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

Recommended Videos

Artaneius

New member
Dec 9, 2013
255
0
0
Pogilrup said:
Artaneius said:
When people try they get labeled "woman haters". Trust me, if they were no punishments or negative connotations involved, people would of already brought her down. Whether how her being taken down would be legal or not is left up to the imaginations of the individuals.
Most of those people never try to present themselves as an alternative.

The detractors are quite willing to destroy her arguments, but they seem never seek to appropriate her cause.

Sarkessian needs to be replaced, not demolished.

Artaneius said:
Pogilrup said:
Artaneius said:
Here's the main difference, Yahtzee actually plays games and therefore what he says holds a lot more fucking merit than Anita does. Criticizing only matters if that individual actually understands or actually engages in whatever thing they are trying to criticize. It would look very stupid for me to say, "Rap music is the work of the devil because most rappers sing about drugs, money, and sluts." Her case no matter if truth or false will always amount to nothing because she isn't a gamer. Gamers don't listen to non-gamers when it comes to games. Therefore she honestly needs to be put in her place.
Then perhaps we should remove that gamer and non-gamer divide.

EDIT:
Artaneius said:
If she wants to change the gaming industry's and the gamer's themselves views of woman, she needs to actually gain their trust by actually PLAYING the games and making REAL educated opinions and statements.
"by actually PLAYING the games and making REAL educated opinions and statements."

What if she has played the games but rejects the common interpretation of the game?
What if I go to the doctor and I was told I have cancer but I reject getting treatment because of religious views? Wouldn't I still be labeled stupid by the great majority of people who believe in doctors? Same principle. Don't expect the majority to care about people's personal views.
This is art.

Art can be disputed.
Video games can be art, but AAA quality games are rarely seen by the businesses funding them as art. They see them as products. Don't expect AAA companies with millions upon millions of dollars on the line to care about what non-gamers think.
 

Pogilrup

New member
Apr 1, 2013
267
0
0
Artaneius said:
Video games can be art, but AAA quality games are rarely seen by the businesses funding them as art. They see them as products. Don't expect AAA companies with millions upon millions of dollars on the line to care about what non-gamers think.
There is no gamer or non-gamers, just the audience.
 
Sep 13, 2009
1,589
0
0
Artaneius said:
Here's the main difference, Yahtzee actually plays games and therefore what he says holds a lot more fucking merit than Anita does. Criticizing only matters if that individual actually understands or actually engages in whatever thing they are trying to criticize. It would look very stupid for me to say, "Rap music is the work of the devil because most rappers sing about drugs, money, and sluts." Her case no matter if truth or false will always amount to nothing because she isn't a gamer. Gamers don't listen to non-gamers when it comes to games. Therefore she honestly needs to be put in her place. If she wants to change the gaming industry's and the gamer's themselves views of woman, she needs to actually gain their trust by actually PLAYING the games and making REAL educated opinions and statements.
I'm waiting for a reason why that makes it censorship. The best case you could have here is that she has misguided opinions, which definitely doesn't equate to shutting down anything that doesn't conform to her evil feminist agenda. That being said, you can have an opinion on a game without actually having played it, albeit not as good of one. Simultaneously you can have an opinion on the nature of games as a whole without having played every one.

By all counts I haven't seen any evidence that she doesn't play any games, at best I've seen people claiming that she hasn't played every single game that she's mentioned based or that she doesn't read the same thing into the context as someone else did.

Just because she doesn't play every game she talks about doesn't mean that gamers need to band together and put her in her place. Although, judging by the rage and threats you see in comments to her, you've already got a good deal of the population fighting the good fight
 

NuclearKangaroo

New member
Feb 7, 2014
1,919
0
0
MarsAtlas said:
NuclearKangaroo said:
is this a scientifically accepted article tough?

I don't know what you mean by that, and its kind of confusing what you said. One of the great things about scientific papers is that a person like yourself, even without any formal training, can read it. It stressed that more research should be done into the subject matter to get a better understanding of their personal results, but thats present in most published work, and for obvious reasons. It seemed in order to me, if that means anything.
i mean has this article been accepted by any noteworthly Psychiatric Association?

MarsAtlas said:
Negation would mean that it has no influence. I would think that saying something like "outpaced" would be more accurate, because then its still significant. For example, if spend $200 to spend, and you spend $100 on something, with a 5% sales tax, you're not truly negating the sales tax when you play $105, but rather the influence of the variable is overwhelmed.
then why does it matter?

MarsAtlas said:
Thats why most psychological studies are short term. To have a long term study with very solid result, you need hundreds of people with the same disposition, same economic status, alongside a bunch of other personal factors.
and thats why we shouldnt jump into conclusions such as "people who play these 'sexist' games are more likely to be rape apologists"

MarsAtlas said:
No, because there are too many variables, changing constantly. That line of reasoning doesn't work, as it still presumes gaming as the sole variable, and that everything else has changed - it hasn't.
actually yes, there are many variables but considering the sheer size of gaming, one would expect gaming to have SOME influence on those crime statistics

MarsAtlas said:
Lots more mathematical problems.

1) Still assuming games are the sole variable.

2) Not accounting for change in population. If the population had increased by, say, fifty billion, then mathematically gaming would've become less prevalent. Of course, thats a ridiculous number, but the point stands that the sales of a game console is not reflective of the population.

3) Similar to #2. Not accounting for how many people have access to these games. Per capita, there are less firearms owned in the United States today than ten years ago. However, the people who do own firearms today own more firearms than they would've ten years ago.

4) Not accounting for the content of the games. After all, do all influence criminal behavior, or only certain types of games?
look, this is my hypothesis

- if violent games games lead to a significant increased violent behaviour, we should be able to clearly see their effects in the crime rates of countries like the US, Japan and South Korea, considering the huge scope of gaming and the fact M rated games have sold more than 545.8 million copies in the last 12 years alone

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_selling_video_games_of_all_time#All_platforms

MarsAtlas said:
No, we wouldn't. The same way we can't concretely determine if the death penalty is actually a crime deterrant. Too many variables.
again, if we cant see the effects or the effects are drown out by other factors why should we care?

MarsAtlas said:
Lots of problems with your assumptions, especially based on culture. A lot of suicides in Japan are, allegedly, actually homocides, with some cases having more evidence to support that the death was a homocide than a suicide. Allegedly, police forces often write the homocides off due to various cultural influences.
thats cant possible explain the low crime rate

MarsAtlas said:
There are just far, far too many variables to take a blanket homocide rate of the US and stick it next to Japan and determine infallible reasoning. I could just as easily say "well its because citizens don't have as much access to guns as we do in the United States" - something people do use, that has some logical fallacies to it as well.
if we cant establish a statistical relationship between gaming and violent crimes, what conclusion can we draw then?0

any effect gaming might have on violent crimes is insignificant, is that simple

MarsAtlas said:
Yes, and they've only been accessible to the small minority of rich people who didn't have to work all day long not to starve. Modern conveniences allow for downtime, which has been filled up with literature, theatre, film, television, athletics - non-professional and professional, non-electronic gaming, video gaming, etc.
no, kids for hundreds of years have played violent games among themselves

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toy_weapons

MarsAtlas said:
Not really. There's no sportmanship involved with killing after wave of faceless goons that are driven by an artificial intelligence. At least with contact sports and competitive videogames, you're playing against genuine people, and thats an inevadable fact. You're either hitting a real human being who experiences pain when you do so, or while experiencing any physical sensation, you're seeing constant reminders that the digital avatar on screen is representative of a real person, via their name being displayed, or in-game chat, both typed and voice.
so the moment people start playing they forget the difference between the people inside the game, and real people?

you just refuted your own argument, yes most people know the difference between fantasy and reality thats why we dont go on killing sprees after playing online shooters
 

Artaneius

New member
Dec 9, 2013
255
0
0
The Almighty Aardvark said:
Artaneius said:
Here's the main difference, Yahtzee actually plays games and therefore what he says holds a lot more fucking merit than Anita does. Criticizing only matters if that individual actually understands or actually engages in whatever thing they are trying to criticize. It would look very stupid for me to say, "Rap music is the work of the devil because most rappers sing about drugs, money, and sluts." Her case no matter if truth or false will always amount to nothing because she isn't a gamer. Gamers don't listen to non-gamers when it comes to games. Therefore she honestly needs to be put in her place. If she wants to change the gaming industry's and the gamer's themselves views of woman, she needs to actually gain their trust by actually PLAYING the games and making REAL educated opinions and statements.
I'm waiting for a reason why that makes it censorship. The best case you could have here is that she has misguided opinions, which definitely doesn't equate to shutting down anything that doesn't conform to her evil feminist agenda. That being said, you can have an opinion on a game without actually having played it, albeit it not as good of one. Simultaneously you can have an opinion on the nature of games as a whole without having played every one.

By all counts I haven't seen any evidence that she doesn't play any games, at best I've seen people claiming that she hasn't played every single game that she's mentioned based on her not reading the same thing into the context as someone else did.

Just because she doesn't play every game she talks about doesn't mean that gamers need to band together and put her in her place. Although, judging by the rage and threats you see in comments to her, you've already got a good deal of the population fighting the good fight
From many people's standpoints in this day and age of technology, if your opinion isn't a good one... it wasn't worth mentioning. If you have absolutely no credentials when your talking about something, we might as well as listen to teenagers talk about how they "know it all". When most likely they haven't paid a single bill in their lives.

Gamers, especially competitive gamers from fighting games will put people in their place when their opinions aren't creditable or justified. Gamers aren't politicians or people who care about looking like "assholes".
 

Eclectic Dreck

New member
Sep 3, 2008
6,662
0
0
One makes a claim that video games often use themes and ideas that are unfair to women. The other says that video games make people violent.

The former supports her case with examples and other evidence. The latter supported his case with volume.

Different argument style, different argument.
 
Sep 13, 2009
1,589
0
0
Artaneius said:
From many people's standpoints in this day and age of technology, if your opinion isn't a good one... it wasn't worth mentioning. If you have absolutely no credentials when your talking about something, we might as well as listen to teenagers talk about how they "know it all". When most likely they haven't paid a single bill in their lives.

Gamers, especially competitive gamers from fighting games will put people in their place when their opinions aren't creditable or justified. Gamers aren't politicians or people who care about looking like "assholes".
Anita Sarkeesian has a masters degree in social and political thought. I don't know what your qualifications are in this regard, but unless you have a degree to boast then by your criteria you should be bowing out of gender discussions and leaving that to the person with the proper credentials.

Also, your talk of "putting her in her place" sounds vaguely threatening. Care to clarify what you mean by this?
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Johnny Novgorod said:
I think you're oversimplifying two very different stances and your analogy is as broken as this bridge.

Not really, both argue that gaming results in real life consquences. That X action in video gaming causes the person to want to do X action in real life.

They're identical statements centered around two different actions.

If one is true then both are likely true.
If one is false then both are likely false.

Do games make you take actions outside of gaming that you otherwise wouldn't do or don't they? I've personally found that violent games are cathartic and provide an outlet for anger that I don't associate with real physical aggression so it has never impacted me in real life.

Eclectic Dreck said:
One makes a claim that video games often use themes and ideas that are unfair to women. The other says that video games make people violent.

The former supports her case with examples and other evidence. The latter supported his case with volume.

Different argument style, different argument.
Actually, Anita claims that these things in video games carry over into real life also. That playing Hitman and killing strippers makes us want to bully strippers around in real life or view women as objects.

So it's not just that. She actually presented "evidence" that video games impact our real life in that way.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Artaneius said:
Gamers, especially competitive gamers from fighting games will put people in their place when their opinions aren't creditable or justified. Gamers aren't politicians or people who care about looking like "assholes".
Or even when they are qualified, since gamers are quick to disqualifying other gamers in true "No True Scotsman" fashion.

How fortunate the concepts of ": gamer" and "credibility" are so mutable.
 

MysticSlayer

New member
Apr 14, 2013
2,405
0
0
The_Kodu said:
MysticSlayer said:
The_Kodu said:
True but the approach very much is "You should feel bad because playing these games is giving girls eating disorders merely but playing them it shows you support this"
Keep in mind, Anita doesn't think a game is all bad or all good based on its treatment of women. She even said at the beginning of her last video that it is entirely possible to really enjoy the games she criticizes but that that doesn't exempt them from scrutiny for what they do wrong. After all, it is possible to both love and hate things in the same game. It's something we all do, anyways.
No she doesn't think the game is all bad just those who play them........... linking games with content she dislikes to people being woman abusers and rape apologists.
For the bolded part: Once again, please show where she specifically says men will abuse women or please stop exaggerating what she said. And no, pointing out that people may be more accepting of sexual harassment is not the same as saying they will abuse women.

With that said, she doesn't say that all gamers who play these games are rape apologists. Now, I can see how that can come across, but there are a couple notes:

1. She points out that it requires long-term exposure. Furthermore, she doesn't actually limit it to games. Her problem is with games have fallen into the same potentially harmful shortcomings that influence and are influenced by social problems that feminists have been arguing against for years.

2. She says that it tends to lead to increased tolerance and belief in myths. While that may not seem so different than just saying that everyone is a rape apologist, simply calling everyone one is just throwing out baseless accusations. Pointing out the potential dangers that affect more people than they don't at least gives people the opportunity to analyze their own prejudices and beliefs, which certainly shows a lot more respect for someone than going around just saying, "You filthy rape apologist!"

Also, there is a huge difference between pointing out a flawed belief and calling someone a bad person. Great people can have wrong, even disturbing beliefs, just as much as bad people can have admirable beliefs. You simply can't reduce it to a simple black/white dichotomy where good people have an entirely perfect worldview and those possessing even one flaw are suddenly bad. So even if Anita is subtly saying that plenty of gamers are rape apologists, which I seriously doubt she is, you still have to take some incredible leaps in logic to come to the conclusion that she is calling gamers bad people.

MysticSlayer said:
Frission said:
I'm not exactly familiar with this subject, but is there anyone here who can actually build a cohesive argument that doesn't insult the OP?
He makes a ridiculous premise (that Anita thinks games will cause men to rape and kill women) and has yet to back that ridiculous premise up outside of twisting her words from one video. To call out how ridiculous the OP's entire premise for the comparison is is really all we can do at this point until he actually backs up those claims.
Except I actually linked the video and gave the time code of her saying people who play these types of games are rape apologists. true there's a difference between rapist and rape apologist but neither is a particularly positive thing to say to a group of gamers.
And if there is a difference between rape and rape apologists, then the OP's claims are still unsubstantiated. And unless I've someone has posted something while I'm typing this, I still haven't seen anything supporting his claims. The closest is Saucycarpdog's first spoiler, but she was referencing the violence that occurs in games, not in real life, at that point in the video.

And let's face it, there are far more mental barriers to things like rape and murder than there are to holding incorrect beliefs and prejudices. To say that Anita and Thompson are making equivalent claims requires completely ignoring that fact, or, as so many people do, twisting Anita's words while simultaneously complaining about her taking things out of context.

Look, I don't really mind having a reasonable discussion about Sarkeesian's views and videos. Even as someone who thinks most of her basic ideas are good, I still find plenty of flaws in her logic and don't always agree with her solutions. There's plenty of room to have a discussion, and she's done a decent job of opening different discussions with various viewpoints, and there's certainly no need to act like she's the final authority or that she says absolutely nothing of value. However, when people twist her words, claim that she has no sources, and then dismisses those sources simply because they don't agree with the conclusion, then we go from having any reasonable discussion to having every discussion completely hijacked by some of the most ironic arguments imaginable.
 

Lunar Templar

New member
Sep 20, 2009
8,225
0
0
Nether are right.

Both ignore or misrepresent facts to push an agenda, the only reason Anita gets any traction is because she's using the guise of 'talking about sexism in games' to push her agenda, as opposed to Jacks 'video games are evil' stance.

The topic of sexism in games is one that does needs to get talked about out in the open, but not by some one who with an agenda to push.
 

Artaneius

New member
Dec 9, 2013
255
0
0
The Almighty Aardvark said:
Artaneius said:
From many people's standpoints in this day and age of technology, if your opinion isn't a good one... it wasn't worth mentioning. If you have absolutely no credentials when your talking about something, we might as well as listen to teenagers talk about how they "know it all". When most likely they haven't paid a single bill in their lives.

Gamers, especially competitive gamers from fighting games will put people in their place when their opinions aren't creditable or justified. Gamers aren't politicians or people who care about looking like "assholes".
Anita Sarkeesian has a masters degree in social and political thought. I don't know what your qualifications are in this regard, but unless you have a degree to boast then by your criteria you should be bowing out of gender discussions and leaving that to the person with the proper credentials.

Also, your talk of "putting her in her place" sounds vaguely threatening. Care to clarify what you mean by this?
What I meant by it is that if your going around trying to force change on someone else's hobby, expect people to not be happy about it and fight back. Gamers will keep gaming for gamers. Whether or not you perceive it as a threat is up to the individual and it depends on how far the one wanting to change everything is willing to go to make the change. If you have to ruin the majority's happiness to make sure everything is politically correct, then don't expect respect in return. Expect resentment and hatred. And what comes out of that hatred will be varied.

Personally, I see myself as a spectator. Whether something good or bad comes from this will have no effect to me. If she changes gaming, then she does. If gamers resist and gaming stays the same, then it does. If gamers do something drastic or illegal to achieve their means, again it matters not to me. I'm purely going to be an observer when it comes to decision making. But I will state what competitive gamers in general think and feel about the situation.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Lunar Templar said:
Nether are right.

Both ignore or misrepresent facts to push an agenda, the only reason Anita gets any traction is because she's using the guise of 'talking about sexism in games' to push her agenda, as opposed to Jacks 'video games are evil' stance.

The topic of sexism in games is one that does needs to get talked about out in the open, but not by some one who with an agenda to push.
Right, using a fact to try and censor an entire form of entertainment is what got Thompson laughed out of the courts. Anita is saying it under the guise of wanting to make gaming "better" even though she also advocates against violence in gaming as well.
 

Pogilrup

New member
Apr 1, 2013
267
0
0
Lightknight said:
Jack Thompson argues that games can result in direct conscious actions of violence.

Sarkessian argues that games can transmit unintended prejudices.

Prejudices are not easily translated into actions.

Lightknight said:
Lunar Templar said:
Nether are right.

Both ignore or misrepresent facts to push an agenda, the only reason Anita gets any traction is because she's using the guise of 'talking about sexism in games' to push her agenda, as opposed to Jacks 'video games are evil' stance.

The topic of sexism in games is one that does needs to get talked about out in the open, but not by some one who with an agenda to push.
Right, using a fact to try and censor an entire form of entertainment is what got Thompson laughed out of the courts. Anita is saying it under the guise of wanting to make gaming "better" even though she also advocates against violence in gaming as well.
Lightknight said:
Lunar Templar said:
Nether are right.

Both ignore or misrepresent facts to push an agenda, the only reason Anita gets any traction is because she's using the guise of 'talking about sexism in games' to push her agenda, as opposed to Jacks 'video games are evil' stance.

The topic of sexism in games is one that does needs to get talked about out in the open, but not by some one who with an agenda to push.
Right, using a fact to try and censor an entire form of entertainment is what got Thompson laughed out of the courts. Anita is saying it under the guise of wanting to make gaming "better" even though she also advocates against violence in gaming as well.
Exactly what is this agenda?

To hijack the entire medium to use as a liberal stronghold?
 
Sep 13, 2009
1,589
0
0
Artaneius said:
What I meant by it is that if your going around trying to force change on someone else's hobby, expect people to not be happy about it and fight back. Gamers will keep gaming for gamers. Whether or not you perceive it as a threat is up to the individual and it depends on how far the one wanting to change everything is willing to go to make the change. If you have to ruin the majority's happiness to make sure everything is politically correct, then don't expect respect in return. Expect resentment and hatred.
Once again, she isn't forcing change. What kind of power do you think she has? She's trying to convince people that the gaming industry has a bias that results a ridiculously skewed number of helpless female characters that are devoid of agency or sex props. Whether or not you agree with this is your call, but all she's doing is trying to convince the viewer of it. Saying that she's trying to force developers into making games that avoid this is like saying that Jim is trying to force Sega to stop making producing unfinished games with misleading trailers with his criticisms for Aliens Colonial Marines.

Either you agree with the argument, and the developer has one more consumer wanting change, or you disagree with it and the developers have one less person to worry about.

People are remarkable eager to endorse change to the industry as long as it doesn't have to do with making games designed to also appeal people with a different set of genitals.

If entertaining the notion that games might benefit from female characters with the independence and agency of male characters fills someone with rage and resentment then I think they might have the problem, not the person suggesting it

EDIT:
Artaneius said:
Personally, I see myself as a spectator. Whether something good or bad comes from this will have no effect to me. If she changes gaming, then she does. If gamers resist and gaming stays the same, then it does. If gamers do something drastic or illegal to achieve their means, again it matters not to me. I'm purely going to be an observer when it comes to decision making. But I will state what competitive gamers in general think and feel about the situation.
I'm well aware of how many people are prepared to beat someone into silence if they say something they don't want to hear. Frankly I hope that those people aren't the ones whose opinions are given the most weight. If gaming changes such that more games are built with intent of appealing to more than just men, then that's because a large number of people agreed that would be good, not because one person forced the industry into it. I have never seen Anita Sarkeesian propose that a law be put in place that forbids a "lack of political correctness" in games, only argue that we should care about these things
 

Uriel_Hayabusa

New member
Apr 7, 2014
418
0
0
Zhukov said:


Exact quotes pls.

I don't ever remember her saying that. I do remember her saying that media is capable of influencing people's attitudes to the things it portrays. Which to my admittedly limited knowledge is true. There's a big difference between that and saying that playing DoA will cause a dude to go out and commit rape or punch his girlfriend.

However, it's not like I've read/watched every single thing, plus I could be straight up remembering wrong.

Which is another reason I'd like to see you link the exact place in which she said what you're saying she said. Either a link to something she wrote/said or a video accompanied by a note of the time at which she said it.
Women as Background Decoration: Part 1[/youtube]

Seeing as I can't put a timeskip in the embedded youtube link I'll point out that the relevant quote is at 30 minutes and 5 seconds into the video. To quote:

In other words, viewing media that frames women as objects or sexual playthings profoundly impacts how real life women are perceived and treated in the world around us. And that is all without even taking into account how video games allow for a more participatory form of objectification, that we've been discussing in this episode. Compounding the problem is the widespread belief that, despite all the evidence, exposure to media has no real world impact.

You're right, she'never said something along the lines of "playing Dead or Alive will make you want to beat up women!"; but much like Thompson she clearly does seem to believe that media can influence people. Incidentally, some people who criticize games in a similar manner also voice it like that as opposed to the "Playing a violent game will immediately make you want to shoot somebody"-strawman that many gamers (and game journalists) like to use.

To give an example:

Violent behavior is very complex and is caused by many factors, usually acting
together. Violent video game exposure is not the only risk factor for violence, or even the most
important factor, but it is not a trivial factor either.


Source: Psychology Today - Brad Bushman - Why do people deny violent media effects? (you can Google it)

Personally, I don't know if consuming violent media isn't necessarily the cause of violent behavior in real life. That being said, I can't help but wonder whether or not it can (or does) influence the way people view violence. I know that it's a rather strange opinion to have for someone who enjoys video games - even violent ones - but unlike many other gamers I can enjoy my hobby without dismissing the idea that perhaps it's not great for me. I mean, I know Oreos aren't great for me either yet I enjoy those too every once in a while.
 

Pogilrup

New member
Apr 1, 2013
267
0
0
The Plunk said:
Jack Thompson didn't use enough flowery language. Rather than outright stating that video games make kids violent, he should have said that they are "problematic", and that they "reinforce violence culture". Use enough bullshit in your language and you can completely bypass awkward obstacles like science and evidence.
There is science and evidence. But some of us refuse to accept it due to our collective PTSD with that lawyer.
 

Phrozenflame500

New member
Dec 26, 2012
1,080
0
0
What is this thread.

Jack Thompson argued that video games could make people more violent. Sarkeesian argued that video games can sometimes be unintentionally unfair to women sometimes. One's arguing that video games cause something while the other one's arguing that video games are something.

Completely different things. I don't really agree with Sarkeesian (ironically I don't really disagree with Jack Tompson either), but this is one of the false-est equivalences I've seen on this forum in a while.

EDIT: It has been pointed out that Anita actually did make a similar argument at the end of her latest video. I didn't watch that video and I assumed this was another generic Anita hate thread and for that I apologize. I'm still in that weird space where I don't really agree but I don't really disagree either, but I will concede that, at least with that point, agreeing with Anita is at least partially admitting Thompson had some merit.