The Big Picture: Remembering the Real Jack Thompson

[The Choke]

Have you already forgotten about that nugget of intelligence that went something to the tune of, "the more you think you aren't affected, the more you are"

I just wanted to say that there's lots of research into the third-person effect, and I'm actually surprised that more GG-supporters don't use it and first-person effect in their arguments against critiques that focus on social equality.

Then wouldn't that make Sarkeesian, a person who just supposedly played a hundred misogynistic games and thinks she's a feminist (ie unaffected) be affected more than ANYONE? She should be punching women as she walks down the street!

There you go. That's what I was talking about. (Though, um, it sort of misses the effect of critical thought and its role in the hypothesis. But you're getting the hang of it!)

 

[The Deadpool]

In that case, the parallel is not between Thompson and Sarkeesian, who are arguing fundamentally different things. The only thing in common would be that some of the same research may be used as supportive evidence.

Fundamentally, they are arguing the same thing: That media influences our outlook in life as opposed to our outlook in life influencing media.

Jack picked Violence. Anita picked Sexism. Otherwise, their argument is essentially the same.

Actually, Jack is a bit stronger: He has far more confirmed examples of games glorify and incentivize violence in general. Most of her attempts have fallen short because she keeps comparing NPCs to PCs (surely I'm not the only one who laughs at mentioning Peach from Super Mario as someone without agency and forgetting the half a dozen Toads who also have zero agency and exist for no reason than to be saved).

BUT, as has been pointed out, the biggest comparison is the REACTION. Jack received the same negative reaction Anita got (harassment, death threats, games where you can kill him in horrific ways). What he didn't get was anyone defending him...

 

[CaitSeith]

snip

Both make the same fundamental statement, "playing games causes X (X being something negative)", Thompson only had the gall to go through with the logical conclusion of that line of thought which is to ban games in general or at least strongly restrict access to them. Sarkeesian on the other hand largely stops elaborating (or thinking) after making the initial statement. However, since the initial statement was ultimately where Thompsons line of arguing failed the comparison is most certainly valid.

Then you got the fundamental statement wrong (I think). Her statement was "games contain X (negative thing), because X already exists in society, and playing it just reinforces it". A lot of people just dump the middle part, because they don't consider society that important in the videogame universe. Is her statement wrong? That's a topic for another thread. My point is, the statements are different because hers involve something different to "videogames are the cause of X".

From the transcript of her "women as background decoration part I video:

"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 the 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. While it may be comforting to think we all have a personal force field protecting us from outside influences, this is simply not the case. Scholars sometimes refer to this type of denial as the ?third person effect?, which is the tendency for people to believe that they are personally immune to media?s effects even if others may be influenced or manipulated. Paradoxically and somewhat ironically, those who most strongly believe that media is just harmless entertainment are also the ones most likely to uncritically internalize harmful media messages.

In short, the more you think you cannot be affected, the more likely you are to be affected."

And no, she does not deliver anything that would qualify as proof of that statement.

From her video Damsel on distress Part 1:

The belief that women are somehow a ?naturally weaker gender? is a deeply ingrained socially constructed myth, which of course is completely false- but the notion is reinforced and perpetuated when women are continuously portrayed as frail, fragile, and vulnerable creatures.

Just to be clear, I am not saying that all games using the damsel in distress as a plot device are automatically sexist or have no value. But it?s undeniable that popular culture is a powerful influence in or lives and the Damsel in Distress trope as a recurring trend does help to normalize extremely toxic, patronizing and paternalistic attitudes about women.

She doesn't deliver proof of this statement either, but that's not the point we're arguing right now.

EDIT: Finally got the quotes right. Sorry.

 

[bobdole1979]

It IS about ethics in games journalism. Anita went on the Colbert report to talk with him about GamerGate. Did you forget that? because I didn't.

Also, GamerGate is everyone's issue. Just because she isn't a journalist doesn't mean she can't talk about it. She has a voice now, even though I hate that she does.

She's going to express her thoughts on it. Only thing i don't agree with is using her newly found voice to try and co-opt our medium as a fall back for a career opportunity. You realize she gets funding for the stuff she's done, right? Jonathan McIntosh writes for her series.

but she has absolutely nothing to do with game journalism. Yes she went on Colbert to talk about the harassment she received from gamergate people.


So how does she even factor into the Gamergate push for ethics in journalism if it is really about that?

 

[The Deadpool]

Have you already forgotten about that nugget of intelligence that went something to the tune of, "the more you think you aren't affected, the more you are"

I just wanted to say that there's lots of research into the third-person effect, and I'm actually surprised that more GG-supporters don't use it and first-person effect in their arguments against critiques that focus on social equality.

Then wouldn't that make Sarkeesian, a person who just supposedly played a hundred misogynistic games and thinks she's a feminist (ie unaffected) be affected more than ANYONE? She should be punching women as she walks down the street!

There you go. That's what I was talking about. (Though, um, it sort of misses the effect of critical thought and its role in the hypothesis. But you're getting the hang of it!)

Ahhh, but just because you THINK critical thought protects you, then it means it harms you MORE!

It's silly. Her very popularity disproves her point: If games made gamers misogynistic then there would be no gamers to agree with her. The fact that most of her stuff is met with approval from gamers proves that gamers aren't affected by games that badly...

 

[Lightknight]

In that case, the parallel is not between Thompson and Sarkeesian, who are arguing fundamentally different things. The only thing in common would be that some of the same research may be used as supportive evidence.

Fundamentally, they are arguing the same thing: That media influences our outlook in life as opposed to our outlook in life influencing media.

Jack picked Violence. Anita picked Sexism. Otherwise, their argument is essentially the same.

Exactly.

Both are the same argument. Certain games are harmful because X.

The only difference between the two is what they then do with that statement of belief which is irrelevant when the comparison has already been established. Jack pursued legal avenues to actually censor it while Anita is merely gaining social support on the issue and trying to raise awareness. While admittedly the result could be the same if she had her way (such as us no longer having games where we get to rescue females we love or that merely need our assistance), the likelihood of it is far less likely than had Thompson gotten a few judgements thrown his way. So the seriousness of threat is far less with Anita.

What's more is that our comparison with her argument that games make people sexist is just one of her arguments. Her call for more valid representations of females is an entirely separate argument that has nothing to do with Thompson. So rejecting her baseless argument in one area doesn't mean she's necessarily wrong all around. It certainly doesn't dismiss arguments that a female consumer should count for the same as a male consumer. That's something many if not most of us are fine with. Many of us think fair and equal treatment where one dollar counts for one dollar no matter the chromosome it comes from is the right thing to support.

But that this somehow means we can't call her argument wrong where it is? That's ridiculous. People shouldn't be afraid of open discussion and actual critiquing of points. That's how we learn and grow as a culture. Not pooling ignorance and closing our eyes.

 

[Jaytr13]

It IS about ethics in games journalism. Anita went on the Colbert report to talk with him about GamerGate. Did you forget that? because I didn't.

Also, GamerGate is everyone's issue. Just because she isn't a journalist doesn't mean she can't talk about it. She has a voice now, even though I hate that she does.

She's going to express her thoughts on it. Only thing i don't agree with is using her newly found voice to try and co-opt our medium as a fall back for a career opportunity. You realize she gets funding for the stuff she's done, right? Jonathan McIntosh writes for her series.

but she has absolutely nothing to do with game journalism. Yes she went on Colbert to talk about the harassment she received from gamergate people.


So how does she even factor into the Gamergate push for ethics in journalism if it is really about that?

I'll repeat myself with the part of my argument you chose not address.

except as people defending it have pointed out THERE IS NO WRONG WAY TO PLAY THE GAME. The game designers had to program the game so this was all possible. They had to program the strippers AI so they cower in fear instead of fighting back or running away. The only reason they would be designed in such a way is as she said as to give the players pleasure in killing them. The strippers will even stand still and not notice that you have killed the girl standing right next to them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPqTm3KgABM

Ok here we go.

While there is no inherently off limits way to play the game, the game itself doe have systems contained within in that encourage or discourage certain approaches.

The most evident one is losing score and as such rating if you decide to play the game a different way. It won't end your experience instantly but it will place sanctions. There sanctions instantly are less score, slightly later it might be higher alter from guards making the game harder.

In older some of the older Hitman games they tried a notoriety mechanic where by your performance or lack there of in previous missions would cause you to be more or less easily spotted thus actively punishing you for not playing the game a certain way.


The same argument you're applying to Hitman for allowing these behaviours can be levelled at The Sims


Now while the Sims doesn't even as actively punish people for creating a Sim just to be mean to. You can do it. The game does punish you in a way by slowing progress.

So is that problematic in the Sims that you can create people just to torture them ?
The only reason the pool was in the Sims was to drown Sims.
The only reason Knives exist is to stab people.
Can you see a problem yet with only allowing one interpretation to be allowed ?

As for the Stripper Standing still and not realizing........ poor AI coding the AI coding most likely was done such that they only realise when they have line of sight of a body. Remember these are the equivalent of programmed robots trying to act human. Trying to claim it was malicious because it's not realistic enough discounts the far more simple explanation. The designer was lazy or didn't have the time / money to make the coding more complex.

Of course... if Gamergate really is about ethics in Journalism then Anita should never be brought up as she isn't a games journalist or a game developer. She has absolutely nothing to do with Gamergate if it is indeed about ethics in journalism

GamerGate is everyone's issue. Just because she isn't a journalist doesn't mean she can't talk about it. She has a voice now, even though I hate that she does.

She's going to express her thoughts on it. Only thing I don't agree with is using her newly found voice to try and co-opt our medium as a fall back for a career opportunity. You realize she gets funding for the stuff she's done, right? Jonathan McIntosh writes for her series.

 

[The Deadpool]

What's more is that our comparison with her argument that games make people sexist is just one of her arguments. Her call for more valid representations of females is an entirely separate argument that has nothing to do with Thompson. So rejecting her baseless argument in one area doesn't mean she's necessarily wrong all around. It certainly doesn't dismiss arguments that a female consumer should count for the same as a male consumer. That's something many if not most of us are fine with. Many of us think fair and equal treatment where one dollar counts for one dollar no matter the chromosome it comes from is the right thing to support.

I agree. I would love to see more female PCs and female players to be taken into consideration more often. This is something I think most everyone could get behind.

But the effects media has on the thoughts and minds of the impressionable has been proven to be negligible at EVERY step... at EVERY form of media. It's kind of absurd that it's still going on...

 

[Silvanus]

Fundamentally, they are arguing the same thing: That media influences our outlook in life as opposed to our outlook in life influencing media.

That media influences outlook shouldn't really be the source of much disagreement. Of course it does. Whether it causes it is another question entirely.

Obviously, the position that media influences outlook is not mutually exclusive with the position that outlook influences media. Not sure it's stated as an 'either/or'.

Jack picked Violence. Anita picked Sexism. Otherwise, their argument is essentially the same.

Only if you reduce their positions to that premise. They were advocating wildly different approaches to handling the media.

 

[The Choke]

Ahhh, but just because you THINK critical thought protects you, then it means it harms you MORE!

I was actually suggesting that a deconstruction of feminist support for Anita Sarkeesian would, rather than try to disprove, use the third person effect to show how people predisposed to support feminism or think negatively about sexism (most people) are more likely to support an unsubstantiated claim, or the limitation, censorship, or banning of something perceived to be against the thing people are predisposed to support. It's one of the more dangerous aspects of the third person effect. You can have that one for free, GGers.

If games made gamers misogynistic then there would be no gamers to agree with her. The fact that most of her stuff is met with approval from gamers proves that gamers aren't affected by games that badly...

I'm actually not 100% on what you're driving at here and so don't want to respond too pointedly to it, but I would say that the popularity of her work actually is a part of the Streisand Effect. I was a fan of her videos before her Kickstarter campaign (I think her two parter on Legos and advertising is probably her best one, but I actually appreciate how the original videos were much shorter and delved into comics, television shows, and movies) and I can tell you that there were never that many comments on them. After the Kickstarter, all the videos comments filled up with some pretty vile stuff. That was two years ago, and perhaps these days there wouldn't be the same reaction, but that media approval is likely spurred on by the undeniable wave of harassment that happened during the 2012 Kickstarter campaign. I certainly don't think she would have been a guest on the Colbert Report if there hadn't been such a violent reaction to her, for instance.

 

[The Deadpool]

That media influences outlook shouldn't really be the source of much disagreement. Of course it does. Whether it causes it is another question entirely.

Does it influence in any meaningful way?

You think women are treated better today than they were fifty years ago? You think we consume more media now or fifty years ago?

Consider our timeline. If you were to plot a graph between amount of media consumed by the average human consumed vs. female rights, you'd find the two increase together.

Humanity has been moving (super slowly) towards equality just as it moves towards more free time and more forms of media. Seems to me TIME has more of an effect on these proceedings than media every has or will.

Only if you reduce their positions to that premise. They were advocating wildly different approaches to handling the media.

Who cares WHAT they are advocating? If the basic premise is wrong, how they want to react to that premise is irrelevant.

Also, are you saying that wanting to have the government regulate something that causes children to murder each other is the worst thing he could do?

And you're still ignoring the reaction the public had between the two and the media had between the two DESPITE BEING THE SAME ARGUMENT. Everyone jumped at the chance to prove violent games don't cause violence. No one seems to have a problem with sexist games causing sexism... Everyone jumped at the chance to defend Anita against death threats. No one seemed to have a problem with death threats to Jack Thompson...

 

[The Deadpool]

After the Kickstarter, all the videos comments filled up with some pretty vile stuff.

That is actually untrue.

She used to close off her comments section before the Kickstarter. FOR the Kickstarters she opened them, and stated (herself) that she was doing so to prove that there would be a negative reaction.

The comments were... Largely positive. You can find screen caps of it online still if you want to check yourself, but most of them were positive and agreement. A (very) few were thought out, negative comments. Some were simple "No, you're dumb." and a surprisingly small amount were sexist comments (get back to the kitchen!).

The amount of vitrol and vileness, death threats and rape threats and the such were a very small percentage of the comments.

but that media approval is likely spurred on by the undeniable wave of harassment that happened during the 2012 Kickstarter campaign.

Right. But IF the harassment came from misogynistic gamers, as she likes to imply, and those gamers got that way from the sheer volume of games they play, as she also likes to imply, then there shouldn't be many gamers left to DEFEND her.

But that's not what we find. The large majority of people find the harassment against her appalling. A small minority even agrees with her arguments, and the number of people who disagree are the minority by a fair margin.

How then do games cause misogyny when most gamers are on HER side?

 

[The Deadpool]

Who cares WHAT they are advocating? If the basic premise is wrong, how they want to react to that premise is irrelevant.

Do you really want to argue that the media we consume has no influence on peoples views, beliefs and behaviour? Really?

Sure. But I wouldn't even have to do much work. I could just google back every game news outlet back when Thompson was active and copy and paste THEIR arguments.

Hell, I could just repeat the court that denied his legal argument by saying there was insufficient proof that media affected our behaviors...

 

[The Choke]

That is actually untrue.

Uh, buddy, don't try to pull that shit on me. As I said: Fan of the series. Watched the video. Watched the comments happen as the events were unfolding. Commented on videos that came out before the Kickstarter back before the flood of crazy. Read some really vile shit, one posted right after the other. Show me all the screenshots you want, but I was actually there, so... I'm not buying it.

Right. But IF the harassment came from misogynistic gamers, as she likes to imply, and those gamers got that way from the sheer volume of games they play, as she also likes to imply, then there shouldn't be many gamers left to DEFEND her.

Sorry, still not following you. Are you saying that her videos changed all the minds of her critics? Because she and I still have some differing viewpoints on male gaze.

As to you implying what the videos are apparently implying, I'm gonna need Hans Zimmer in here for the soundtrack and possibly an audience-insert character to hear some boring exposition explaining that one.

 

[Silvanus]

Does it influence in any meaningful way?

You think women are treated better today than they were fifty years ago? You think we consume more media now or fifty years ago?

Consider our timeline. If you were to plot a graph between amount of media consumed by the average human consumed vs. female rights, you'd find the two increase together.

Humanity has been moving (super slowly) towards equality just as it moves towards more free time and more forms of media. Seems to me TIME has more of an effect on these proceedings than media every has or will.

I'd say gender equality is at a better place today than it was fifty years ago (though issues, of course, remain). I'd say we consume more media (and perhaps more significantly, more diverse media) than we did fifty years ago.

...I'd also say that those two facts may be related. Whoever said media has only a negative impact? I would argue that diversifying media has potentially had a positive impact on gender issues in recent history.

Who cares WHAT they are advocating? If the basic premise is wrong, how they want to react to that premise is irrelevant.

A lot of people care what they were advocating. That is precisely what made Jack Thompson a threat to artistic freedom. The "premise", if it is solely that media influences outlook, is not wrong.

Also, are you saying that wanting to have the government regulate something that causes children to murder each other is the worst thing he could do?

I have no idea where this came from. I never said anything to that effect.

And you're still ignoring the reaction the public had between the two and the media had between the two DESPITE BEING THE SAME ARGUMENT. Everyone jumped at the chance to prove violent games don't cause violence. No one seems to have a problem with sexist games causing sexism... Everyone jumped at the chance to defend Anita against death threats. No one seemed to have a problem with death threats to Jack Thompson...

Once again; using a similar premise, but actually arguing completely different things, is not "the same argument".

And, yes, people do have a problem with Jack Thompson getting death threats. They're just not talking about it as much any more, because Thompson hasn't done anything in years, and Sarkeesian is the one getting threats now.

Also, "nobody seems to have a problem" with games causing sexism? There are dozens upon dozens of threads criticising that idea in the strongest of terms. It's absolutely unavoidable. I don't know how anybody could possibly think that people have been mute on that subject. It's everywhere.

 

[The Deadpool]

Uh, buddy, don't try to pull that shit on me. As I said: Fan of the series. Watched the video. Watched the comments happen as the events were unfolding. Commented on videos that came out before the Kickstarter back before the flood of crazy. Read some really vile shit, one posted right after the other. Show me all the screenshots you want, but I was actually there, so... I'm not buying it.

Confirmation bias.

I was bored and actually counted them one night (well, about 300 of them). Surprisingly positive.

You can doubt it. That's okay. Finding the damned thing is surprisingly difficult 2 years later... But they do exist.

Sorry, still not following you. Are you saying that her videos changed all the minds of her critics?

Grant her points.

Games make people misogynistic. Gamers play lots of games. Gamers then are largely misogynistic.

Who is agreeing with her?

 

[Jaytr13]

Who cares WHAT they are advocating? If the basic premise is wrong, how they want to react to that premise is irrelevant.

Do you really want to argue that the media we consume has no influence on peoples views, beliefs and behaviour? Really?

Sure. But I wouldn't even have to do much work. I could just google back every game news outlet back when Thompson was active and copy and paste THEIR arguments.

Hell, I could just repeat the court that denied his legal argument by saying there was insufficient proof that media affected our behaviors...

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. You don't think that the public has ever by swayed by media opinion? so, you don't beleive in "appeal to authorty" then? because what you just said

Who cares WHAT they are advocating? If the basic premise is wrong, how they want to react to that premise is irrelevant.

Do you really want to argue that the media we consume has no influence on peoples views, beliefs and behaviour? Really?

Hell, I could just repeat the court that denied his legal argument by saying there was insufficient proof that media affected our behaviors...

is saying "these peoples viewpoints correlate with my own thus they validate my opinion". That's the very DEFINITION of by swayed by media bias.

 

[Lightknight]

Fundamentally, they are arguing the same thing: That media influences our outlook in life as opposed to our outlook in life influencing media.

That media influences outlook shouldn't really be the source of much disagreement. Of course it does. Whether it causes it is another question entirely.

The way media influences people is usually to play on existing behaviors. People are usually talking about ads, for example. So if you want to try a new soda, Coca-cola will inform you about a product that caters to your need (or that they claim caters to it).

What people do not mean is that media necessarily makes you sexist or violent. We can tell the difference between reality or fantasy as long as we're not schizophrenic. So I would never once have considered it legitimate to take the lessons on femininity that Princess Peach taught me (which is nothing, FYI, she did not teach me anything at all) and apply them to real life because even as a kid I understood that she was a character.

So, you've got some steep evidence to amass here that Jack Thompson tried and failed to get.

What's more is that our comparison with her argument that games make people sexist is just one of her arguments. Her call for more valid representations of females is an entirely separate argument that has nothing to do with Thompson. So rejecting her baseless argument in one area doesn't mean she's necessarily wrong all around. It certainly doesn't dismiss arguments that a female consumer should count for the same as a male consumer. That's something many if not most of us are fine with. Many of us think fair and equal treatment where one dollar counts for one dollar no matter the chromosome it comes from is the right thing to support.

I agree. I would love to see more female PCs and female players to be taken into consideration more often. This is something I think most everyone could get behind.

Precisely, her call to more diverse and meaningful female characters is something we can really benefit from. Lazy writing and inane characters really sink a game.

But the effects media has on the thoughts and minds of the impressionable has been proven to be negligible at EVERY step... at EVERY form of media. It's kind of absurd that it's still going on...

Word, good sir. Word indeed.