Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Thompson Vs. Lanning on Game Violence

Posted by Zonk on from the to-be-a-fly-in-the-audience dept.

This past weekend Lorne Lanning (of Oddworld fame) and notorious anti-games lawyer Jack Thompson took the stage at the Philadelphia Convention Center to debate the issue of videogame violence. Joystiq has a blow-by-blow liveblog of the event, while Wired offers up a considered synopsis of the event. From that piece: "Lanning laid into Thompson for having a 'business plan' that cashed in on the grief of victim's families, a point he would make throughout the rest of the debate. Thompson seemed both offended and confused by the suggestion, asking how exactly he was making money off his efforts, a point Lanning never really did answer. At one point, Thompson said 'no one in their right mind would say that a videogame by itself would turn an angel into a demon,' but seemed to be splitting his message."

11 of 50 comments (clear)

  1. Stop Arguing With Him by MrJack5304 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wish people would just ignore Jack Thompson. Arguing with him (poorly in most cases) only adds fuel to his fire. He wants publicity and the more people who argue with him give him the publicity he craves. Just let this man die out of the public eye and continue on your merry way. Start worrying about him when there is a possibility of anti-gaming legislation being passed.

    1. Re:Stop Arguing With Him by Ragein · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ignoring people doesn't promote healthy debate, If anything this should be discussed publicly and everyone with a stake in the issue allowed to have their say in truth this won't happen as the big media company's that give him Tv time will not care enough about proper reporting to allow the other opinions the same air time. If we ignore the issue and allow only one side to be portrayed then when this does come to the courts most non gamers will have been brainwashed with Thompsonite ideals and simply think they know all of the facts already.

      --
      They fitted George Orwell's coffin with rollers so he could turn over more easily years ago.
    2. Re:Stop Arguing With Him by MrJack5304 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Two problems that exist when debating with JT. The first is that gamers seem unable to control themselves when they talk to him. The best they can do is spout names and overreact to extreme degrees making the world of gaming seem that much more juvenile. The second is that debating with him does nothing. Fight to have more research done, decimating his arguments. If there is no link studies will prove this fact. Ultimately the science is what will matter in the end. As they have said before, "Don't argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

    3. Re:Stop Arguing With Him by vertinox · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wish people would just ignore Jack Thompson.

      Last time the gaming community ignored Jack, he got an interview on Fox News. Someone has to speak out or he'll have a free soapbox on the Mainstream Media with no one questioning his logic.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    4. Re:Stop Arguing With Him by nuzak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > Ignoring people doesn't promote healthy debate

      True, but neither does Jack Thompson. Then again, the people who have to be taught to ignore him are the media wonks. But in JT, they have a "source" that will make newsy-opiniony noises on cue, and they never like giving those up.

      --
      Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
  2. Thompson, the anti-games lawyer? by GroeFaZ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    To me he looks more like he fights a war on reality. The only thing possibly worth worrying about is that he's not been laughed off the stage yet.

    --
    The grass is always greener on the other side of the light cone.
  3. Sounds like /. was there in the crowd by techpawn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They weren't there for intelligent discourse, they wanted their shot at telling Thompson he was a jackass. It's particularly regrettable because the people asking questions usually had good points to make, but the way they chose to make them was mocking and disrespectful.
    How can we want the first amendment and claim it protects every jackass if we're going to turnaround and blast him first his ability to use it. I don't agree with the man, but someone has to be the thorn. Hate what he says, but give him his ability to say it and then come back at him a reasonably sound argument. When we act like loons we only make him look sane
    --
    Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
    1. Re:Sounds like /. was there in the crowd by MBGMorden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Blasting somebody for what they say has nothing to do with blasting somebody for their ability to say it. It seems that this debate entailed the former, while you accuse them of the latter.

      Just as anyone is free to say whatever they want, the world at large is free to call them a crazy fucking moron for saying it.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    2. Re:Sounds like /. was there in the crowd by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      On what planet is being blasted for saying stupid things the same as not being allowed to say them?

      It's only the truly ridiculous who depend on a persecution complex -- Jack Thompson and the KKK being two examples that spring immediately to mind -- who seem to think that the 1st Amendment means that not only can they say whatever they want, we must also take what they say seriously and respectfully and not repeat what they say in a high-pitched mocking tone while pointing and laughing.

      This is wrong. Nowhere in the 1st Amendment does it suggest that you should be free to say what you want without having people judge you based on your words to be an idiot and to treat you accordingly.

      I'm not arguing about the strategic value of trying to look like a bigger ass than JT. I'm saying bringing in the 1st Amendment as if he was in any way denied his rights is stupid.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    3. Re:Sounds like /. was there in the crowd by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm saying for the amount of love we give that right in particular, we are the first to mock another's right to freely use it. We (like the crowd) use it as a shield to scorn others, but all in all the crowds reaction was one of mocking rather than voicing their concerns and frustrations in a calm rational way.

      We're not mocking his right to use it, we're mocking the words that come out of his mouth during his use of it. Where's our first amendment right to mock idiots? This is exactly what I'm saying -- the issue of respecting someone's First Amendment Rights to speak has nothing at all to do with respecting what they say.

      I say the better plan for that debate would be to ask him questions to which we know he'll give answers that contradict his case. From the sounds of it, he won this debate hands down against both Lanning and the crowd.

      Maybe, maybe not. You "lose" a debate with JT just by giving him the attention. I think the best strategy is not to engage him in debate at all, because he's at his self-destructive best when given free reign to explain his unique way of thinking.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  4. angels and demons by nuzak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > Thompson said, "no one in their right mind would say that a videogame by itself would turn an angel into a demon"

    True, but that first clause about being on one's right mind is a real sticky wicket, ain't it, Jack?

    In seriousness, he's been acting a lot more rational these days. Maybe the disciplinary hearing before the Florida Bar that he's facing this month has sobered him up?

    --
    Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.