The Big Picture: Remembering the Real Jack Thompson

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 20 NEXT
 

Remembering the Real Jack Thompson

MovieBob feels that it's time for the gaming community to get over the infamous Jack Thompson.

Watch Video

Pre Watching: Chipman there is no reason to believe your delusions of their delusions. They are all delusions.
(Yeah I'll take does word back if he proves me wrong, but I doubt it)

Post Watching: How ironic is it of Chipman to ask people to stop seeing a person as a symbol. I guess "hypercritical" is more the word actually.

I do agree with the sentiment that people need to get over Jack Thompson, not because of the gamergate bullshit, but because of everyone who reacted to; "[We, the Red Cross, want semi realistic, modern military shooters to acknowledge the existence of War Crimes.]" with; "[OMG, they are just like Jack Thompson, trying to censor Grand Theft Auto.]"

That was pointless. I want my few min of life back. felt like all he was saying was what we already know. Like using the Hitler example for evil. Given the man was a man yes Hitler had good points too. So yeah saying what most people her already know. Broad brush stroke don't work because people don't work that way.

Fun fact: He was disbarred, along with several others for a prostitution scandal.

So, in essence, he was a stupid nut-job who got slightly more attention than other stupid nut-jobs and people are clinging onto him, because we haven't had another real boogeyman since...That's my 2 cents.

IceStar100:
That was pointless. I want my few min of life back.

I want the precious seconds back I wasted reading and responding to this comment.

I have never heard of Jack Thomson... So this was quite interesting. I don't know how I've been missing this.

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.

What was the point of that?

"Hey, you should get over this guy!"

*lists a long speech of basically scummy things this guy did and then make a anita sarkessian reference just to cause an angry debate in the comments*

That was just, weird

Missed the boat, this should have been a Game Overthinker episode instead...

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.

Three things:

-Oh dear, this will blow up in massive flames at this rate

-Honestly, I'm trying to step back and view the whole thing from above but this whole Gamergate thing is nuts so here is my probably controversial statement. 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. It would seem that internet discourse has degraded into what I sadly call Neanderthal head bashing. Basic argument structure in a debate is as follows: constructing the argument, someone makes a refutation, you make a refutation of that refutation that supports your initial argument and so on. Instead, I see a whole lot of personal attacks and topic diverting. I understand that people are angry and pissed but in the long run leaving your rage at the door will enable you to articulate your point better. I admit I have not fully demonstrated that principle given my reaction threads but at the same time, the pissing contest is making me very very tired and annoyed.

- I don't quite understand why we are targeting critics? I don't like Anita on grounds of lack of citation, updates, or even basic academic research but the points themselves have merit. 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.

~yay~

Another Soap Box episode(albeit a sneaky one at that).

Get out your umbrellas, ladies and gents, I foresee a septic cyclone!

One thing I will say though; MovieBob really glosses over PC Gaming far too often(this is a pet peeve rather than a full blown issue, though there was that time where he practically denounced the entire platform >.>).

That issue of PC Gaming that he used says 'Starcraft 2' on the cover, a game released in 2010, and after PC Gamer was bought by Future. A more context-appropriate issue(since everything else used early 2000s iconography) would've had Neverwinter Nights on the cover or something.

Yes, it's petty. No I'm still not over his PC Gaming episode and that he called Geralt of Rivia a 'generic white dude'.

Bob, dude, seriously...

It's your show and technically you can do whatever you want but regardless of ideological difference NO ONE came here to listen to you rant about this issue. Do yourself a favor and take this discussion to another outlet unless you want to alienate viewers who enjoy the big picture for discussing geek nostalgia and other "fun" topics.

Hah, well, I agree with what he's saying 100%, but I can imagine that this comments threat is quickly going to become a not-fun-place-to-be

JoJo:
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.

Apparently people are not over him. As was sighted last week GamerGate, or rather a substrata thereof but that honestly makes no difference, was seen saying that Thompson was better than Anita Sarkesian. The only reason he hasn't really talked about GamerGate here is because he already did a Game Overthinker episode about it and this is basically the cliff notes version of it to an extent mostly in that video game players really need to stop thinking they are at war with some kind of bogeyman.

God dammit Bob, just do that one "fuck gamergate" episode you obviously want so much to make and get it over with. Stop with this beating around the bush thing.

Mr. Omega:
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 different mindsets. They're just blaming inanimate objects on different things.

Jack Thomson is still around, now using the pseudonym "Anita Sarkeesian". *badum tish*

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.

UberPubert:
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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

UberPubert:
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.

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.

faeshadow:

Mr. Omega:
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.

V4Viewtiful:
I can't hear Ollie North without that American Dad song

And now he's on fox neeeeeeews!

Izanagi009:
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.

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 :)

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.

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

IceStar100:
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?

JoJo:
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.

Izanagi009:
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 "cunt/whore/slut" variety.

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

Aliasi:
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.

Aliasi:
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.

UberPubert:

Izanagi009:
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

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.

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

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 20 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here