Question, If Anita Sarkeesian is Right, why is Jack Thompson Wrong?

[Pogilrup]

5 times it is been cited in this thread now. 5 times that Anita claims according to research that playing games with violent or sexualised content will make you believe rape myths. If that is not saying playing certain games makes you sexist I have no idea what is

Well do you at least agree that it is a slow process and is in conjunction with other media?

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Because unless I'm mistaken Anita Sarkeesian isn't trying to get all games banned everywhere and is instead just trying to draw attention to issues within the industry that should be addressed (even if she is preaching to the choir).

If only that's what she were doing for the most part instead of trying to guilt people into not playing games she doesn't like.

Oh. Never actually watched any of her videos. Don't care to have her lecture me about stuff I already know. Regardless, she's still head and shoulders above Jack Thompson.

I very highly implore you to watch her latest video and then try and come back and tell me that. Bonus points if you've played Hitman: Absolution.

Unless she is actively trying to get games banned and/or censored I refuse to believe she's as bad as Jack Thompson.

 

[Bocaj2000]

Sexism in gaming is a reflection of current culture, morals, and values. Anita never claims that games make you sexist. She instead claims that contemporary tropes are reflections of contemporary society and reinforce negative behavior.

Violence in gaming is also a reflection of culture, morals, and values. Jack Thomson believes violence in video games transcend basic reinforcement and delves into influence and causality.

Does this help clarify things?

5 times it is been cited in this thread now. 5 times that Anita claims according to research that playing games with violent or sexualised content will make you believe rape myths. If that is not saying playing certain games makes you sexist I have no idea what is

I saw the snippets of video. She is talking about the impacts of media on how we think, NOT how we act. Media can persuade others towards a certain way of thinking and feel certain emotions towards imagery. This is advertising 101 and can be applied to all media. Therefore, objectification of a people can be a valid side effect of media and can reinforce negative ideas. If you ask me, I think she's grasping at straws, but it is a valid hypothesis. Although I don't agree with her message, her ideas are probably true for at least a small portion of people.

And unlike Jack Thompson, she does NOT attribute media to actions. She never attributes video games to the act of sexual assault. Whenever there's a rape on the news, she will never look at the list of games the rapist has played and blame each of them for the sexual assault. That is the difference. Like her or not, this woman is just a media analyst, not a politically driven scapegoat pinner.

 

[Skatologist]

@The_Kodu: "Death Cultist"?! I'm sorry, she didn't say that to my knowledge, please link to such a statement, if you can!

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Because unless I'm mistaken Anita Sarkeesian isn't trying to get all games banned everywhere and is instead just trying to draw attention to issues within the industry that should be addressed (even if she is preaching to the choir).

If only that's what she were doing for the most part instead of trying to guilt people into not playing games she doesn't like.

Oh. Never actually watched any of her videos. Don't care to have her lecture me about stuff I already know. Regardless, she's still head and shoulders above Jack Thompson.

Not really at least with Jack Thompson he believed the stuff where as with Anita you're not sure if she's making mistakes in her arguments deliberately or accidentally. With Jack Thompson you could at least be certain it was ignorance more than malice.

Also I don't think Jack Thompson ever said everyone who plays violent games therefore condones real life murder.
I may be wrong on that though he was a bit nuts.

I'm pretty sure it was both, but then I only knew of Jack Thompson by reputation and never actually paid any attention to anything he said. I tried to pay as little attention to him as I could get away with, much as I'm trying to do with Ms. Sarkeesian. In fact posting in this thread is devoting more attention to Anita Sarkeesian than I'd care to.

 

[Pogilrup]

Snip

Fine, media rarely (I'm not dismissing the possibility entirely) starts a new belief. It usually reinforces that belief.

But IMO that still falls within my personal loose interpretation of her words.

 

[Skatologist]

@ultreos2: She doesn't even say that though, she had said that that study says that certain events in media portrayal of women basically makes people more susceptible to rape apologist reasoning because the women aren't really portrayed as women, but "objects or sexual playthings", I can't say I necessarily agree with that statement, but that's ignoring pretty crucial details IMO.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

Because all gamers like to eat pavement.

That's as much sense as you're making right there.

/thread

I think Anita Sarkeesian topics need their own section, like Religion and Politics.

 

[Skatologist]

Was Thunderf00t watching us?

 

[IceForce]

Do we really need to do this every single week? A 20 page thread about her just fell off the front page yesterday and just like every other thread everyone just argues in circles, never listening to the other side and defending their opinion like it was their first born child.

I think Anita Sarkeesian topics need their own section, like Religion and Politics.

What gets me about these threads, is that the OP always abandons the thread after it gets longer than a page.
Here we are on page 6, and the OP is nowhere to be seen.

That 20 page thread we had last week was exactly the same. The OP stopped responding after page 1.

It leads me to suspect that these threads are mostly made to get badges, or maybe for something worse such as poking hornet's nests, etc.

Was Thunderf00t watching us?

Uploaded: Today

Wow, that's spooky.

 

[psijac]

I know these threads are where reason and logic come to die, but as far as I'm aware Anita Sarkeesian has never filed suit against a videogame company on behalf of a rape victim.

That action would fall under the category of practicing law. Which is illegal unless you have a license. Majoring in Women studies doesn't leave a lot of time for passing the Bar i suppose

 

[VanQ]

Because all gamers like to eat pavement.

That's as much sense as you're making right there.

/thread

I think Anita Sarkeesian topics need their own section, like Religion and Politics.

I think that The Escapist needs to put in a string that autobans anyone that mentions her name, just like 4chan did.

Was Thunderf00t watching us?

Oh jeez, that's one hell of a coincidence.

 

[Skull Bearer]

Because unless I'm mistaken Anita Sarkeesian isn't trying to get all games banned everywhere and is instead just trying to draw attention to issues within the industry that should be addressed (even if she is preaching to the choir).

If only that's what she were doing for the most part instead of trying to guilt people into not playing games she doesn't like.

Oh. Never actually watched any of her videos. Don't care to have her lecture me about stuff I already know. Regardless, she's still head and shoulders above Jack Thompson.

It's pretty clear none of you have ever seen her videos, as she starts them by saying that it's okay to like these games and think they're good, and also analyze where they're being regressive.

 

[gargantual]

Was Thunderf00t watching us?

Actually....i've noticed more than one youtuber in passing have make connections between these folks and their 'outsiders' criticism or demonizaton of violent games. I think this vid would've com into existence independent of our debates here.