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

[Jayjay47]

@jpz719 I never intended to make a comment about what Anita does or does not present in her argument. Both sides should just check about what theyre arguing for or against. The world isnt just black and white. There ARE ingrained stereotypes in most of peoples thoughts. It would be actually dishonest to suggest otherwise. NO ONE is prone to manipulation. The thing that we CAN do is actually try to come to terms with the wildly dishonest belief that we exist in a vaccuum with no outside interaction. Im still absolutely against her (imho) INSANE misinterpratetion of so called "scientific" studies. Thats why im suggesting a dialogue of constructive criticism. Shouldnt be THAT hard for most people to try and tell others what they actually WANT instead of telling what they DONT want.
But maybe im just not "getting it".

OOT: blinded by science was my captcha for this post. guess im to much of a science guy ^^

 

[Amir Kondori]

At the point that Anita makes the jump into suggesting that video games influence our beliefs and behavior she is wrong. Just as wrong as Thompson suggesting that violent video games make people more violent.

The distinction is that she is saying video games influence our attitudes and perceptions - which is true, considering all other forms of media also influence your attitudes and perceptions on a fairly basic level...otherwise there would be no such thing as advertising, propaganda or education.

That is fine, you just can't have it both ways. If she is right about that than Jack is right that video games make people more aggressive and less caring about human life.

Personally I don't believe these kinds of core values can be significantly changed by the media we watch or the games we play. Most of the research on the subject bears this out.

 

[Atmos Duality]

@ Question: If neither of them implicitly right (wrong), then the whole argument falls apart.
Oops.

This is a legit question, not trying to troll the fans, not trying to say, "She is the devil and needs to be shut down" this is a serious question. According to Anita Sarkeesian if us men play a video game and do something against woman, we will think its ok to do something against woman in real life (kill, rape, beat, etc)

Jack Thompson went on many tirades against video games claiming that if we played violent video games we will want to enact violence in real life.


Now then, answer me this, why is it that Anita is right but Jack Thompson is wrong, its basically the same thing, video games will influence us to do something wrong.

It's the difference between causality and a web of influence.

Jack Thompson preaches causality. These games are causing violent behavior and must be censored by government.

Sarkeesian seems to be talking more a web of influences which reinforces attitudes best changed. Our media does influence us, which is why advertisers spend so much money trying to influence us. Will it cause a law-abiding citizen to rape and murder? Of course not. But there's a bunch of undesirable and perfectly legal behavior which is reinforced by media. One of the reasons why the upcoming Constantine TV series will not feature smoking is because networks made the decision not to feature characters who smoke, because TV is part of the web of influences which leads to kids picking up the habit of smoking. It's perfectly legal to show characters smoking. There's plenty of cable programs which go hog-wild with it, but many people and networks have decided that the responsible thing is to avoid having their characters smoke.

...

^That's probably the best honest answer I've seen to this farce of a topic.

To allude to my experience in the scientific field: To argue influence based on just about any relationship is simple; to argue its significance is difficult.

To swing back around to sexism. The problem isn't rape and murder IMO. The problem is basic respect. There's a lot of men, especially young men, who don't seem to know how to properly interact with a woman. At comic conventions, the cosplayers have gotten extremely vocal about the creepy behavior directed at them. There's a decent number of men who don't seem to view them as people and will say and do the most inappropriate things perhaps because they think that's how they're supposed to act. And I think you could make a case for media contributing to this and instead of calling for government censorship, she's calling for people to take it upon themselves to be more responsible.

It's not a bad message; it's just a pity that Sarkeesian so often resorts to sensationalist cherry picking or other less than ideal (dishonest) methods to attain it. It hurts the message overall.

@jpz719 I never intended to make a comment about what Anita does or does not present in her argument. Both sides should just check about what theyre arguing for or against.

How one argues something is just as important as WHAT they're arguing, let alone WHY.
If the method of argumentation is questionable, then the result of the argument is questionable.
(Why do you think math professors demand to see your work?)

And Anita's methods are questionable to say the least.

 

[Killclaw Kilrathi]

It's actually a good question, even though the two have very different outlooks they share the premise of video games causing negative changes in behaviour. Yes one is about sexism and the other is about murder, but if you listen to what Anita says in her videos about the psychology of it all there is definitely a logical train of thought that would lead right up Thompson's alley.

All that said, here's the good news: they're both wrong. As it turns out stupid, badly researched nonsense from a radfem is just as wrong as stupid, badly researched nonsense from a fundamentalist.

 

[Thyunda]

My first post in this forum. Im sorry for my bad english preemtively (not a native here).
1. Whatever "Anita" suggests we can ALL suggest that video games need more interesting characters.
2. Whatever "Anita" suggests we can ALL WANT more interesting characters.
3. Whatever "Anita" says its YOUR choice to either BUY or not BUY the product you DESIRE.
4. WHATEVER "ANITA" likes/hates is still absolutely YOUR choice to like or dislike.
5. Whatever YOU like is what will be the stuff companies will try to SELL you if youre someone they "THINK"(pls understand that) they can make money off.

After all of that: is there ANY doubt that ANYONE of them "game corps" are trying to f*ck you over?
Bring the demand. Theyll answer. Wont bring it? Well it wont happen.

It goes somewhat beyond that, from the statement of an opinion to an outright lie. Inn her recent mental gymnastics about Hitman Absolution, with the stripclub, you are actively PENALIZED for killing those 2 prostiutes. The game litterally punishes you for acting in the way Anita demonstrates. She says the player is "encouraged" to kill them, unironically staring at a falling point value and the game litterally telling you "You fucked up". It's possible Agent 47 can run into the club guns blazing shooting, beating the shit out of every last person in the nightclub mercilessly. And you'll almost definetly end up with a score in the negatives, I.E. a BAD thing. Not something you're encouraged to do.

Hang on. Anita Sarkeesian's problem with Hitman: Absolution was that the game offered the freedom to kill strippers? That game was so hypersexualised it actually made me feel uncomfortable, yet the option to murder strippers (and of course, be penalised for doing so) was her problem?

 

[Netrigan]

To swing back around to sexism. The problem isn't rape and murder IMO. The problem is basic respect. There's a lot of men, especially young men, who don't seem to know how to properly interact with a woman. At comic conventions, the cosplayers have gotten extremely vocal about the creepy behavior directed at them. There's a decent number of men who don't seem to view them as people and will say and do the most inappropriate things perhaps because they think that's how they're supposed to act. And I think you could make a case for media contributing to this and instead of calling for government censorship, she's calling for people to take it upon themselves to be more responsible.

It's not a bad message; it's just a pity that Sarkeesian so often resorts to sensationalist cherry picking or other less than ideal (dishonest) methods to attain it. It hurts the message overall.

I've been meaning to comment on the whole "cherry picking" thing for a while, and you're probably the best opening I've had.

The videos are basically about identifying a trend and supplying a bunch of examples as proof that such trend does exist. To establish the trend she tosses out a bunch of clips from dozens of games with minimal comment, then uses a small handful of those games to make deeper comments. Since her argument isn't about the size of the trend as the undesirability of the trend, she doesn't make any attempt to put its size into any sort of context.

So there's cherry picking going on, but that's pretty much how it goes in any argument. If you're arguing a particular point, you put forth your argument and supporting data... and maybe a bit of the opposing argument to demonstrate you understand it. But for clarity sake, the great bulk of your presentation will be in support of your argument and whatever data you pick needs to support it. And you're going to put the emphasis on the data which you think really supports it.

So if cherry picking is bad, why is it that 99% of the criticism of the latest video centers around two of her examples? That's cherry picking, too.

Once more, it's a logical fallacy to think that discrediting those two examples discredits her entire point. This is where cherry picking gets you into trouble. That she's wrong about Hitman: Absolution forcing you to kill strippers (and I think her comments are much more about sandbox games aiming to let the character misbehave along predictable paths) does not undermine her point that the strippers are in Hitman as decoration. That's she doesn't mention the context of the Watch Dogs scene does not undermine her example of Darkness 2 using the ogling of female as part of its tutorial.

My thinking on this video is much like my thinking on her other videos. Its food for thought. I don't agree with everything she puts forward and I reach very different conclusions (I'd argue against most of this stuff not on the basis of sexism but of good writing as most of her examples are of really lazy and boring writing). It's not hard to find places where she over-reaches or gets the context wrong, but that's part of any intellectual social critique.

 

[carnex]

-snip-

But it's not in our court to disprove her ideal. Even if that has been done by people who do that kid of philosophical and analytic work for life. It's enough to crumble her examples to sent her back to drawing board to come up with new, plausible proof. What you are saying sounds little like "prove that there is no god" fallacy.

It's not matter of proving her wrong, but rather that her work proves nothing as it faulty in almost every single possible way.

We can have discussion about her ideals, but her work is worthless as a scientific research and paper.

 

[Thyunda]

I've been meaning to comment on the whole "cherry picking" thing for a while, and you're probably the best opening I've had.

The videos are basically about identifying a trend and supplying a bunch of examples as proof that such trend does exist. To establish the trend she tosses out a bunch of clips from dozens of games with minimal comment, then uses a small handful of those games to make deeper comments. Since her argument isn't about the size of the trend as the undesirability of the trend, she doesn't make any attempt to put its size into any sort of context.

So there's cherry picking going on, but that's pretty much how it goes in any argument. If you're arguing a particular point, you put forth your argument and supporting data... and maybe a bit of the opposing argument to demonstrate you understand it. But for clarity sake, the great bulk of your presentation will be in support of your argument and whatever data you pick needs to support it. And you're going to put the emphasis on the data which you think really supports it.

So if cherry picking is bad, why is it that 99% of the criticism of the latest video centers around two of her examples? That's cherry picking, too.

Once more, it's a logical fallacy to think that discrediting those two examples discredits her entire point. This is where cherry picking gets you into trouble. That she's wrong about Hitman: Absolution forcing you to kill strippers (and I think her comments are much more about sandbox games aiming to let the character misbehave along predictable paths) does not undermine her point that the strippers are in Hitman as decoration. That's she doesn't mention the context of the Watch Dogs scene does not undermine her example of Darkness 2 using the ogling of female as part of its tutorial.

My thinking on this video is much like my thinking on her other videos. Its food for thought. I don't agree with everything she puts forward and I reach very different conclusions (I'd argue against most of this stuff not on the basis of sexism but of good writing as most of her examples are of really lazy and boring writing). It's not hard to find places where she over-reaches or gets the context wrong, but that's part of any intellectual social critique.

I understand your point about cherry-picking her examples and using your favourites to deny her argument, but that definitely comes with the territory. If you feel strongly enough about a particular problem in media to campaign against it, you need to research it. And you need to research it thoroughly. Do it lazily, like she has, and you'll end up with only two scenarios.
Best case - You lose your argument because you presented ironic portrayals as a serious argument, leading to a campaign to draw awareness to a problem the medium is already clearly aware of.
Worst case - You end up ridiculed as somebody that invented a problem for attention. We're all very familiar with sandbox games, and in the case of Hitman: Absolution, there are more non-strippers than strippers. I mean professional strippers, not female characters, because apparently the game doesn't know the freaking difference.
There are also homeless people littering the alleyways leading up to the strip club. To point out the strippers, in a strip club, that serves as one location in a game with many, shows a wider ignorance and, while a lot of us are well aware of the problems in our favourite medium, people relying on Anita Sarkeesian are getting misinformation by omission, and that'll only ever damage her arguments.


On my own opinion on her - I don't think she needs confronting. I think she's gotten irritatingly hysterical about a problem that can only be exacerbated by predictable hysteria. She needs ignoring, and the problem she alludes to (and dramatically fails to address) needs to be confronted. Hypersexualisation is fine. In Saint's Row. In parts of Grand Theft Auto. Even in Lollipop Chainsaw. These are not serious games, and all three are presented as satire. That's not worth getting upset over.
Hitman: Absolution? A convent is massacred. This is held up as a tragic moment, obviously. The story is about protecting a schoolgirl from an elite corporation of assassins who'll stop at nothing to strip her of her freedom and force her into the life she was genetically designed to live.

This is not a satirical storyline. This is not the time or place for exaggerated jiggle physics. Even the schoolgirl is hot. The only woman not presented as a beacon of sexuality is the head nun, and I'm willing to bet her wide frame is a complicated array of steel wires and padding to hide her true form.

Murdering strippers was the least of this game's sexist problems.

 

[wulf3n]

So if cherry picking is bad, why is it that 99% of the criticism of the latest video centers around two of her examples? That's cherry picking, too.

I think you're misinterpreting what people are implying when they refer to cherry picking. In its rawest form practically everything is cherry picked as it's not feasible or necessary to include everything in a reference.

However when people say cherry picking in the negative sense, their referring to the situation in which the context of the cited information changes significantly when all of the information is observed.

Picking out and focusing on two of her arguments isn't really cherry picking in that sense. Taking a statement she made about her stance on games several years ago without providing the whole presentation is.

 

[IceForce]

I'm so very tired of outright dismissive posts. After nine pages this is embarrassing.

You mean TWENTY-nine pages, on this topic. Because don't forget, there was this last week:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.855106-Whats-so-bad-about-Anita-Sarkeesian?page=20

 

[Greyknight1024]

It's funny right before a new video from her comes out the forums blow up with talk about her. Seems like she still has the mastery of generating buzz so she gets more views.

 

[Palmerama]

They're both wrong! Thompson is wrong because he advocates that videogames cause violent behaviour, where any sane person can differentiate between a fictional world and the real world, knowing full well the difference between right and wrong.

Anita is wrong because she offers no argument just statement. All she does is point out things are "allegedley" sexist about the videogame world, warping evidence to suit her claims and offering nothing contructive in how to remedy this.

Neither of them are willing to acknowledge the other side of the argument. Neither are willing to accept well rounded criticism.

Yes there are games that can be called too violent, or trying to be "mature" but failing at it completeley (such as Hell & Damnation or Dante's Inferno). But people are intelligent enough to see these games for what they are.

Yes there is sexism in videogames, and again people are going against it. Yes we want more female protagonists, yes female gamers should be treated with more respect. Yes it would be great if more women became developers (and there are).
But just pointing out these ridiculous examples isn't constructive at all.

All these two are doing is more harm then good. As there will be people who watch them saying "look, look how bad this thing is *rabble rabble*" and they will agree with them, blindly hating against something they don't really understand.

 

[Atmos Duality]

So if cherry picking is bad, why is it that 99% of the criticism of the latest video centers around two of her examples? That's cherry picking, too.

The two cases you describe aren't the same thing.

People picking on two of Sarkeesian's examples is not the same as demonstrating the false accusations and shifted context within said examples.

Put simply: Nobody is changing or removing the context of Anita's argument when they bring them up for criticism.
Ergo, it's not the same thing that Anita is doing.

For Sarkeesian, it's not the context she's providing to frame her argument, it's the context she is deliberately omitting within her own points. It calls into question whether she even played Hitman: Absolution, or just spooled through Lets Play footage looking for things that would appear damning on the surface.

Once more, it's a logical fallacy to think that discrediting those two examples discredits her entire point. This is where cherry picking gets you into trouble.

Fully discredits? No.
Weakens? Unquestionably.

When an advocate makes a habit of engaging in things that weaken their argument consistently without remorse it is only logical to question their methodology. Going back to the math exam simile; it doesn't matter if you got the correct answer if you cannot demonstrate how you arrived at it in a reasonable manner.

It's not hard to find places where she over-reaches or gets the context wrong, but that's part of any intellectual social critique.

See above. It's not the advocate who makes mistakes who loses, it's the advocate who regularly avoids trying to correct simple logical mistakes. Misrepresenting a work to squeeze it into an argument is not valid, and Sarkeesian has not only made a habit of doing so, but built her entire reputation on that method.

I keep a guarded mind on anything an advocate says; I even challenge those whose opinions and goals I regularly agree with when I feel the point is weak or the context has slipped (and I subject myself to the same).

Not to disprove them for yucks, but to keep them sharp and intellectually honest so that the message remains valid.

I don't even take the videos as "food for thought", because, (and pay attention here): While I actually agree with part of the general message Sarkeesian is trying to make in pointing out these obnoxious trends (though for slightly different end goals; I want more diversity in representation because I see value in playing from different perspectives), I am not willing to lower my standards of intellectual honesty just to indulge in some confirmation bias.

I want to believe and support her message, but to do so would to encourage other behaviors that are unacceptable.

Behaviors she has the power to correct, but refuses to. And why should she? She's scored six figures from the public to keep producing. It's just proof that intellectual honesty isn't nearly as profitable as sensationalism.

 

[Mikeyfell]

This is a legit question, not trying to troll the fans, not trying to say, "She is the devil and needs to be shut down" this is a serious question. According to Anita Sarkeesian if us men play a video game and do something against woman, we will think its ok to do something against woman in real life (kill, rape, beat, etc)

Jack Thompson went on many tirades against video games claiming that if we played violent video games we will want to enact violence in real life.


Now then, answer me this, why is it that Anita is right but Jack Thompson is wrong, its basically the same thing, video games will influence us to do something wrong.

No one thinks that one of them is right and the other is wrong.

All the sane people think both of them are wrong
and the crazy people think both of them are right.

If there is anyone that believes Anita but thinks Jack Thompson is full of shit they have schizophrenia and one of their multiple personalities is fighting for control. Which actually sounds like a pretty cool idea for a video game story.

I know you said that's a series question, but it's such an absurd hypothetical that I can't even fathom a better answer than schizophrenia.

Basically if there is a video game in existence that can convince you to murder or rape someone there is also a voice in your head that can convince you to murder or rape someone

 

[PhiMed]

She does totally say that, by the way. She HEAVILY implies, citing studies with MULTIPLE issues with them, that viewing "heavily sexualized images" causes people to be more likely to believe ideas which would make them more likely to agree with rape apologists or perpetrate violence against women.

I've already pointed out that believing rape myths is not the same as rape. I've also pointed out that being more accepting of sexual harassment is not the same as perpetrating violence. And if it is so heavily implied, then why hasn't anyone actually bothered to show the connection that is apparently flying over so many people's head?

Except my post wasn't claiming that believing rape myths was the same as rape.

Sorry, but those two have been linked way too many times, including, I'm assuming, in the OP, which is what I was responding to when you quoted me. I just thought that you're post was another one of them, so again, sorry if it wasn't.

But with that said...

According to Anita Sarkeesian if us men play a video game and do something against woman, we will think its ok to do something against woman in real life (kill, rape, beat, etc)

"Thinking it's okay to do something against women in real life" is virtually synonymous with "believing rape myths."

So you say that you weren't saying that rape myths and rape are the same, but you say that "do something against women in real life," which was clarified to include rape, is synonymous with believing rape myths? How are you not contradicting yourself here?

Thinking that something is okay and doing it are not the same thing.

Is that contradictory statement to you?

For example, someone can think that it's okay to have an abortion. That does not, however, mean that they need to be billed for the medical procedure.

Someone can think that it's okay to punch someone for stepping on their shoe. That does not mean they need to be arrested for assault.

Is this a reading comprehension issue, or do you just really like to argue? Judging from the number of arguments you're carrying on in each one of your posts, I'm going to guess the latter.