[General Discussion] My father goes to town on Jack Thompson

Link to screaming and debating.

Being the only Adam Sessler fan on GFF, I just had to check this out when I heard about it. The host of XPlay, along with the far more level-headed Mark Friedler, tackle video game violence with the Bizarro Lieberman Jack Thompson. It's not very long and that fucktard Pereira kind of gets in the way, but it's kind of fun to see Jack make a fool of himself again.

It was interesting to see Mark bring up the role of parents involvement with their own children and Jack practically shooting it down.

Spoiler:

Lots of screaming.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Why do they end it just when it was getting interesting? And why was teh "resident expert on games" an idiot?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Why was Jack Thompson an idiot? I dunno.

And it's G4. They don't know how to run a good debate, let alone their own programming.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Good god. Thompson strikes again. I don't mind Adam Sessler either, Kurado, but he did act a little unprofessional in that interview. Granted, he was defending what he believes, but he also just took on (especially in that last little bit where he was screaming "Kevin! Kevin!") the physical embodiment of the "lol jak tompsen is g4y. wut a f4git." mentality that will not lead to any victories.

To that though, I'll applaud Mark Friedler for his behavior. He maintained a professional stance and spoke accordingly. I too liked his discussion of parents involvement with their children and he mentioned the behavior of his own kids -- violent without games. Ah well.

Thompson, though, again showed his ignornace. He did have a point though -- Rockstar DID say that they weren't responsible for placing the Hot Coffee mod in GTA:SA. However true or false that may be, someone within the Rockstar development included it, and no one found it before release. They have also had a full year (and with that sort of talent, a full year is plenty of time) to modify any aspect of Bully they wanted to.

I don't know what the final product of Bully will be (whether you are the bully, or the bullies' bully, or whatever), but I'll stick by Friedler and Sessler's opinions, not Thompson's.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

I'm probably the only gamer on earth who stands in Jack's corner. He may take it a little too far in calling violent videogames murder simulations, however he has a good cause which I support. The only reason why gamers dislike Thompson so much is because it's our toes being stepped on. I don't see anyone complaining about the tactics other groups use such as MADD or Pro-Life. That twat acted very unprofessionally aswell. I mean was he actually attempting to make a point when talked about his own two sons.

Seriously though, acting like that does nothing to help developers or gamers. Thompson is raising a serious issue and the only way gamers have responded so far is by lashing out in hatred instead of sensibly and maturely.

I was speaking idiomatically.

I think the reason why people hate Jack Thompson and other anti-video game advocates is because people like them put the blame on stuff like the Columbine shooting and the Padukah shooting soley on the violent games and nothing else. They don't ever consider the fact that the reason why those shootings and other similar crimes happened was the fact that the kids had access to the firearms or that the kids were just plain fucking psycho.

They seem to forget the fact that it's the parents' job, not the government or anyone else, to decide whether some game is appropriate for their child.

As for that little debate, Jack Thompson wouldn't give Sessler a chance to even say a word. Of course he was babbling and stuttering. Thompson kept stopping the poor bastard until Kevin Perreira had to intervene and then the other guy put in his comments. I think G4 oughto have another debate on this subject like they did when that whole Hot Coffee debate started.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by JackyBoy

Seriously though, acting like that does nothing to help developers or gamers. Thompson is raising a serious issue and the only way gamers have responded so far is by lashing out in hatred instead of sensibly and maturely.

It's because Thompson's serious issue is shit. He's basically excusing bad parenting and trying to put the game industry to fault for all that's wrong in America's youth. Sure the media can influence impressionable kids, but I dunno, when I watched Robocop when I was 7 or 8, I never found the need to take an AK to a cop. In Robocop 2, I didn't get an impulsive nature to cuss like the Nuke-dealing kid in the movie (or take a jackhammer to a robotic cop). This was all because my parents told me those things were only for movies, told me the good stuff about morales, and because I wasn't batshit out of my head insane.

Let's all point fingers at a vaguely unrelated party for problems that we could've prevented ourselves~

FELIPE NO

Un-professional or not, Sessler once again proved that he is a god among men.

Heck, if it wasn't for him and his show, I'd never watch G4.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Are you guys serious? You cant have a professional debate with Jack Thompson, you've got to be fucking kidding yourselves. What were all the professional letters sent to Thompson responded with? The English equivalent of "ur a tard, kthxbie"

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Like any 'debate' on television, it degrades into a shouting match. Of course if this was on O'Reily, he would've told everyone to shut up several times.

How ya doing, buddy?

I think we're trying to over simplify biology and the psychology of young children. If were so easy for a parent to shape their infants to become a golden child then it stands for reason it must also be easy for different forms of media to also take affect. Be it positively or negatively. Unfortunately in the case of probably most North American families, it's not easy for a parent to keep a leash up their child's ass 'round the clock.

In my case when I was younger my mother dreaded me going to the local arcade because she was convinced arcardes were nothing more than havens for youth criminals and that I would become corrupted. Of course this did not prevent me from going to the arcade every saturday afternoon with a mate. Now, had I ended up in trouble with the justice system, what you want to say is that it was my parents' fault for not doing their job.

This is what makes the bad parenting angle a weak defense for the gaming industry. This is not an answer to the problem but a simple way of side stepping the issue and shifting blame. When incidents such as the Columbine shooting occur the immediate reaction from the public is to understand why it happened and what's the cause of it so it can be prevented. Videogames are targetted because they are mostly still viewed as childish activity. I mean if it's teenagers who are taking firearms to school and teenagers playing violent videogames... Well...

Surely most users on these forums aren't old enough to forget that most teens are rather rebellious and don't exactly follow rules. Especially rules their parents impose. I think the cause of today's teen violence is a little more complicated than parents not doing their job.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

That's why you teach kids at a young age about morals and what's right and what's wrong. You teach kids that there are consequences in life and that there are no such things as do-overs and the reset button and whatnot.

...Then again, some kids just don't give a shit about those kinds of things and go ahead and cause trouble and shit.

Quote:

Now, had I ended up in trouble with the justice system, what you want to say is that it was my parents' fault for not doing their job.

What you want to say?

No, I'm not going to say "Oh, that guy just killed someone, so obviously it was his parents' fault for not teaching him about what's right and wrong." I'm going to say "Oh, that guy just killed someone." It could be a number of reasons why some guy killed another person. Maybe it's because he hates him. Or maybe it's because he's just fucked up in the head like some wacko serial killer.

Most amazing jew boots

Slow news day in the world of videogames? I know, let's call JACK FUCKING THOMPSON, no one's heard from him in a few months and we all love to have someone to direct our fist shaking towards!!

I was speaking idiomatically.

I agree, it's no fucking wonder he gets so much god damn press because people love to talk about what blunders he's doing this fine day.

He's a tool. He was a tool yesterday. He was a tool last month. He was a tool last year. He'll be a tool tomorrow. He'll be a tool one year from now. That's it.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Thompson's largest problem is his heavily-conservative influence. Like many who stand in his political ring (i.e. heavy right-wing), their closemindedness prevents them from understanding certain actual, unalienable truths. Furthermore, his Christian values (and no offense to Christians...) add to his inability to see certain truths.

Parents are responsible for their children's actions, among many other factors. Yes, the media does play a role but only to the extent to which their programming schedule allows. This means that if a parent restricts or properly monitors what their children are playing or watching, they can control to a much greater degree the effect of the media on a child's development. Parents have the ability to define and explain what a child sees or plays.

In my opinion, it's perfectly reasonable for a child to play something like God of War. Why? Simple -- I'm capable of explaining to the child that it is a game, and nothing like it exists in the real world. There are not shiny bald dudes with Blades of Chaos walking around slaying harpies and cyclopses. I'm also capable of explaining to a child that the game he or she is playing is created by an adult for the intended purpose of entertaining, not dictating.

Of course I'm taking an extreme standpoint -- I personally wouldn't let my kid (if I had one) play God of War. However, I wouldn't prevent him or her from playing video games. To the point, parents have way more control than they give themselves credit for, I believe. And Thompson is completely incapable of looking at outside influences which affect children's behaviors -- schools, friends, bad/broken homes, neighborhoods, culture, etc.

And Friedler's point was quite valid, Jackyboy. Boys, especially brothers, will play aggressively and get in to fights. This "phenomenon" has been occurring for d-e-c-a-d-e-s longer than the gaming industry has been thriving, or even existing. Unless, of course, you want to argue that the boys were playing Xbox while in the womb. :/

Columbine did not happen because those two boys were playing violent video games. This is the argument that pisses me off the absolute most. Those two boys had been negaged in violent and erractic behavior outside their video games. Death threats, offering hitman services to bullied kids, promises of mass death, etc. have all been uncovered by those retarded Littleton cops. Of course, this all could've been prevented, but not by taking away their game consoles. Hell, even Dylan Klebold's own parents disregard the media's influence.

Taken from a 2004 New York Times article, "They believe that what they call the "toxic culture" of the school - the worship of jocks and the tolerance of bullying - is the primary force that set Dylan off. But they confess that in the main, they have no explanation."

Edit:

Originally Posted by JackyBoy

Videogames are targetted because they are mostly still viewed as childish activity. I mean if it's teenagers who are taking firearms to school and teenagers playing violent videogames... Well...

And that is an oversimplification of the facts. In fact, it's a fallacy against logical reasoning. If video games are violent in nature, and only childish individuals play video games, then childish people must therefore be violent. That's a logical fallacy wherein if A=B and B=C, then A=C but in this case, it does not. Violent video games simply do not make gamers violent. We might throw a controller around, but just because Tetris is beating my ass doesn't mean I'm gonna go shoot someone, nor does playing GTA instill within me the desire to drive around and shoot folks.

Those two Columbine kids were susceptible to this sort of influence due to other outside sources, likely exactly what Klebold's parents mentioned -- the social heirarchy of public schools.

FELIPE NO

Quote:

Columbine did not happen because those two boys were playing violent video games. This is the argument that pisses me off the absolute most. Those two boys had been engaged in violent and erractic behavior outside their video games. Death threats, offering hitman services to bullied kids, promises of mass death, etc. have all been uncovered by those retarded Littleton cops. Of course, this all could've been prevented, but not by taking away their game consoles. Hell, even Dylan Klebold's own parents disregard the media's influence.

Yeah, same here. That arguement pisses me off too. Video games had nothing to do with the school shootings in Columbine, Padukah, or anywhere else.

Those two boys had mental problems to begin with. Well, it was Eric Harris who was mostly fucked up in the head but he was the one who was the mastermind behind the attack. The Dylan Klebold kid was just a mindless henchman to him. He was easily manipulated by him. So to sum things up as to why it happened in the first place:

Harris and Klebold were two angry nutcases who had a vendetta against the world. They hated everyone and wanted everyone dead. The end.

Of course, the bullying fueled their hatred even more, but that's pretty obvious.

Oh and here's some more stuff about Columbine and what's believed to be the overall reason for the attack. It's old, but it's a good read.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by JackyBoy

I'm probably the only gamer on earth who stands in Jack's corner. He may take it a little too far in calling violent videogames murder simulations, however he has a good cause which I support.

I don’t believe that you understand Jack’s motivation despite what he says this has nothing to do with protecting children. Frirst off if you think calling games murder simulators is bad you don't know Thompson as he has said far worse Examples: "only gamer shoot in the face" "videogames are a new peral habor" etc. Take a look: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson_(attorney)

More importantly, if these people wanted to protect children they would start cooperative efforts with the ESRB. Instead what Mr. Thompson and most people do is scream “let make a law” which quite simply will never happen. The First and Fourteenth amendments prohibit it. At the buttom of this post are two legal cases which explain why.

Anti-video game legislation will never pass for the reasons these judges listed. I’ll let those two cases speak for themselves but there are two things I need to say. Here is one thing these taking heads will never tell you: the same psychologists that say games have a horrible effect on children also believe the same about TV and movie. The fourteenth amendment equal protection clause enters the picture, here. Targeting games for doing something that all media does, would be the same as targeting only blacks for crime done by all races, in other words unconstitutional. So far no judge has found the evidence of social scientist on this sufficiently convincing, but despite what politicians say it doesn’t matter. If they did believe the evidence it wouldn’t change the outcome if they believed the evidence they would have to reject the legislation on 14th amendment grounds.

Anti- game legislation will never pass for this reason alone, anti-media might stand a chance so why hasn’t anyone tried this approach? One, because Jack Thompson and the politicians that support him only care about issues that maximize their media coverage. Two, the supports of these legislations never mention this, no one holds these people accountable for drafting poorly idealized laws, they are allowed to get away with blaming judges for there own failure to consider issues that any first year law student could point out.

Lastly, you are paying for the ESA to defend it self (since the state was in the wrong by passing an unconstitutional law, the ESA has right to seek civil damages): http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/337984.html

Jack Thompson promotes the waste of money and time in the pursuit of un-attainable goals. I don’t believe that games are as harmful as Mister Thomson but assuming I did it would only increase my rage because the wastefulness he promotes would be even more dangerous.

It gets even worse this just shows how futile his goal of anti-game legislation is, you take specific action in to question and Thompson is even more of a negative influence. Put quite simple those who believe that games are a social evil should oppose not support Thompson his over inflated ego coupled with his myopic obsession with videogames is counterproductive to any progress being made. Thompson creates panic, Thompson creates sound bites, Thompson drafts failed legislations that wastes the limited research of our legeslators, Thompson spreads lie and misinformation.

Sadly, people can’t seem to tell the difference between a controversy and a solution.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Dan

More importantly, if these people wanted to protect children they would start cooperative efforts with the ESRB. Instead what Mr. Thompson and most people do is scream “let make a law” which quite simply will never happen. The first and Fourteenth amendments prohibit it. At the buttom of this post are two legal cases which explain why.

More to the point, hasn't Mr. Thompson argued against the ESRB in discussions past, calling it something akin to ignorant and dismissive of a game's true content? Here is Mr. Thompson critcizing the ESRB for the same thing he has yet to actually do -- play a video game. Members of the ESRB don't just go up and say "Hey, does your game contain the following material?" to developers. They play the game for a period of time to determine the content rating, and even then the ESRB does miss some stuff (citing Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion's rating change from Teen to mature).

In short, Thompson is truly the ignorant fool here, as we all know too well. He is only capable of condemning what he hears from people who are in his circle, and those people are just as close-minded as he is, for the most part. Heavily conservative Christians who cannot see beyond the realm of their own beliefs and condemnations are only capable of negatively viewing things like violent video games, and fail to see the larger scope of things.

Um by the way Grawl, no offense. Disclaimer: I don't hate Christians or conservatives -- just close-minded people.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Man, Jack Thompson sure talks veeerrry sloooowly, maybe he was hit on the head with a Space Invaders cartridge or something many years ago.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by SouthJag

More to the point, hasn't Mr. Thompson argued against the ESRB in discussions past, calling it something akin to ignorant and dismissive of a game's true content? Here is Mr. Thompson critcizing the ESRB for the same thing he has yet to actually do -- play a video game. Members of the ESRB don't just go up and say "Hey, does your game contain the following material?" to developers. They play the game for a period of time to determine the content rating, and even then the ESRB does miss some stuff (citing Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion's rating change

Actually the ESRB doesn't play the video games. They have the companies submit a reel of their most extreme content and rate it accordingly. They don't even have gamers rate it, it's every day people, a panel of random people who judge it. I heard this at TechForum at my school where industry professionals speak to the students. If companies fail to submit all the content in there, there will be repurcutions, of course the GTA:SA and Oblivion exemplify that fact.

If the correlation between violent video games and violence was indeed true, I'd have to wearing a bullet proof vest to school every single day. Just about everyone at school plays video games, especially violent ones and we even create mods for them. So obviously we should be a powder keg ready to go off.

Remember the DigiPen massacre of 98? Nope.

What about the Full Sail assualt of 00? Never heard it.

How about any slaughters at a Gamingforce meet up? Gee...I could've sworn there would be bloodshed. I mean, we're all murderous villians ready to put a bullet in someone's head. Look out! I'm a crazed gamer! :lolsign:

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Huh. I was under a different impression then. In any case, I think the most violent thing that video games cause people to do can be seen during the Christmas holidays.

"Gimme that game! My kid wants it!"
"No bitch! *pummel*"

As you can clearly read, it's not the kids, but the PARENTS participating in such random acts of shopping mall violence.

I was speaking idiomatically.

That can be applied to anyone and anything during Christmas. Ah Christmas the time to celebrate love and the giving of expensive gifts to relatives in hopes of getting and equally expensive gift while trampling on some poor soul at the store.

How ya doing, buddy?

Heh, Jack Thompson clearly won that one. Not a smart move from G4.

FELIPE NO

It looked to me more like Mark Friedler won it when he said that his two kids, who have never played video games, punch and kick each other all the time.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Though far too short to really explore the issue, I actually gained a little bit of respect for Thompson. Think about it, he had the balls to show up on a show where he knew he'd get gangbanged by everyone. I don't agree with his methods in the least, but I do agree that games can promote violence to a certain degree.

In the end, the same can be said for movies, music, and what anyone can easily watch on tv. So it really is just up to the parents to control what their kids are doing. Preventing the game from being released is just ludicrous, as it is just a "game" in the end, just like there are plenty of gratuitously gory movies out there.

Jam it back in, in the dark.