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

[NuclearKangaroo]

the short answer is: she isnt

anita isnt right, and its time the people who still somehow supports her come to terms with that fact

games are nowadays more popular than ever, hitman and deus ex are popular games, and GTA, ohohohoh i dont even have to point that one out

if games were capable of unwittingly change one's perception towards women, wouldnt we see some evidence of that? instead we live in a world that is more tolerant and provides more equal opportunities to everybody than ever before, atleast in the western world

not to mention her latest video in general, was based on completely faulty logic (i support the equal treatment of women compared to men, therefore women in games should be completely imprevious to damage, fucking what?) and a good chuck, probably most of her evidence was COMPLETELY FABRICATED


it was particulary noticeable with her hitman example

everything can be sexist if you look hard enough and ill be dammed if anita isnt trying her best to feel offended, she could be looking at a plain wall and somehow claim she feels "oppressed"

 

[gargantual]

Also IMO exposure to violent media might not make one commit violent actions against close people that one doesn't like, but it could potentially make one more supportive of "war hawks", provided that those politicians also have a silver tongue.

Thats only for people who were predisposed or raised on isolated imperialist worldviews in the first place. Playing CoD won't make a rational person think Guatemala, our ridiculous national defense spending and cold war missile paranoia, Iraq, or fueling the military industrial complex to insane proportions are for the good of everyone. Those things are just problems and bad decisions on their own merits. An avg rational person isn't so easily brainwashed. They can ask questions.

Fundamentalist religion, or radical fundamentalist interest groups, or gangs on the other hand is far more dangerous a catalyst, it emotionally manipulates ideals and senses of morality, life and ones identity or relevance under an ideology, then convinces them assault and murder to preserve those ideals is ok even celebrated, and rewarded.

Completely blind to the value of human life. People under such a spell are not told these are falsehoods as opposed to violent fictional media which comes with official disclaimers on many levels, ratings warnings and the visible contrast of how the real world works. We can discern in context and establish whats on screen, may stir the hormones but may not have any application in a real civil society.

 

[Draconalis]

I actually did a few quick searches for academic studies on the matter before replying. Sadly, it seems most online journals keep their content behind paywalls. They only let us plebs see previews and abstracts, such as this one [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0092656681900404].

Gotta love that freedom of information so that we can better humankind as a whole.

My point though is that no credible studies have shown this effect. All of her sources are questionable at best, and down right biased at worst, and are hardly experts in the field of Psychology.


Hell... one of her sources is a games journalist.

 

[Pogilrup]

everything can be sexist if you look hard enough and ill be dammed if anita isnt trying her best to feel offended, she could be looking at a plain wall and somehow claim she feels "oppressed"

It's an oppositional reading.

It is an interpretation that really goes against the grain of what's commonly accepted about a work.

 

[mronoc]

One is promoting dialogue and debate, the other is (was?) promoting legislative censorship. It's as simple as that.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

They both speak about important issues. One about kids playing violent games even though they are rated 18, and the other about women in games. Problem is they are extremist in how they communicate the issue and fail to do any real research and just pick and choose things that prove them right. After a while, that agenda is all they are as they spout the same thing again and again and comes across as nagging. They are like PETA, animal abuse is wrong, we all can agree, but they do so much stupid crap like killing animals in games etc that no one takes them seriously and their message is ignored.

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

I don't think I've ever seen anyone claim Anita is right without getting strong opposition. Where has the OP been hanging out that he has the impression that Anita is universally considered "right"? Now I will grant, her primary message technically isn't wrong; there IS sexism within games. The problem is just that she doesn't talk about it. Instead she cherry picks examples that help her, blatantly ignores any fact that might oppose her, and will even lie to try and push her agenda further.

In short, she is a model politician.

 

[COMaestro]

While I don't like to get involved in anita sarkeesian threads, I under stand that there is an argument over what she said in her videos. Hope this clears this up.

17:33
Of course, we can?t really talk about sexual objectification without also addressing the issue of violence against women, since the two are intimately connected. Once a person is reduced to the status of objecthood, violence against that object becomes intrinsically permitted.

I'm unspoilering this one comment as I am directly addressing it. This statement, or at least the second sentence, is 100% true. There's a reason soldiers in war often come up with a nickname or some kind of racial slur for the enemy. Dehumanizing people makes it easier to harm or kill them, because you are no longer harming a person, you are harming an object. Enemy targets are referred to as 'tangos' in many military scenarios, including movies and games, simply because it disassociates the idea of the target being a human being. "Tango down" is much less worrying to hear than "Man killed." Note, by the same token, if an ally is wounded, you'll usually hear "Man down," immediately prompting the idea that a fellow human being is hurt.

Anita is using objectification as a whole to support her viewpoint, but presenting it as if it only applies to women. It doesn't, it applies to everyone. Once a person of any gender, race, religion, etc have become objectified by someone, they will feel less remorse or hesitation regarding violence towards that person.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

everything can be sexist if you look hard enough and ill be dammed if anita isnt trying her best to feel offended, she could be looking at a plain wall and somehow claim she feels "oppressed"

It's an oppositional reading.

It is an interpretation that really goes against the grain of what's commonly accepted about a work.

except its based on bullshit and lies

she says the game doesnt punish you for those actions... while shes being punished for those actions, she is getting points subtracted from her total score and shes risking getting caught

shes purposely playing the game wrong to try to prove her point

back to my wall example, she could bang her head on the wall and blame the wall for hurting her, hell i wouldnt put that above her, shed do it given the chance i bet

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

I'd rather not try and understand either nut case. While one might have a valid point its lost in hyperbole and dumb comments.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

Know what this reminds me of? This comic from Critical Miss.

Spoiler: Gamer Science

It think its quite erroneous to dismiss the idea that videogames can cause types of influence that television and literature has been shown to have because "b-b-but no this one is different because I actually like this one and if you believe that stuff then you're a Jack Thompson freedom-hater". Thats not to say that Anita has been able to provide sound, logical arguments consistently - she hasn't. Thats also not to say that she hasn't taken games she has discussed out of context, because she has, or that she's provided a massive pile of evidence, because she hasn't. However, the outright dismissal of the idea that a videogame can have a certain type of influence, which has been demonstrated in other forms of media, because "no these are my videogames" is infantile. Its far too early to make such extreme reactions to it, one way or another.

has it been tough?

i havent really read about anything related to films or book making people more violent or more willing to accept rape or whatever

crime rates and just the state of our society dont really show trends to prove this theory to be true either, we live in a society thats more tolerant and inclusive than ever before and crime rates keep getting lower (well not here but thats a topic for a totally different discussion)

another thing to consider is that, is not the first time that a new kind of media is being blamed by the perceived moral decay of society, comics were subject to this, as well as TV in the past

 

[Something Amyss]

Anita is using objectification as a whole to support her viewpoint, but presenting it as if it only applies to women.

...No, she's using it as though the portrayal of women supports a larger picture involving portrayal of women. There is no obligation nor need to address anything else here, and failure to do so does not indicate said group is the only group afflicted. It's merely being "on-topic."

When someone points out a movie is bad, do you feel obliged to say "other movies are bad, too?" I sincerely hope not.

 

[Frission]

You know what, sure.

The easy answer is that Anita Sarkeesian and Jack Thompson are arguing about very different things that share a superficial similarity.

Anita's argument, in essence, is that constant exposure to certain kinds of things, especially in the absence of counter-exposure, has a long-term effect on the way that we think. Basically, that if you play a lot of games where you beat up women or view them as prizes, and almost no games where women are people and protagonists, you're more likely to think about getting a woman like getting a prize, or that hurting a woman isn't so bad. You aren't going to walk out the door and start murdering people, but you will be a little more callous, a little more aggressive, doubly so if you don't think about why these things are happening. To this end, she hopes that more games will be created and played that counter-balance the kinds of violence that she finds problematic, and fewer games will be created and played that exults in it.

Jack's argument is that if you ever commit a fictional act, you will commit the same act in real life to the same degree. If you ever play a game where you shoot someone, it will turn you into a murderer. To this end, he hopes to ban all violence forever.

It's sort of like the difference between arguing that you shouldn't be eating ice cream and cookies for every meal because ice cream and cookies aren't healthy, and arguing that a handful of M&Ms is just the first step to becoming a meth-addicted homeless diabetic.

Thank you. So it's sort of a difference in degrees I guess?

Effectively it's problematic if a piece of media seems to enforce the same message over and over. Seeing a violent scene won't make someone a psycho, but if everything they watch says something like "women are only good for this", they may have unrealistic views on people.

I haven't seen the work of the people mentioned in this thread, apart from getting a superficial overview from the people here, but this makes sense. Video games do have a sad tendency to be focused on the young white male demographic.

 

[Pogilrup]

Know what this reminds me of? This comic from Critical Miss.

Spoiler: Gamer Science

It think its quite erroneous to dismiss the idea that videogames can cause types of influence that television and literature has been shown to have because "b-b-but no this one is different because I actually like this one and if you believe that stuff then you're a Jack Thompson freedom-hater". Thats not to say that Anita has been able to provide sound, logical arguments consistently - she hasn't. Thats also not to say that she hasn't taken games she has discussed out of context, because she has, or that she's provided a massive pile of evidence, because she hasn't. However, the outright dismissal of the idea that a videogame can have a certain type of influence, which has been demonstrated in other forms of media, because "no these are my videogames" is infantile. Its far too early to make such extreme reactions to it, one way or another.

has it been tough?

i havent really read about anything related to films or book making people more violent or more willing to accept rape or whatever

crime rates and just the state of our society dont really show trends to prove this theory to be true either, we live in a society thats more tolerant and inclusive than ever before and crime rates keep getting lower (well not here but thats a topic for a totally different discussion)

another thing to consider is that, is not the first time that a new kind of media is being blamed by the perceived moral decay of society, comics were subject to this, as well as TV in the past

Personally, I think those "new media" days are now over.

Videogames are a mass medium and it should be subjected to the same criticisms as film or television in regards to how it represents gender roles.

 

[Colour Scientist]

You know, I would love for someone to go through the millions of Anita fucking Sarkeesian threads we've had on these forums and see what percentage actually support her and how many posts in each thread don't support her.

Christ, there's already a 20 page long thread of people moaning about her in Gaming Discussion.

You guys do realise it's 2014, right?

I feel like I'm taking fucking crazy pills.

 

[Pogilrup]

Know what this reminds me of? This comic from Critical Miss.

Spoiler: Gamer Science

It think its quite erroneous to dismiss the idea that videogames can cause types of influence that television and literature has been shown to have because "b-b-but no this one is different because I actually like this one and if you believe that stuff then you're a Jack Thompson freedom-hater". Thats not to say that Anita has been able to provide sound, logical arguments consistently - she hasn't. Thats also not to say that she hasn't taken games she has discussed out of context, because she has, or that she's provided a massive pile of evidence, because she hasn't. However, the outright dismissal of the idea that a videogame can have a certain type of influence, which has been demonstrated in other forms of media, because "no these are my videogames" is infantile. Its far too early to make such extreme reactions to it, one way or another.

See now there's a well argued point to which I can only reply with the line.

Gaming does need more diversity present just as is being shown in hollywood films and maybe does need to cater to more demographics other than the Gray brown shooter demographic. However that's not to say catering to the gray brown shooter demographic shouldn't also happen but it's not all that should happen.

The difference with the Critical mass comic and Anita's claim is that the comic actually says pre-existing conditions and not cause the conditions. This is the key difference here as you could say any piece of media, film, TV or books could be considered a trigger for people with mental issues.

To put it in an easier example of what I mean (because I'm reading what I wrote an it's not that clear)

Friday the 13th can trigger an already derranged person to go on to kill just as say reading Macbeth could
Friday the 13th doesn't turn everyone who watches it into a killer.

That's the important distinction to make in this debate its the difference between a cause and merely a trigger.

What about conditioning?

Mass media has the potential to condition people towards a belief whether or not that belief was intend, right?