Today, a quick quiz to see how closely you’ve been following controversies in the world of video gaming. Well, a quiz that’s sort of been shoehorned into a poll. The correct answer(s) come after the bump. Enjoy!
ANSWER: The only quote from Sarkeesian was the final one. The rest of the quotes come from disbarred attorney Jack Thompson, the infamous anti-videogame crusader who, in one of the more headsmackingly ironic twists in the whole #GamerGate saga, is garnering plaudits from #GamerGaters because he said a few negative things about Sarkeesian in an interview with Jordan Owen for the allegedly forthcoming alleged documentary The Sarkeesian Effect.
Here are a few Tweets I’ve borrowed from a Storify collection put together by the indefatigable @a_man_in_black.
https://twitter.com/JakALope044/status/534823156641312768
In retrospect, Jack Thompson doesn't really seem like that bad of a guy.https://t.co/gUnoRssTpZ #GamerGate #OpSKYNET #NotYourShield
— BenLuke (@ben_legion) November 18, 2014
https://twitter.com/VesuvianPrime/status/534821409810546688
https://twitter.com/Dyucks/status/534821715915046912
Can't you just smell the irony of Jack Thompson signing up against corruption? Maybe the media lied?#Solution6 #GamerGate #OpSKYNET
— Mr.Bones (@40KEKS) November 18, 2014
The things Jack Thompson is saying are reasonable. He just never upheld them as a lawyer. #GamerGate
— Jackie Brown (@GOBBBluth) November 18, 2014
https://twitter.com/Pugnodigranito/status/534825645550104576
https://twitter.com/thewtfmagazine/status/534826963706576897
Bobby K and Jack Thompson just go to show that people are more complex than how we demonize them. #GamerGate's been amazing, man.
— 華胥の亡霊 🍥 (@saigyoujisama) November 18, 2014
>inb4 this thread gets screencapped by man in black to prove we totes love jack thompson pic.twitter.com/HFRC1O0dCD
— zaratustra (parody account) 🍉 (@zarawesome) November 18, 2014
Boy, it seems like only yesterday that Sarkeesian’s enemies were comparing her to Jack Thompson in order to make her look bad. Oops, my bad. It was the day before yesterday.
For the sources of all the Thompson quotes, see here. Sarkeesian’s quote is from here.
This refactored version of Barbie is pretty good
http://blog.infoadvisors.com/index.php/2014/01/30/refactoring-computer-engineer-barbie/
She keeps the basic story intact, just changes the phrasing of a sentences and boom, a reasonable book.
The people writing and approving Barbie books are people who shouldn’t be anywhere near children’s books. Maybe they will respond to the uproar about it and actually hire someone who knows what they’re doing instead
The book is no longer available for sale, at least at some online book sellers.
I don’t get how this stupid book could have been viewed as girl-affirming in this decade.
Can I please start a new hashtag? #FirstAmendmentisNotYourShield.
I’m so sick of seeing people spew hateful, racist/sexist garbage and then turn around and screech “FIRST AMENDMENT!” when they’re called out on it like it’s some kind of magic word that will make your dissidents disappear in a puff of smoke.
Literally, the First Amendment is simply protection from *the government* arresting you for saying something they don’t like. That’s it. Period. Dot. The End.
It doesn’t mean you can go around and be a fuckstick on a public forum with no consequence. If someone tells you to stop being a fuckstick, you do not get to continue to be a fuckstick because that is encroaching on *THEIR* right to browse twitter without having to deal with your bullshit.
Some people need to take a Civics/Government class (perhaps again), please and thank you.
Puddleglum, I took your suggestion and made the scented candles pic a link to the welcome package!
And again, the first amendment only applies in the US. The internet, strangely enough, is not solely US.
Can someone explain to me how Jack Thompson saying that R17 videogames shouldn’t be played by people under 17 is not censorship but that Anita Sarkeesian saying that toy advertising should not be marketed directly to children is censorship? And they both used the point of the effect on developing brains, FFS.
IANAL but aren’t both censorship?
The internet isn’t a country at all and is pretty much international waters. There are laws for when internet fuckwads encroach on real life, for example stealing real money via online hacking or threatening real physical harm. I don’t know where cyberbullying/cyberharassment stands in legal eyes, but I think places like schools and offices have policies IF it’s one of their students/employees harassing another. If it’s a random troll from 4chan or a bunch of misogynist neckbeards on Twitter then little if anything is done to prosecute them.
So in a way, there is free speech. Nothing governing what people say. Yes trolls are protected from arrest (with the exception of child porn and in the UK, revenge porn and rape/extreme porn), yet there’s also nothing governing what dissenters can and can’t do and they are free to fight, report and banish trolls as they please.
Both Gamergate and Jack are reactionary and censorious, hardly surprising really!
They make a fine couple.
*waves at Brass Eye, puts down basket*
https://artistryforfeminismandkittens.wordpress.com/the-official-man-boobz-complimentary-welcome-package/
I swear, I did not take my pain pill until AFTER I pulled this up, so why am I hallucinating this, already?
Is this a pre-emptive hallucination?
@shadethedruid
“Sexsims” have “orgasims.”
But “Real” sims have “woohoo.”
LOL!
So, I found Davis Aurini’s video on the subject. He thinks that Anita Sarkeesian hasn’t “put her face out there” or “put her money where her mouth is” like Jack Thompson, so he respects Jack Thompson more. Why he thinks that Anita’s videos, kickstarter, tweeting, and public speaking doesn’t count as her “putting her face out there” or “putting her money where her mouth is,” I can’t imagine. He says that her videos are too long and complex (pause for a long, hearty laugh at the irony of that statement) for her to effectively argue her position in them and that SJWs do all the work for her. He’s also upset that she started a petition because, I dunno, I guess that that’s just not as good as her starting a series of lawsuits. Gee, I guess that he’d respect Anita Sarkeesian more if she were willing to start suing gaming companies. That’s believable, right?
lol! there’s the skull, right there in the still!
Given the whole PUA obsession with the idea that they can hypnotize women into fucking them by demonstrating value or whatever I have to wonder what message LaVey jr thinks he’s sending with the skull, since he really does seem to take pains to make sure that it’s visible in everything he posts.
This wanker has completely ruined skull imagery for me. Boo! Hiss!
i also dig the motorhead poster. lends a certain gravitas to skullboy’s vlog persona
@cassandrakitty
He hopes to convince women that he’s actually Hamlet and that he’s a prince of Denmark because it will make him seem higher status.
Super fucking alpha, but also fucking miserable. Hey, at least it’s a fitting aspiration.
Also, I don’t think that Owen and Aurini should include Anita’s clips in their videos. Her production value is so much higher. It just makes theirs look terrible by comparison.
Plus the guys who hate Sarkeesian always claim she’s stealing from game designers by playing clips of games in her videos. By that logic, Owen and Aurini are stealing from her too.
Hey, maybe she should put her money where her mouth is and sue them. Then they could respect her.
Don’t worry, given what we’ve seen of Owen’s work, they’ll probably film it as it runs off of their laptop while one of them bathes.
Annnnd I just managed to gross myself out again.
Jonathan McIntosh is more like Jack Thompson than Anita Sarkessian is.