Was it fair how Jack Thompson was treated?

[Something Amyss]

Weird. One of my latest blog posts included saying that Thompson's treatment wasn't (wholly) right. However....

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.

Nailed it in one.

That being said, I don't condone the way Mr. Thompson was treated.

I just want to say that this is a guy, however, who claimed that video games made us violent and were murder trainers. He then encouraged making a game where the player shoots up developers. He was a bully and a thug who harassed people. And while I don't condone the notion that two wrongs make a right, I suspect if the current group of people in question had done anything actually approaching that (rather than conspiracy theories), we'd be having a very different discussion right now.

As it is, it's like saying racists on Xbox Live are just as harmful as the KKK.

I also have to agree with Netrigan.

If you're upset at the man for saying video games cause violence and want to show video game players are peaceful folks, then death threats are not a particularly good way to prove your point.

Indeed. It seems we do more as a community to augment the stereotypes than the "other side" does.

 

[WhiteNachos]

Thompson also (claims to have) received death threats and the gaming media was all too happy to stand by and let it happen.

Let it happen?

How exactly could they have stopped them?

Dude was getting threats by email. How exactly would the press be able to stop it from happening? Condemning it doesn't guarantee it'll stop.

The gaming media could - and should - have run some articles about it. They could've sent the message that sending death threats to a guy who claims that games make people violent only makes the gaming community look bad.

This was several years ago, I'm pretty sure there were some but I'm not 100% sure. But you have to remember that this was before twitter took off and Jack didn't have a youtube channel. If he was getting any threats they were either sent to him by email or made in the comment section of articles on gaming websites, made by people who assumed Thomspon wasn't reading them. He shared the threats he got through email but not all the time.

And still most of those threats were and are empty anyway. They'd just be a hater venting through email or an internet tough guy. They were easy to ignore and still are. Still, saying that gaming websites need to have condemned them is like saying that regular Muslims need to make public condemnations every time Muslim terrorists do something rotten when they have no connection to the terrorists other than a shared religion.

Do they need to react every time some shmuck sends empty threats while trolling or venting on the internet?

Why not? Jim Sterling certainly took a position like that in his Jimquisition-video The Wacky Harassment Blame Parade, and Bob has also taken a similar position in plenty of his GameOverthinker videos (see Building A Better Gamer for a good example).

Why not? Well imagine if every time someone who shares your hobby called someone a fag on the internet you had to make a comment condemning them. You'd be doing it all the time.

There's no guaranteed way for people to stop the abuse coming from people they don't know. They can condemn them and ask them to stop but asking is all they can do. That's my point. We can't stop these people from being gamers and we can't stop them from sending abuse if they wanted to. We can't take away their internet, we can't take away their email and we can't take away their games. The justice system could, so all we can do is report them to the police if they're sending threats or repeatedly sending abusive message which would constitute harassment (at least in the US, maybe your country doesn't have as strict free speech protections).

 

[WhiteNachos]

I just want to say that this is a guy, however, who claimed that video games made us violent and were murder trainers. He then encouraged making a game where the player shoots up developers.

For the record he was not serious about this. He was trying to make a point, and he called the idea 'a modest video game proposal'.

 

[Something Amyss]

Anita and her ruse crusaders aren't educating, they are simply saying pointing and saying "This is bad for women, don't do this."

Okay, point to where she specifically said "don't do this."

To the contrary, it looks like the real Anita is doing exactly what you say people should do--make people be cognizant of such tropes.

I'm guessing you meant Anita Strawkeesian?

 

[WhiteNachos]

Anita and her ruse crusaders aren't educating, they are simply saying pointing and saying "This is bad for women, don't do this."

Okay, point to where she specifically said "don't do this."

I can't think of an instance where she says that word for word but she says that doing some things is irresponsible and she says that other tropes can/will have a negative real world impact, so she might as well.


Edit: And he wasn't talking about Anita Sarkeesian he was talking about Mrs. Bath (sorry, couldn't resist).

 

[Toilet]

Anita and her ruse crusaders aren't educating, they are simply saying pointing and saying "This is bad for women, don't do this."

Okay, point to where she specifically said "don't do this."

To the contrary, it looks like the real Anita is doing exactly what you say people should do--make people be cognizant of such tropes.

I'm guessing you meant Anita Strawkeesian?

Read the rest of my post. Concentrate real hard on the parts where she says "straight white males" (or variations of the phrase) in her videos because that is a specific.

When you say a culture is sexist you also imply that the people inside the culture are also sexist. Therefore it feels like an attack which which is not helped by her constantly calling out "straight white males" in her videos. You can't educate your audience if you alienate a good chunk of your audience.

I don't disagree with Anita, I'm saying her vidoes could have been handled better that doesn't alienate half her audience. Watch Laci Green and her channel on youtube for a much better example. In the video I have linked Laci says "Shitty commercial after shitty commercial using women's bodies to sell everything from A to Z." where Anita likes to punctuate her examples with a "straight white male" which is alienating.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_4dPB9MVS8&list=UUJm5yR1KFcysl_0I3x-iReg

 

[Something Amyss]

Read the rest of my post. Concentrate real hard on the parts where she says "straight white males" (or variations of the phrase) in her videos because that is a specific.

That doesn't address my question or change your statement.

However, if you feel you you're being attacked by repetition of a phrase, then clearly gaming is attacking women and you're validating Anita Strawkeesian. Have some self awareness.

 

[Toilet]

Read the rest of my post. Concentrate real hard on the parts where she says "straight white males" (or variations of the phrase) in her videos because that is a specific.

That doesn't address my question or change your statement.

However, if you feel you you're being attacked by repetition of a phrase, then clearly gaming is attacking women and you're validating Anita Strawkeesian. Have some self awareness.

Okay, fair. I was wrongfully strawmanning. You're being obtuse and putting across my view is pointless if you're going to cherry pick my argument and purposely not understand.

 

[Uriel_Hayabusa]

There's no guaranteed way for people to stop the abuse coming from people they don't know. They can condemn them and ask them to stop but asking is all they can do. That's my point. We can't stop these people from being gamers and we can't stop them from sending abuse if they wanted to. We can't take away their internet, we can't take away their email and we can't take away their games. The justice system could, so all we can do is report them to the police if they're sending threats or repeatedly sending abusive message which would constitute harassment (at least in the US, maybe your country doesn't have as strict free speech protections).

Thing is: the gaming press not only didn't condemn that Thompson was being harassed and threatened by some gamers, but refused to so much as acknowledge that it was happening. And it's funny that some of your other points like:

And still most of those threats were and are empty anyway. They'd just be a hater venting through email or an internet tough guy.

or

Well imagine if every time someone who shares your hobby called someone a fag on the internet you had to make a comment condemning them. You'd be doing it all the time.

There's no guaranteed way for people to stop the abuse coming from people they don't know.

are decried as excuses in other contexts. If someone reacted similarly to news of, say, Anita Sarkeesian being threatened then it wouldn't go over so well. Watch the Jimquisition-episode The Wacky Harassment Blame Parade to see what I mean.

 

[CaitSeith]

Was it fair how Jack Thompson was treated? In my opinion, mostly. When you said "treated" I suppose you meant "harassed". Well, Jack Thompson wasn't just harassed. Countless times the industry and the community tried to have open dialog, middle ground offers and projects beneficial for both parts. His usual response has been "screw you, murderers trainers!". So the gaming side was mostly fair in their ways on dealing with him; he wasn't.

Captcha PS: which one is hardest? Food for the thought...

 

[CaitSeith]

I didn't disagree with Thompson's attempts to prevent minors from accessing violent (or "mature", to be more precise) videogames. Here in Australia, it's illegal to sell M and higher rated games to minors.

I get that US free speech law made things muddy, but I'm of the view rating boards' ratings should be legally binding.

Thompson was kinda crazy, but that didn't make him completely wrong.

But that was just an insignificant part of his agenda. His main goal was to ban the "mental masturbation" that the public called videogames.

 

[WhiteNachos]

There's no guaranteed way for people to stop the abuse coming from people they don't know. They can condemn them and ask them to stop but asking is all they can do. That's my point. We can't stop these people from being gamers and we can't stop them from sending abuse if they wanted to. We can't take away their internet, we can't take away their email and we can't take away their games. The justice system could, so all we can do is report them to the police if they're sending threats or repeatedly sending abusive message which would constitute harassment (at least in the US, maybe your country doesn't have as strict free speech protections).

Thing is: the gaming press not only didn't condemn that Thompson was being harassed and threatened by some gamers, but refused to so much as acknowledge that it was happening.

Bullcrap. I just googled Jack Thompson threats and I found several articles from 2005-2006 from game sites talking about them.

And it's funny that some of your other points like:

And still most of those threats were and are empty anyway. They'd just be a hater venting through email or an internet tough guy.

or

Well imagine if every time someone who shares your hobby called someone a fag on the internet you had to make a comment condemning them. You'd be doing it all the time.

There's no guaranteed way for people to stop the abuse coming from people they don't know.

are decried as excuses in other contexts. If someone reacted similarly to news of, say, Anita Sarkeesian being threatened then it wouldn't go over so well. Watch the Jimquisition-episode The Wacky Harassment Blame Parade to see what I mean.

Point is that getting empty threats from strangers on the internet isn't a huge deal. It's kind of strange that 'woman receives abuse on the internet' is now news when people have talked about how terrible the people in comment sections are for a long time. SNL even did a sketch on it in 2011

Edit: I meant it wasn't a huge deal which explains why gaming sites didn't talk about them non stop.

 

[CaitSeith]

When you say a culture is sexist you also imply that the people inside the culture are also sexist.

No! No! And 100 times no! Only those who get easily offended (and potties) see it in such generalized way.

EDIT: Ok, I thought a little about it, a I still stand that it's not implicit. But people can perceive it easily like that, unless they already have the idea that people and culture aren't the same thing.

 

[CaitSeith]

It's a common sentiment in the anti-Anita crowd that I have come to despise. I actually don't know what Anita hopes to achieve because she never focusses on the big picture or on any end-goal (much like Jack Thompson).

I mean...she just makes videos about Tropes relating to women in gaming. It's like asking Yahtzee or Jimsterling, or the staff at Extra Credits what their "end goal" or bigger picture is. They just talk about shit.

She has an end-goal:

So too resonates the fleshing-out of her broader mission statement: To reclaim Feminism as a mainstream movement by wrenching it away from the arcane stuffiness of older Academia (I'm paraphrasing, since direct-recordings were not allowed as is standard practice for such presentations) and the angry-killjoy stereotypes foisted upon it by the Backlash Era [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postfeminism] of the 80s and 90s; and to do so by using the familiar language of movies, games and television - pop-culture, she opines, is what pedagogy is.

Read Full Article

 

[QuietlyListening]

Did he deserve to be mocked? Certainly. Did he deserve to have his arguments shot to bits? Absolutely. Did he deserve personal harassment? Absolutely not.

The main difference, although this is hardly a saving grace, is that the anger towards Thompson manifested in people tearing him down because of his opinions and tone, rather than his identity. The use of gendered threats and insults brings in an identity element that wasn't there before.

Still, harassment should be condemned in all forms by all parties.

 

[Uriel_Hayabusa]

Bullcrap. I just googled Jack Thompson threats and I found several articles from 2005-2006 from game sites talking about them.

Funny, so did I and the best things I found were this bit from IGN:

http://www.ign.com/boards/threads/death-threats-recently-sent-jack-thompson.95327721/

Which is actually a forum post an not even a proper article.

And this Gamespot-article:

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/teen-charged-with-harassing-antigame-activist/1100-6141010/

Which goes out of its way to again paint Thompson as the asshole even when he was the one being threatened.

 

[WhiteNachos]

Bullcrap. I just googled Jack Thompson threats and I found several articles from 2005-2006 from game sites talking about them.

Funny, so did I and the best things I found were this bit from IGN:

http://www.ign.com/boards/threads/death-threats-recently-sent-jack-thompson.95327721/

Which is actually a forum post an not even a proper article.

And this Gamespot-article:

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/teen-charged-with-harassing-antigame-activist/1100-6141010/

Which goes out of its way to again paint Thompson as the asshole even when he was the one being threatened.

I didn't read the articles to be honest.

I just remembered the threats being talked about and I had to do was find articles from back then to disprove your idea that they never even acknowledge them.

 

[Uriel_Hayabusa]

I didn't read the articles to be honest.

Oh, I see.

Granted, I made a bit of a hyperbole (which you took at face-value it seems); but my overall point still stands: the threats and harassment Thompson received didn't receive any sort of widespread condemnation from the gaming press even though it really should have.

 

[Uriel_Hayabusa]

That being said, I don't condone the way Mr. Thompson was treated.

I just want to say that this is a guy, however, who claimed that video games made us violent and were murder trainers. He then encouraged making a game where the player shoots up developers. He was a bully and a thug who harassed people. And while I don't condone the notion that two wrongs make a right, I suspect if the current group of people in question had done anything actually approaching that (rather than conspiracy theories), we'd be having a very different discussion right now.

Your disapproval of the death threats and harassment made towards Jack Thompson would seem much more sincere if your post didn't include several paragraphs (some of them your own, some quoted) worth of qualifiers/explanations. Going ''I don't approve of harassment BUT Thompson was kind of a dick, still.'' isn't very convincing.

my overall point still stands: the threats and harassment Thompson received didn't receive any sort of widespread condemnation from the gaming press even though it really should have.

Thompson is deeply conservative. Of course the industry writers didn't condemn his harassment.

Indeed, I've joked that Thompson was perhaps too ''privileged'' to earn the compassion of the so-called ''Social Justice'' crowd, what with him being white, cisgendered, heterosexual Christian man and all.

 

[WhiteNachos]

It seems like the most simple answer to this whole thing is....

Of course no one thinks him getting death threats was appropriate, but he also had an entire lobby industry behind him, and the media, including Fox news, so if we're comparing him to Youtube personalities we're really comparing apples to grapes here. But we should never condone harassment of any kind.

The end!

There we go, so the conversation is over now, right? We're done? No huh? Right, well, I'm going to go stand back in my corner and wait to chime in again.

Those YouTube personalities aren't exactly standing alone. They've got the media behind them, as well an entire lobby industry.

Really, the only difference is that Thompson is a deeply conservative male and the women in question are deeply progressive females. That's the sole reason for the difference in coverage. That's it.

What lobby industry do they have?