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

[Pogilrup]

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.

Same basic argument. That is, doing stuff in videogames make you something in real life. Both are wrong. One just knows how to look like their right.

But it isn't the same final argument is it?

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

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.

I don't understand why so many people in this thread seem to believe that the media cannot influence your views or beliefs. When I was in grade 10 I thought that alimony was an awful thing, and that it was widely used to allow women to leech off of men (Shut up, I admit I was an idiot). I'd never been exposed to alimony in real life, know where I got this opinion? Entirely through TV shows, where that's exactly how its portrayed. It wasn't until somebody asked me why I thought this that I realized I actually had no good reason to believe it.

Outside of personal anecdotes though, you just need to look at how culture changes from the media. Advertisers managed to convince the public as a whole that putting a small roll or paper in your mouth made you look like a complete badass. Lipstick became something a woman was expected to wear to look good because of how they advertised it.

When you see hyper violence in the media it's so over the top that you don't even recognize it as actual violence. It's something that is just automatically seen as spectacle, and people can detatch it from real violence because, honestly, it's not fun if someone's actually getting hurt (for most people at least). But when you see media portraying things that are supposed to be normal situations and normal people, it's way easier to buy that as being accurate. Not to mention, you have to wonder why certain cadences always show up. Why are men always shown as more capable and intelligent? It can't just be a coincidence when it's that prevalent, either it's the truth, or a lot of writers just happen to regard it as fact. Either way it gives credence to the idea.

 

[Pogilrup]

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.

Same basic argument. That is, doing stuff in videogames make you something in real life. Both are wrong. One just knows how to look like their right.

But it isn't the same final argument is it?

Doing SOMETHING in a videogame will make you do SOMETHING you wouldn't otherwise wouldn't.

The "you" ten years ago can potentially have a conflict of values with the "you" of right now; same applies to the "you" a decade later.

People change over time. Exposure to media can influence how people change.

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.

**Lets just also address this to all those in the thread who have vfailed to bother to see her latest episode or hear her latest argument**

I think what he is trying to say (badly) is that in her latest video Anita Sarkeesian states that violence against women in media influences violence and oppression of women in real life. Not many people seem to have actually seen her work directly and so it's hard to talk about it without viewing the latest video. As has been quoted above:

"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"

She intellectualizes needlessly but it is the same basic "Monkey see monkey do" argument and the old "Games are interactive therefore gamers can't separate reality from games". With the latest episode she DID jump inot the same line of argument as Jack Thompson. Watch the episode. Listen to her arguments. "Passive vs. interactive" is brought up frequently. She states that her sometimes dreamed up examples of violence against women in gaming will make it more likely violence and oppression of women will take place. It is the whole thrust of her argument in the episode

It would be "monkey see, monkey do" if someone was drastically changed after a brief period of media exposure. That was Jack Thompson's argument, that even the slightest exposure can change a person.

The phenomenon she is describing takes years to have any noticeable effects.

 

[Redd the Sock]

You're making a very fundamental mistake in thinking that people will look at argument structure before or after taking a side in a fight. The amount of mincing words and avoiding that call for censorship or not wouldn't change the argument of media's impact on our behavior says to me this hits a nerve in some of her supporters in that if you take out the specifics (media X encourages action Y) the arguments are similar, and not just to each other, but to other groups like PETA when it highlights animal cruelty in games, or One Million Moms that tried claiming a girl kissing a walrus in a commercial encouraged bestiality.

A key difference is that most of us never encounter even anything similar to the violence that made people start to link games and shootings, while many (hell most) of us have encountered directly and indirectly sexism and harassment. We're so distanced from school shooting that trying to connect the two was laughable, however both legitimate issues and the perception of issues from tumblir activists that ascribe sexism (or similar) to anytime feelings are hurt or their way wasn't gotten, leave an image of a landscape that make's it easier to connect the media encourages the bad behavior.

My own take is that while media can have a limited impact on us, it's the unfair scapegoat that's been used since my grandparents were kids (I'm 36 to reference). We look for the thing encouraging 'wrong" attitudes and behaviors to avoid looking at societal and cultural factors. It was easier to blame comics for juvenile delinquency rather than look at the family unit. It's easier to blame skinny models rather than look at our own excessive desire for perfection in what we have and who we are. It was easier to blame doom for a shooting than question mental health, or our own treatment of the shooter prior to the drastic act. And it's easier to blame the video game for violence against women than to look at the act as an extension of an entitlement culture we only think is wrong for other people to have.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

The reason is simple: they're both wrong. The only difference is that there's a social movement which one is (sometimes) aligned with that (except when it's not) that props them up.

Thomson didn't have any ideological support behind him, he was simply anti-video games with nothing other then generic "anti-violence" as his call.

Anita, on the other hand, has the more radical parts of the modern feminist movement behind her. Apart from the movement (which having is always very helpful) the only difference between them is how blatantly a con they both where, with Thomson being of a lesser degree. They had much in common after all, both being people who never where into video games nor had any interest in starting to play them, but still wanted them censored and changed to suit their image of how it should be.

Off topic: when are Running with Scissors going to make a Postal 2 equivalent for Anita? Say what you will about that game, it was beautiful in it's decadence, and we owe it all to good, hard working developers wanting to give the finger to Thomson.

No one is out to censor your games. Sheesh.

OP:
Jack Thompson made claims that video games directly cause violent behavior. Sarkessian claims that videogames can encode and transmit certain unconscious prejudices against women.

There is a big difference between shaping one's actions and shaping one's beliefs.

Does she really say unconscious? Because that's daft.

All the Freud stuff is largely ignored by modern psychology.

There isn't some hidden part of the mind controlling our actions. Everything is right there on the surface.

 

[Pogilrup]

The reason is simple: they're both wrong. The only difference is that there's a social movement which one is (sometimes) aligned with that (except when it's not) that props them up.

Thomson didn't have any ideological support behind him, he was simply anti-video games with nothing other then generic "anti-violence" as his call.

Anita, on the other hand, has the more radical parts of the modern feminist movement behind her. Apart from the movement (which having is always very helpful) the only difference between them is how blatantly a con they both where, with Thomson being of a lesser degree. They had much in common after all, both being people who never where into video games nor had any interest in starting to play them, but still wanted them censored and changed to suit their image of how it should be.

Off topic: when are Running with Scissors going to make a Postal 2 equivalent for Anita? Say what you will about that game, it was beautiful in it's decadence, and we owe it all to good, hard working developers wanting to give the finger to Thomson.

No one is out to censor your games. Sheesh.

OP:
Jack Thompson made claims that video games directly cause violent behavior. Sarkessian claims that videogames can encode and transmit certain unconscious prejudices against women.

There is a big difference between shaping one's actions and shaping one's beliefs.

Does she really say unconscious? Because that's daft.

All the Freud stuff is largely ignored by modern psychology.

There isn't some hidden part of the mind controlling our actions. Everything is right there on the surface.

Really, then name all prejudices that you've acquired in your life thus far.

I certainly can't because I don't know my own prejudices until someone points it out to me.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

The reason is simple: they're both wrong. The only difference is that there's a social movement which one is (sometimes) aligned with that (except when it's not) that props them up.

Thomson didn't have any ideological support behind him, he was simply anti-video games with nothing other then generic "anti-violence" as his call.

Anita, on the other hand, has the more radical parts of the modern feminist movement behind her. Apart from the movement (which having is always very helpful) the only difference between them is how blatantly a con they both where, with Thomson being of a lesser degree. They had much in common after all, both being people who never where into video games nor had any interest in starting to play them, but still wanted them censored and changed to suit their image of how it should be.

Off topic: when are Running with Scissors going to make a Postal 2 equivalent for Anita? Say what you will about that game, it was beautiful in it's decadence, and we owe it all to good, hard working developers wanting to give the finger to Thomson.

No one is out to censor your games. Sheesh.

OP:
Jack Thompson made claims that video games directly cause violent behavior. Sarkessian claims that videogames can encode and transmit certain unconscious prejudices against women.

There is a big difference between shaping one's actions and shaping one's beliefs.

Does she really say unconscious? Because that's daft.

All the Freud stuff is largely ignored by modern psychology.

There isn't some hidden part of the mind controlling our actions. Everything is right there on the surface.

Really, then name all prejudices that you've acquired in your life thus far.

I certainly can't because I don't know my own prejudices until someone points it out to me.

Really, you don't know it yourself when your othering people?

Well most people lack a degree of self-awareness. They cling to this belief they're the heroes of their own story.

 

[Pogilrup]

The phenomenon she is describing takes years to have any noticeable effects.

Sorry but I'm either going to have to ask you to provide conclusive proof this is true or stick the word allegedly in there or "in my opinion"

Ok perhaps claim that was just my guess.

But there is evidence that media can influence individuals. Here is one research article.

http://www.willettsurvey.org/TMSTN/Gender/PeerAndMediaInfluencesOnYoungGirls.pdf

 

[KingDragonlord]

I just wanted to congratulate you on coming up with the perfect Escapist forum title. Well played. I mean it. I really respect someone who can push this many buttons in so few words.

 

[JediMB]

-snip-

Irrefutable proof that Anita Sarkeesian isn't a gamer, please.

Well I don't know about now but I think that's her in 2010 claiming she wasn't.

We also have photographic evidence of her playing video games as a child, as well as photographs of her research material for the current Tropes vs Women series (and claims that she has been playing them).

Not to mention that she in that video stated pretty clearly why, in 2010, she didn't play video games: because of how the industry has come to focus on violent domination. Well, at least the most visible parts of it.

Now, personally I'd rather not call myself a gamer anymore. Not because I don't play a lot of video games, nor because I want to disassociate myself with gaming's widespread toxic culture. I would reject the label because it's used to build walls between people and making video games less accessible on a social level.