The Big Picture: Remembering the Real Jack Thompson

[An Ceannaire]

Bob, we get it; You like Anita Sarkeesian and what she preaches. That's fine.

But a lot of us don't. Stop trying to make us feel guilty for disagreeing with somebody whose arguments aren't all that airtight to begin with. It's getting a bit tiresome.

OT: Interesting video, considering I didn't really pay much attention to the Jack Thompson debacle when it was happening because that was another American issue that had no effect on me. So he was just a two-bit political wannabe in the end? Who'd have guessed?

 

[shadowmagus]

Jack Thompson is still a thing? Ok, I honestly thought we were past him but whatever.

Oh and Bob, please put your Anita away. She isn't a crusader, she isn't good for the medium. She's a sensationalist and just as bad as Jack was. She is using this not to make a statement but as a spring board. When we see her in politics in 20 years, I'll be back to tell you all I told you so.

 

[lastjustice]

I haven't thought about Jack Thompson in years. Even when he was at the height of his popularity he carried little to no emotional charge. Some of his antics amused me, but I was never like "oh no, he's going destroy gaming as we know it !!!" Neither he or any other person that's turned up since has changed the landscape in any profound way. It just all keeps chugging right along, but people seem think all this nerdrage is having some sort of profound effect.


I never get this supposed morale obligation Bob always talks about gamers having. That we have this duty be better people than rest of society because ...reasons. That because of a hobby we are somehow are the enlightened ones and need lead the way. This is simply not true any more than NFL players are not the morale standard for society. I doubt NFL players are any more or less wicked now collectively than they were when the NFL found, people are just better about knowing when someone screws up and recording for the world to see. It has never been the entertainment industries job to raise children and tell people what is right or wrong. That is for people to do themselves. If any form of entertainment happens provide something of value along the way , great, but their job is to entertain and make a buck doing so first and foremost. Anything else positive is just bonus.

 

[V4Viewtiful]

I can't hear Ollie North without that American Dad song

 

[Aliasi]

If anything, doesn't this just support peoples comparisons of Jack Thompson to Anita Sarkeesian? I mean, if indeed Jack Thompson is just a guy with ideological hangups about violent cultures across a political spectrum, isn't that a word-for-word definition of Anita Sarkeesian's Feminist Frequency youtube channel?

Please do keep in mind she also criticizes movies, hip-hop and mediums of art besides gaming; she is - to me at least - someone very interested in pushing a certain agenda, not a video games critic. Same as Jack Thompson.

Anita isn't asking anyone to ban anything, or talking about how games are spreading homosexual thoughts into Our Children.

She's using basic Women's Studies 101 stuff to point out that video games are really kind of embarrassing in how they fail to really do well by half of the entire human race.

Big difference.

 

[Mythmaker]

Does anyone here actually take Bob seriously when it comes to video games? Maybe he says some few things that you agree with, but does anyone actually respect his opinion on this subject?

I don't. Frankly, he should stick to what he's good at, at least with this show.

 

[elvor0]

4:45 to 5:00, people. That's what this was all about. And he's right. I've see enough people bring up this particular boogeyman I've just stopped responding to it because of how stupid the comparison is. If nothing else, it helps me realize whose opinions I don't have to take seriously.

How is it a stupid comparison?

"Video games cause violence" and "Video games cause sexism" are not exactly that different mindsets. They're just blaming inanimate objects on different things.

I'd say this is a different scenario because Thompson actually potentially had the power and sway to censor and or ban games from being sold, and that was his goal... Thompson and Sarkeesian may preach the same motif with different variables(violence or sexism), but Sarkeesian isn't calling for censorship or a ban on sales of games, her goal is different. Although her "video games cause sexism" sentiment can go fuck itself, because that's fear mongoring bullcrap.

Now, whether or not you agree with what Sarkeesian has to say (I don't; I think her work is talentless, pre-sumptuous axe grinding, poor at best and outright lies half the time, and I /want/ better representation of women in video games) is a different matter entirely, Bobs right, Thompson and Sarkeesian are not the same issue or comparable. This shouldn't be an argument or discussion that needs to happen.

I can't hear Ollie North without that American Dad song

And now he's on fox neeeeeeews!

 

[UberPubert]

One was outright suppression of free speech, the other was the use of free speech in poorly supported criticism of media.

I would say the latter is less of a concern.

By poorly supported I assume you mean 'lacking in evidence', because Anita has received all the support she could need from the media to put forward the idea that video games are harmful to society.

The same as Jack Thompson.

 

[Alfador_VII]

Well Bob, I was completely over Jack Thompson, and had in fact totally forgotten his name, until this video dug him up out of the back of my mind again

 

[upgray3dd]

Great video. I've spent a lot of time thinking about how these old movements paved the way for other more unseemly movements. Without the 90's fight against censorship, Gamer's certainly wouldn't have had such an aggressive attitude during the "games as art" debate (the thing's I've heard people say about Roger Ebert back then were insane). If gaming culture had been less historically divisive, would movements like Retake Mass Effect exist? Would GamerGate?

The answer, I think, is no. GamerGate is an amalgam of pretty much every previously controversial issue in gaming. It's both the logical endpoint and nightmare scenario, a group of random people being arbitrarily declared "enemies of gaming" and attacked as though it were true.

 

[Something Amyss]

Crap. Bob said Jack Thompson is over. Will we see an upswell angry white Jack Thompsons who protest being called dead?

felt like all he was saying was what we already know.

Except if you look at the Jack Thompson/Anita Sarkeesian topics, it's pretty clear we don't already know it. You might, I might, but "we" do not.

I have trouble understanding the problem people have with this sort of thing. Did you feel he was addressing you specifically, or that your knowledge of the subject was inherently representative?

Haven't people gotten over him? I've barely heard about him during the years since he was debarred, except being brought up a couple of times recently with people turning over the harassment he allegedly caught back in the day and whether that was right or justified, given that harassment is a hot button issue in gaming right now. This episode felt like it was desperately skating around the elephant in the room, Gamergate, without having the confidence to sink it's teeth in until the veiled reference at the end.

I don't know, but I personally thought it was pretty obvious where this was going, given the recent comparisons between Jack and Anita (especially how they wboth want to destroy gaming).

I don't know that that's Gamergate specific, though.

But again, maybe that's just me.

How about instead of making a figurehead enemy that would unite the people but lead to nothing, you target something that is more ambiguous but will yield better results: lack of intelligence.

Because that would require us to critically examine ourselves as well, and that's bad or something.

But at the same time....

Gaming culture wanted to be treated on the same level as movies and books but we only want the positive in terms of acceptance and influence, not the negative in terms of unfortunate implications and tired tropes being brought up.

It's weird you say that after this:

I don't like Anita on grounds of lack of citation, updates, or even basic academic research but the points themselves have merit.

You don't like her on grounds that not only are acceptable within other media, but that she herself has done in other media without blowback. So it seems like even as you point out that we don't want to have the negatives of being a serious medium, you yourself are setting higher standards to insulate against it.

But again, I ask you to consider that you may not be the target here. There are plenty of people who don't share your gripes and rail against her by carefully editing her pieces and rephrasing her, or people who have only watched/read these complaints, or the people whose only criticisms of her appear to be of the "****/whore/slut" variety.

Perhaps your criticisms aren't the ones he's talking about?

 

[UberPubert]

Anita isn't asking anyone to ban anything, or talking about how games are spreading homosexual thoughts into Our Children.

You're right. She's only talking about how games are spreading misogynistic thoughts into everyone who participates.

She's using basic Women's Studies 101 stuff to point out that video games are really kind of embarrassing in how they fail to really do well by half of the entire human race.

And I'll dispute that any day of the week whether it's 'basic Women's Studies' or not; it doesn't provide any legitimacy on her criticism of videogames.

 

[Izanagi009_v1legacy]

One was outright suppression of free speech, the other was the use of free speech in poorly supported criticism of media.

I would say the latter is less of a concern.

By poorly supported I assume you mean 'lacking in evidence', because Anita has received all the support she could need from the media to put forward the idea that video games are harmful to society.

The same as Jack Thompson.

please stop making the comparison, their end goals are different so I say we judge their goals and their means together. Both are wrongheaded in how they present their case but one is actively imposing on a constitutional right and the other doesn't

 

[gigastrike]

The only thing I learned here is that Jack Thompson was made relevant again for some reason. Seriously, guy's been off the radar for years, and everything he's been involved with has been over for nearly as long.

 

[Darxide]

Dunno, Bob. I hadn't heard the name Jack Thompson in years until I watched this video.

 

[Mikeyfell]

So Jack Thompson is a despicable hypocrite, yet you don't see any parallels between him and Anita Sarkeesian?

I mean, death threats are bad no matter who gets them, but you don't see how awful it is for someone who throws around the word "misogynist" like it's candy and yet bends over backwards to point out that every instance of violence against men is somehow "Framed acceptably" by video games.

The broad strokes of her message are fine, better female characters who wouldn't want that.
But her personal bigotry against men makes her an unsuitable figurehead for anything really

 

[faeshadow]

4:45 to 5:00, people. That's what this was all about. And he's right. I've see enough people bring up this particular boogeyman I've just stopped responding to it because of how stupid the comparison is. If nothing else, it helps me realize whose opinions I don't have to take seriously.

How is it a stupid comparison?

"Video games cause violence" and "Video games cause sexism" are not exactly that different mindsets. They're just blaming inanimate objects on different things.

I'd say this is a different scenario because Thompson actually potentially had the power to censcor and or ban games from being sold, and that was his goal... Thompson and Sarkeesian may preach the same motif with different variables(violence or sexism), but Sarkeesian isn't calling for censorship or a ban on sales of games, her goal is different. Although her "video games cause sexism" sentiment can go fuck itself, because that's fear mongoring bullcrap.

Now, whether or not you agree with what Sarkeesian has to say (I don't; I think her work is talentless, pre-sumptuous axe grinding, poor at best and outright lies half the time, and I /want/ better representation of women in video games) is a different matter entirely, but Bobs right, Thompson and Sarkeesian are not the same issue or comparable. This shouldn't be an argument or discussion that needs to happen.

I'm not so sure about that anymore. You don't have to actually be a politician to get things done. Anita may not have the power of legislation, but she does have the power of every (or nearly every) national news outlet at her beck and call. In fact, I'd say she has more power than Thompson because nobody trusts politicians. However, as we can see exemplified in the ebola panic going on right now, the public will believe what the news tells them. And the news right now is telling them that Anita Sarkeesian is a victim that must be trusted at all times, and gamers are evil, if not "dead".

Thompson may have had legislation powers, but Sarkeesian has the power of national consciousness. And that is something that politicians will easily bend over to obey. At least, as long as it gets them votes.

If you want a historical perspective on this, go look up the history of Prohibition. It didn't start with politicians.

 

[Something Amyss]

"Video games cause violence" and "Video games cause sexism" are not exactly different mindsets.

Well, I mean, aside from the part where one party directly attributed the problem to games and the other has done the opposite. You know, Jack treating video games as the magic bullet and Anita saying the exact reverse, that there is no magic bullet.

I would think this would be an important thing.

 

[Izanagi009_v1legacy]

How about instead of making a figurehead enemy that would unite the people but lead to nothing, you target something that is more ambiguous but will yield better results: lack of intelligence.

Because that would require us to critically examine ourselves as well, and that's bad or something.

But at the same time....

Gaming culture wanted to be treated on the same level as movies and books but we only want the positive in terms of acceptance and influence, not the negative in terms of unfortunate implications and tired tropes being brought up.

It's weird you say that after this:

I don't like Anita on grounds of lack of citation, updates, or even basic academic research but the points themselves have merit.

You don't like her on grounds that not only are acceptable within other media, but that she herself has done in other media without blowback. So it seems like even as you point out that we don't want to have the negatives of being a serious medium, you yourself are setting higher standards to insulate against it.

But again, I ask you to consider that you may not be the target here. There are plenty of people who don't share your gripes and rail against her by carefully editing her pieces and rephrasing her, or people who have only watched/read these complaints, or the people whose only criticisms of her appear to be of the "****/whore/slut" variety.

Perhaps your criticisms aren't the ones he's talking about?

Perhaps, I'm not the target of the video but I still think that this whole "movement" has it's head up it's ass in terms of it's thoughts that I find it hard not to get pissed off at them

Also, I have to set high standards about our community, setting them low will lead to contempt and lack of real improvement. Dotting on them and saying they are fine is not how you make someone improve, you push them through hell and high water until they are better.

 

[Silverback91]

Does anyone here actually take Bob seriously when it comes to video games? Maybe he says some few things that you agree with, but does anyone actually respect his opinion on this subject?

I don't. Frankly, he should stick to what he's good at, at least with this show.

Honestly I can't really remember the last time he talked about a game as a game and not as a cultural piece. The last time I can remember was when he called "Metroid: Other M" a pretty good game and "At least it wasn't another damn fps" when talking about Prime. It was there that to me he lost all credibility when it came to talking about games.

OT: I do think that the comparisons to Jack Thomson are overblown, Ms. Sarkesian is not really calling for censorship or banning, but I do think that a few of her claims are just as poorly informed and dishonest as his were. I just take issue with how many points in her videos just feel out of context, misunderstood if not dishonest.