that black people shouldn't be allowed to vote).
2. "Behavior" vs "attitudes": if media couldn't influence people's attitudes and beliefs, you wouldn't see so many fucking ads everywhere. By the same token, if it was that easy to make people do things completely counter to their natural inclinations, dictators wouldn't have so much trouble keeping their subjects in line.
3. "counter to" vs "consistent with": related to the first point, it's easier to persuade someone when everything else they see, from TV to movies to books to advertisements, is already telling them you're right (whole libraries' worth of texts have been written about the sexist undertones in modern society. To pick an example at random, look at how often a well-meaning person will try to get others to sympathize with a woman by saying "she's someone's {daughter/wife/mother}", ignoring the fact that she's a person in her own right and subtly supporting the idea that a woman's only real value as a human being comes from her relationship to the men in her life) than it is to push them in a direction opposed by society at large (yes, everyone hears about mass shootings, but there's always[footnote]except at ED and other troll havens, but you know what I mean[/footnote] an undercurrent of condemnation for the shooter).

TL;DR: Thompson saw games as Frank Fontaine saying "would you kindly shoot up that classroom", while Sarkeesian sees them as your dickhead friend saying "yeah man, bitches sure are crazy".

EDIT: for more examples of sexist ideas that often go unchallenged in everyday culture, this twitter account [http://twitter.com/notofeminism] provides a humorous yet informative take.

 

[Lightknight]

There's a pretty huge difference between "videogames will turn you into a serial killer" and "sexist tropes in videogames, just like those in any other medium, can reinforce patriarchal attitudes already present in society". Even ignoring the fact that calling for censorship is pretty fucking different from calling for introspection, their claims are also pretty much incomparable. Thompson claimed that violent games would cause real-world murder, directly affecting behavior in a way counter to societal norms. Sarkeesian claims that sexist tropes in games can reinforce existing sexist attitudes, affecting perception in a way consistent with social norms. Let's look at those bolded points one by one:
1. "Cause" vs "reinforce": most people are not inherently prone to killing sprees. By contrast, just about everyone has some prejudiced beliefs. It's a lot easier to get someone to accept an argument they mostly agree with (for instance, convincing someone who's already questioning their religious beliefs that God doesn't exist after all) than one they naturally oppose (for instance, convincing the head of the NAACP that black people shouldn't be allowed to vote).
2. "Behavior" vs "attitudes": if media couldn't influence people's attitudes and beliefs, you wouldn't see so many fucking ads everywhere. By the same token, if it was that easy to make people do things completely counter to their natural inclinations, dictators wouldn't have so much trouble keeping their subjects in line.
3. "counter to" vs "consistent with": related to the first point, it's easier to persuade someone when everything else they see, from TV to movies to books to advertisements, is already telling them you're right (whole libraries' worth of texts have been written about the sexist undertones in modern society. To pick an example at random, look at how often a well-meaning person will try to get others to sympathize with a woman by saying "she's someone's {daughter/wife/mother}", ignoring the fact that she's a person in her own right and subtly supporting the idea that a woman's only real value as a human being comes from her relationship to the men in her life) than it is to push them in a direction opposed by society at large (yes, everyone hears about mass shootings, but there's always[footnoe]except at ED and other troll havens, but you know what I mean[/footnot] an undercurrent of condemnation for the shooter).

TL;DR: Thompson saw games as Frank Fontaine saying "would you kindly shoot up that classroom", while Sarkeesian sees them as your dickhead friend saying "yeah man, bitches sure are crazy".

EDIT: for more examples of sexist ideas that often go unchallenged in everyday culture, this twitter account [http://twitter.com/notofeminism] provides a humorous yet informative take.

The claim that something makes you think sexist thoughts is not any different from saying it makes you take sexist actions. It's the same as saying that games make people more violent is saying that it makes people commit violent actions.

All actions, big and small, start in the head. The only difference was that Thompson claimed a greater harm to society because telling a girl to get back in the kitchen like the joke is still fresh isn't as bad as murdering her.

Here's the thing. Either it causes harm to society or it does not. Either it makes you sexist or it does not.

If it does not cause harm, if it does not make people sexist, then there's no reason to bring that up as a point. If it does, then we need to see evidence that it does.

 

[DataSnake]

The claim that something makes you think sexist thoughts is not any different from saying it makes you take sexist actions.

Good thing nobody's saying that, isn't it? There's a difference between "this game will make you sexist" and "this game contains sexist messages that you should probably keep in mind when you play it". Sexist media isn't like Reaper indoctrination, where just being around problematic media is guaranteed to turn you into the Illusive Fratboy.

It's the same as saying that games make people more violent is saying that it makes people commit violent actions.

All actions, big and small, start in the head.

And some are easier to influence than others. That's why you'll see ads encouraging you to buy the next Call of Duty, but not ones telling you to send Activision your next paycheck just for the hell of it. If the latter actually worked, you can bet your ass it's what they'd be doing instead of spending absurd amounts of money on making their games.

Here's the thing. Either it causes harm to society or it does not. Either it makes you sexist or it does not.

Sexism isn't a binary where you're either perfectly enlightened or completely sexist. Uncritically consuming sexist media won't turn you into one of those fanatics who thinks women shouldn't be allowed out of the house without male supervision, but it might make you just a little more likely to feel that a woman who complains about sexual harassment is just being a drama queen, or that sex with a woman who's passed out after a night of heavy drinking isn't "really" rape, or any number of similar things.

If it does not cause harm, if it does not make people sexist, then there's no reason to bring that up as a point. If it does, then we need to see evidence that it does.

Let's look at another example: film. Watching Triumph of the Will [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_of_the_Will] probably won't turn you into a Nazi. Does that mean film critics should just ignore its fucked-up content and focus on the brilliant cinematography?

 

[Entitled]

A lot of words that does nothing to prove video games will make you into a mass murderer and rapist.

And who would want to prove that, other than Jack Thompson?

The idea that games can make you into a mass murderer or rapist, is ALMOST as retarded as the idea that entertainment can't encourage a violence culture, or a rape culture.

And Jim's attitude evolved so much since the good old days of calling people ?feminazi slut? on twitter, that there is not much expectation of consistency there.

So you admit there IS hypocrisy. GLad to see we're on the same page.[/quote]

Yes, there is lot's of hypocricy in this thread, we can agre about that much.

 

[Entitled]

That's not what he means at all. His point is that both Bob and Jim are are unambigiously against the idea that violent games could encourage violent behavior, so much that they'll refer to people who think otherwise as idiots, hypocrites or worse.

Bob in particular spent a whole Game Overthinker episode two and a half years ago, on applying the same principle that he has just applied to gg, to violence in gaming [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0mP1kEMF5E], rejoicing that now that the idiotic "games turn people into murderers" argument is defeated, we can finally ask the "tough questions" about what might have made a stereotypical right wing gun nut like Andrew Brevik attracted to Call of Duty, whether "shooters devote too much time to simplistic firearm worship, and embraced too much of the gun culture without any attendant aspects of responsibility" and that "simulated realistic war without realistic consequences, can mean this [kid ranting on xbox live], but in the really really worst case scenario, can mean 'this guy' [photo of Brevik]."

In general, his view seems to be less "gaming encourages you to become x", and more "gaming encourages people x behavior to settle in our gaming community and ruin it", in both cases. He also devoted an episode to how Oliver North appearing in a Call of Duty commercial [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2l9jnevggnc], leads to a more right-wing and more hateful gaming community.

And while you're trying your hardest to ignore it I'll say it again: Bob thought of Jack Thompson and those like him as a real enemy who had to be fought back by any means necessary. Up to and including (endorsing) harassment.

Ignoring? Where? The two of us have already agreed on the fact that Bob never commented on harrasment of Thompson.

I think that was necessary at the time, in the same way that I think sometimes ?civil disobedience? protests about far more important things DO have to break a window or vandalize a wall sometimes to get the point across: It was a ?war,? at least as much of one as the situation could allow, we did what we had to do at the time.

Oh.

Quote mining is a rather deplorable behavior.

Quote mining and then pretending that you didn't get caught red handed, and keep repeating it for some reason, is just annoying. If anyone would be likely to believe that your quote has anything to do with condoning Thompson's harrasment, rather than condoning anti-critical discourse, I would call you out on deceptiveness, but things being as they are, it is more like just spamming.

 

[AT God]

I think that the vitriolic threatening of people online was used by Jack Thompson as his "proof." I feel that if he were still as active and prominent today, games media would have asked people to stop threatening him because I can almost assure you Thompson would be out advertising the threats he received as evidence of how violent video games turn people evil.

As for the type of question the title of your thread implies, I feel Jack Thompson was given extremely fair treatment. There are always bloggers who would call him the devil but the official acts and treatment he received professionally was significantly calmer and I feel he was being humored in many cases. I haven't read about his disbarment in many years but the impression I got from it was that the court system let him continue to work despite his persistent accusations and lawsuits he filed against games companies. I don't know much about law but it seemed a lot of the lawsuits he was involved in were completely unfounded and I am surprised the court system didn't discharge him sooner, he sued companies for selling murder simulators to children for many years before they dis-barred him.

One thing I find funny in thinking about his actions, he used to threaten game companies in the same way a lot of internet groups threaten games media. I remember reading about his threats toward Valve because someone made a mod for HL2 about school shooting, I don't recall the exact wording but he implied that he had powerful people who would make them regret letting this mod being made. It was very silly and yet that is the image I have of a lot of people bickering right now about games journalism, "don't let this person write about X because I know powerful internet people and we will hack you and make you pay if you don't agree with us." Hadn't considered this comparison until now, thanks for giving me a good giggle for lunch.

 

[Uriel_Hayabusa]

Ignoring? Where? The two of us have already agreed on the fact that Bob never commented on harrasment of Thompson.

Perhaps I should have been more clear when i adressed that previously. I said:

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.

But I guess I ought to have said:

And Bob doesn't make direct reference to Jack Thompson being harassed because if nothing else he's smart enough to know it'd hurt his case.

Again, I simply quoted the relevant part of a very lengthy blog-post to make a point (and provided the source of the quote so that those inclined could see the full context). A point I still stand by, because no of course Bob didn't say he outright cheered on the harassment of Jack Thompson; but the context of the post and other remarks on the subject made it clear that he didn't exactly object to it either.

 

[Entitled]

the context of the post and other remarks on the subject made it clear that he didn't exactly object to it either.

The context most definitely didn't make that clear, since context can't possibly make it clear whether someone would object to an issue that he hasn't discussed, mentioned, alluded to, or even demonstratably known about at all.

You can't just quote someone's opinion saying "that was necessary at the time", where "that" refers to the previous sentence about rejecting socio-political criticism off hand, then make the big stinking assumption that they would make the same stance on the entirely unrelated issue of critics harasment sometimes being necessary, and then report it as fact that they would approve of the latter.

Bob already made the exact same points 2,5 years ago, in the above linked video, one that had even less connection with harrassment, as it was made long before the whole gg/Quinn/Sarkeesian thing. He made the exact same point there, but in the context of violent gaming and a positive supreme court decision: that until now we were at war against censorship, and did what was necessary that deny that complaints about violence culture can have a point, even at the price of losing nuance (but this has to be over now).

You are seeing the approval of harrasment into an argument point, that was made long before harrasment was on anyone's radar.

You are quoting a paragraph because it contains words that sound vaguely similar to "destroy the enemy by any means necessary", and entirely reappropriate it as commentary about online harrasment, rather than about a stunted interest in cultural analysis.

 

[Lightknight]

The claim that something makes you think sexist thoughts is not any different from saying it makes you take sexist actions.

Good thing nobody's saying that, isn't it? There's a difference between "this game will make you sexist" and "this game contains sexist messages that you should probably keep in mind when you play it". Sexist media isn't like Reaper indoctrination, where just being around problematic media is guaranteed to turn you into the Illusive Fratboy.

If it doesn't make people sexist, then who the hell cares? What point is there to complain about it or lift a finger against it? If it doesn't cause harm, then it's just a typical form of media and people like Anita have no right calling it harmful to society.

And some are easier to influence than others. That's why you'll see ads encouraging you to buy the next Call of Duty, but not ones telling you to send Activision your next paycheck just for the hell of it. If the latter actually worked, you can bet your ass it's what they'd be doing instead of spending absurd amounts of money on making their games.

Ads are generally suited to match products with consumers who need/want those products. They don't actually change your desires. They may make you aware of a need you didn't know you had, but they don't alter you (which is what you're saying, I think).

Sexism isn't a binary where you're either perfectly enlightened or completely sexist. Uncritically consuming sexist media won't turn you into one of those fanatics who thinks women shouldn't be allowed out of the house without male supervision, but it might make you just a little more likely to feel that a woman who complains about sexual harassment is just being a drama queen, or that sex with a woman who's passed out after a night of heavy drinking isn't "really" rape, or any number of similar things.

Ok... here's where you're being inconsistent. You say it doesn't make you sexist, then you say that it'll make you "slightly more sexist" which is the actual conclusion from the statement you just made.

Look, whoever got "women are weak" from the Super Mario Bros are idiots. Played that game a million times in my youth and never once so much as considered Princess Peach as a symbol of all women everywhere so much as specifically the princess. An individual that bowser captured. Games, if nothing else, have taught me that people who have been kidnapped need to be rescued. Not that people are captured because they are X or Y or both.

If it does not cause harm, if it does not make people sexist, then there's no reason to bring that up as a point. If it does, then we need to see evidence that it does.

Let's look at another example: film. Watching Triumph of the Will [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_of_the_Will] probably won't turn you into a Nazi. Does that mean film critics should just ignore its fucked-up content and focus on the brilliant cinematography?

Ding, already got Nazis in the discussion. That was fast. I certainly didn't expect Godwin's Law that quickly. I think by the laws of internet debate that this means you shouldn't get an adequate response. However, I'm not going to dump the conversation so handily.

If the claim is that the subject matter makes you more ... "naziish", then it's on the claimant to establish that watching the video will actually make you such. Anita's claim is that sexism in video games perpetuates sexism. That is, it continues it which does imply instilling sexist attitudes and ideals on the consumer base. That she isn't going to outright say it does not negate it from being the obvious conclusion.

What's more is, how silly is it to say that a game like Mario is sexist? Oh no, a random princess got kidnapped. Surely that's teaching children that women belong in the kitchen or bedroom or in the hallway between... In order for this to perpetuate anything, you have to first establish that the Princess was only able to be captured because she's female and that a female getting captured because they're female is actually sexist. Being that women are naturally weaker than men by FAR on average, men overpowering women is entirely viable and common enough to be a problem (unless people believe that rape isn't a problem, in which case screw whoever thinks it's not a problem).

The only "sexism" I see in games is sexual objectification. And let me tell you, objectification requires the person to actually be a person and not a bunch of ones and zeroes. You can't actually objectify non-living beings. Sure, make explicit video game porn where the character on screen wants nothing more than to please you, it's still not objectifying any real person and as long as the person enjoying it is not Schizophrenic then they can distinguish between reality and fiction and something they see in fiction won't translate into how they view real people.

I mean, honestly, if we couldn't tell the difference between fact and fiction then we'd be in real trouble. Do you actually know anyone in the world who assumes that because of the Duke Nukem Girls that every girl in real life dresses skimpy and wants to give them a bj?

We have people crying wolf just like Thompson did and we're just playing into it because it's a cause we believe in. Yes, we believe in equality. That's great. But the problem is that they're saying a problem exists when the evidence isn't there. I believe that both racy games and games that cater specifically to women or include women in their process all have a place. The goal isn't to stop sexy depictions of women in games and all other media. Those should continue because humans like that sort of stuff, but we should have a wider range of options out there for women too. But to start the argument with something guys like as being necessarily evil without anything to back that up is simply offensive.

 

[Dragonbums]

From what I've gathered of Jack Thompson (since I starting forum posting in videogame stuff near the end of this fiasco.) The man had actual legal manpower and enough people believing him in the right places to actually restrict access to videogames. Of course what better way for us gamers to prove to him that we aren't violent, fuckbags than to send the man death threats to his person and family eh? I'm pretty sure slamming his dumb ass through a Youtube video would of sufficed.

Anita on the other hand was a handplucked everyday feminist Youtuber and taken to super star popularity where people can then act like she is the next Jack Thompson like she had any real leg power in the video game industry anyway.


Either way, both of the shit they received are undeniably uncalled for. And honestly serves to prove their point.