judge recommends that jack thompson be found guilty

Post Reply New Topic

...on 27 of 31 misconduct charges.

It means nothing unless he's actually found guilty by the court, but it's still something...

http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/05/20/ ... ourt-must-

(you may have bandwidth problems for a while... anything surrounding jack thompson getting in trouble gets alot of views)

Awesome,hope he's found guilty.
Keith Vaz next please.

Who the hell is Keith Vaz?

I find gamers' obsessed preoccupation with Jack Thompson to be more annoying that Jack Thompson.

It's no different than the obsessed preoccupation most of us have here with autism speaks... gamers are just trying to protect their very existence against a force that seeks to utterly destroy them...

That annoys me too.

I do laugh that anyone would think that Jack Thompson is a danger to destroy anything though.

It's not about whether a person or organization has the capacity of group destruction, it's about whether they have the motivation...

Oh please. It has to do with young gamers being in denial about their preferred method of entertainment causing an increase of violence and elevating an unstable whipping boy to ignore legitimate concerns.

If gaming truly caused violence on the level that jack thompson suggests, why haven't I killed anyone?

Even Jack Thompson doesn't say everyone who plays games becomes a murderer, so you're just using hyperbole at this point.

Sadly it's common hyperbole. I can't tell you how many times I've heard the "I'm not a murderer" defense for what has been a very well-established link between violent media and an increase in aggression (which becomes more pronounced in people already prone to aggression beforehand).

It's just sticking your fingers in your ears and ignorning all evidence. It's more fun to pick on Jack Thompson. Bah!

I like Jack. He amuses me. I hope he goes on, as long as he stays harmless.

he is the UK anti game equivilent of Jack Thompson,he's an MP and has a lot of power,and ignorance towards gaming.
one of his most famous attacks was when he tried to get canis canem edit [bully everywhere else?] banned saying it was a bully simulator which made children bully others-he had never even played the game and judged it all completely on the title.

Dude, there's a thread all about violence in the media in the adult section. Bring your arguement there, why don't you, and look at all the evidence that says that there IS no direct link between violence in the media and violent behavior, instead of invading this thread to kill the buzz? Hell, it's just hilarious that you talk about "evidence" for a man who's manufactured false evidence. Is Jack Thompson a major threat? No, but he's an annoying hypocrite and an attention whore who has repeatedly lied to the press about video games, and it's quite satisfying to see him get his just deserts. So please, let us gamers young gamers who are in denial enjoy this little moment of victory against the kind of ignorance your posts present.

I'm sure Wrong Planet is big enough for two threads that mention the subject.

As for evidence, there have been countless experiments that have shown a direct link between violent media and aggression. I've seen gamers go out and ignore all these studies and grasp onto the cherry-picked few out there which disagree, but I'm on safe ground here as it's a, frankly, over-studied issue. Both correlational and experimental data has been found over and over.



I don't recall coming to Jack Thompson's defense. I'm just tired of hearing about him and then watching a bunch of drooling gamers have an orgy of self-justified ranting.

You guys are no better than he is.

Fine, you want to do it here? OK, fine. But don't be a hypocrite. There's evidence supporting both sides of the arguement. Gamers aren't as stupid or ignorant as you'd like to believe.

Plus, we ARE better than he is because WE DON'T MAKE UP EVIDENCE. HE DOES.

While studies have shown that playing overly violent video games at a young age CAN increase levels of aggression, OTHER studies have shown that that violent television (like war footage) has twice as big of an impact than video games in terms of how much it makes someone aggressive. Or consider the fact that FBI statistics show youth violent crime ratings going down 40% since the year that GTA III came out and are now at the LOWEST RATE EVER RECORDED, or the fact that people were plenty aggressive and violent before video games or television were even invented! And what of the other factors involved, like poverty that forces people to take on criminal lifestyles, and the media glorification of the gangster lifestyle, or the fact that you have tons and tons of parents being way too busy to care for their kids because minimum wage jobs don't pay you enough money to be broke and parents have to be working two at once--no time for the kids! No time to learn about the M ratings. The aggression that games can create can be more or less reversed with proper parenting.

And if a kid can't tell the difference between reality and a game, there's something wrong with him already and he was gonna go crazy with or without a game.

So, in other words, there's a direct link.