Slashdot Mirror
Jack Thompson's Letter To Take-Two Exec's Mother
debatem1 writes "Apparently, anti-violent-video-games crusader Jack Thompson is at it again, this time writing a letter to the mother of Strauss Zelnick, Chairman of Take-Two, the company that produces the GTA series of video games. In it he compares Zelnick to a member of the Hitler Youth, advocates beating the young Zelnick, and contemplates the existence of a Ted Bundy merit badge for boy scouts."
He's like herpes. The symptoms go away, but it really never goes away.
That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
and see how they feel about their dads conduct
fairs fair right ?
The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that Jack Thompson is on Take 2's payroll. He's the best advertising they could possibly ask for.
Hey, Jack. I'm fairly certain the Hitler Youth would not approve of violence against the authorities. In fact, they would more likely be on the side of authority, decrying any subversive activities that advocate violence against a police state.
Please stop submitting Jack Thompson stories. He's got nothing if you ignore him. Leave it to Shacknews, keep it off Slashdot.
I have to seriously wonder, is this man mentally ill? The only reason he receives any attention now was due to his previous work, but as the things he says and does keep getting stranger and stranger I have to wonder.
In the US, people are only forcibly evaluated for mental illness under the most obvious conditions. If you have a person who is slowly slipping off the edge no one will do anything until he becomes an obvious problem. Even then it is usually be ignored unless he harms someone.
It is quite possible that Jack Thompson is out of his mind. But no one will step in until after he has practically killed someone.
He is seen as the de-facto "spokesperson" of the anti-videogame agenda. And he's dangerously insane, to the point that noone takes him seriously at all. The plus of having such a buffoon "in charge" of the anti-videogame agenda is that no sane person would dare speak up on his side, for fear of being associated with him.
Dear Mrs. Bush:
Your son, as you may know (or maybe you don't know), is the President of the United States, whose most popular foreign policy adventures are killing hundreds of thousand of people. Though they are a different color, I do believe they are still people.
Your son last week was reported to have said the following about Iran: "A nuclear Iran must not be allowed."
Taking your son's thought, I would encourage you either to join the Marines, or encourage all of your grand-children to join up, especially Jenna and little Barbara.
What you will see in the next war, if this iteration of war is anything like its predecessors, is incredible interactive violence aimed at everyone (whom you can shoot in the head and see the blood spray), innocent bystanders (whom you can run over with your Humvee or tank just for the heck of it), and of course the plentiful indigenous female prostitutes you can have sex with and then filet with a knife or stomp with your feet in order to get your money back. Experts note that the recent plethora of killings is caused in whole by your darling son's Administration and philosophical flunkies. There are four thousand dead soldiers in Iraq, and perhaps almost a million dead civilians. No, really - it was on 60 Minutes. I hope Bush has provided you with a flat screen TV to see the grief of the bereaved families that fills the screen. I mean, if reporters were allowed to say such things.
The violence that your son trafficks in is the kind of stuff that most mothers would be ashamed to see their son putting into the hands of other mothers' children, but, hey, your son Bush has recently assured the world that he is "a Boy Scout, everybody knows that." I'd love to see the merit badges that Scout Troop handed out. Is there a Colonialism merit badge? If so, your loving son deserves one now.
There's hundreds of thousands of mothers you would do well to talk to. They have a grief they carry every day that only a mother can know. There are other such mothers in the heartland of Iran whose inhabitants your son simply sees as commercial targets.
Your son, this very moment, is doing everything he possibly can to sell the new Iran war, to "defend" a country in which your son claims you raised him to be "a Boy Scout." More like the Hitler Youth, I would say.
Happy Mother's day, Mrs. Bush, which this year is May 11, and who knows how soon until your son or his predecessor unleash actual death and violence upon other mothers' boys. I'm sure you're very proud.
More than that, he's a shareholder! http://www.joystiq.com/2005/12/22/take-two-gets-a-new-shareholder-jack-thompson/
Indeed, he was brought into a discussion about GTA IV on NPR's Talk of the Nation last week. I had never heard him, just read about him. He came off like a total jackass, scoffing at the end, "I'm done?" "Yes, you're done."
He sent a letter to the mother telling her that her son's game got perfect reviews. I stopped reading the article after that but I can only assume the remainder of the letter were Thompson's heartfelt congratulations and good wishes.
Sheesh, can't Jack Thompson do nice things every once in a while?
[sarcasm] Yup. I couldn't possibly figure out how to rob, murder or carjack someone if I hadn't played GTA1 back in the day -- and the knowledge that driving a car [any car, even a stolen one] through a spraypainting facility will magically get the cops off my trail for anything I've ever done sure is handy. [/sarcasm]
GTA isn't for kids, and I certainly think that cases where children are playing it are troubling (particularly for hours and hours on end, but that's true of any video game regardless of content), but the whole violent-videogames-cause-RL-violence meme is silly. It's much more defensible that individuals who are violent in nature are attracted to violent video games -- but I don't see how that's an argument for any kind of a ban, certainly not a strong enough argument to overcome the first-amendment counterpoint. Any rational individual knows that actions taken in real life have real consequences attached to them, and so evaluates such actions using a completely different metric than one might use in playing a game.
So -- I won't complain about the consequences of violent video games being available for sale to adults, because I honestly believe that there are no substantial negative consequences on the scale described. If my family is (against all probability to the contrary) murdered in a random act of violence, I'll do the rational thing and blame the person who pulled the trigger, rather than searching for scapegoats. That said, violent videogames have permeated our society to the point that any real effects on the level of random violence should already be highly visible -- and while there's a highly publicized shooting spree here or there, (1) there's no clear causal correlation, and (2) the death rate from those isn't even close to background noise in the grand scheme of things; it's far, far more likely that my family will die in a random traffic accident, and that's a risk we willingly accept every time we get in the car to watch a movie or go to the store.
Keep your fearmongering. If you want to live in a world where you're afraid of every kid who owns an Xbox, you're welcome to -- but me and mine prefer to go about living our lives (and facing much more real and present challenges), unworried by your imaginary and unrealized fears. I imagine those who were afraid of D&D or rock-and-roll felt similarly to you earlier in this century -- every generation finds some reason to worry needlessly about their youth -- but history proved those fears out as unfounded, and will do so again.
Bluntly, that was the first thing that came to my mind. The question that McCarty was asked by Joseph Welch when he drove his communist witch hunt too far. Have you no shame?
There are certain limits you don't cross. There are certain things you don't do, no matter what your agenda may be. Writing the mother of one of the people you 'fight' against and likening her son to Baldur von Schirach is one of them.
If this proves anything, it's not that computer games, no matte what content, are bad, but that Jack Thompson is on a witch hunt. It has become obvious that his agenda isn't anymore to protect anyone. This isn't an attempt to end the sale of violent games. It is a direct attack on a person which isn't even in any way connected to the problem he allegedly has with those games. He claims he tries to protect people from psychologic damage these games allegedly do, but he himself caused psychologic damage to a person who doesn't even partake in the whole process of creating those games.
So far, I didn't care too much about Jack Thompson. So far, he was a nut that tried to stop games from being sold. So be it. Whether those games exist, I don't really care. Now he is causing emotional harm to people who don't even have a connection with the game industry, except through some relative. Should we start harrassing his kids about their father's witchhunt?
I wouldn't go down to that level. Punishment for the sins of your kin have been abolished in Germany since... well, given his choice of comparisons, Jack Thompson seems to know since when.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Well that's kind of what happens when the interviewer asks you a question, and you respond by saying "I'm not going to tell you that". (I believe it was 'which law enforcement agencies are you working with?') I mean, the whole point of appearing on the show in the first place is to answer the interviewer's questions! You shouldn't be surprised when, after you say you're not answering their questions, they throw you off the show.
I don't fault Jack Thompson for having an opinion, even though I disagree with it and I believe it is utter horseshit.
What I have a big problem with is the mentality shared by him and anyone else who thinks they know what's good for us: the unstated assumption that I am unable to decide for myself whether playing a video game is in my interests, and the unstated assumption that parents are incapable of deciding on their own whether their children are mature enough to handle the content of a video game. Basically, he's assuming that we are all mindless zombies with no choice but to imitate anything we see on a screen, and he's also trying to tell parents how they should raise their children, implying that they are unable to handle the job without his input. I assure you, no one who wants to do these things has a pure motive.
The whole thing is an insult. It illustrates yet again the attitude that "it's not good enough that I choose to abstain from something; everybody else must do the same as me." It also assumes that no one is capable of distinguishing a fictional video game from reality, which is ironically more likely if we stop expecting people to know the difference.
I am very thankful that my parents (within reason, of course) did not try to shelter me from every little objectionable thing in the world. Instead, they explained to me why something was right or wrong and equipped me to deal with an imperfect world that contains many things I might not like. If the Jack Thompsons of the world had their way, no one would be able to actually grow up into an adult human being who can deal with the world the way it is and perhaps try to make it a better place because every potential source of controversy would be censored. What he is advocating is really a form of cowardice, which is generally the motive behind those who would tell you how to live your life.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Dead wrong, going to prison is the true training course in how to break the law. I got sent there and learned more about breaking and entering and bumpkeys and the manufacturing methods of methamphetamines and even more stuff than I'd have ever cared to know.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
There does seem to be a certain irony in writing to Mr Zelnick's mother to complain about his upbringing when Jack Thompson's main argument, as far as I can gather, is that violent media, including video games, are primarily responsible for violence in young people and society.
If that's the case, why does he expect that she had anything to do with it? Surely she's as much a victim of a free state as all the other parents whose children are running wild and uncontrolled.
Well, no, he isn't, at least not directly. Unless he was buying stock from a public offering (which I assume he was not), he paid the former owner of the stocks, not the company, to own those stocks. This might indirectly fund Take Two since buying the shares pushes the price upwards, making any shares they might sell in a future public offering (or issue in some other deal such as a takeover) possibly more valuable, but Thompson himself isn't putting any cash in their wallets. In fact, if Take Two was paying dividends, *they'd* be funding *him* (I looked it up on Yahoo, and Take Two is not currently paying dividends). What it *does* do is make him part owner of the company, thus possessing certain rights such as attending shareholder meetings (which is probably why he bought the shares).
No. Thompson is a rare resource. Despite his borderline insanity, he still ends up on the news - people know his name. That fame, coupled with the hate he spews every now and again, should not be wasted. It should be harnessed.
Zelnick should take the letter and auction it off. He should then give the proceeds to Child's Play (or some equally ironic charity), in Thompson's name, of course. Because much as I'd like yet another quiet suit against Thompson, watching him fume helplessly as his attacks are turned against him - again - would be pure poetic justice, and that's just pure win.
IF we accepted that violent games push insane people over the edge more often than they give them a harmless outlet to funnel tendencies which might otherwise have turned to outright violence -- IF we accept that -- then I nonetheless maintain that it's better that three hundred million people have this aspect of their freedom of speech preserved and twenty of them get killed by a nutjob with a gun than if the three hundred million are told that they can't enjoy their choice of entertainment or can't create artistic works (and some video games do indeed make serious artistic or political statements -- BioShock in particular comes to mind among recent releases) and perhaps the nutjob happens not to be quite pushed over the edge; and yes, I'll voluntarily take my chances of being one of the twenty from that three hundred million. Given that the elements of society which would ban video games haven't been successful in convincing the rest of us to do so, I'm inclined to argue that popular belief is consistent with either (1) the risk being nonexistent, or (2) the risk being acceptable.
There certainly is such a thing as acceptable risk in return for entertainment -- remember that people are killed in car accidents going to the movies or out to buy toys or games or such, and nonetheless rational individuals choose to take such actions. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if more people are killed driving to and from movies in a year than by game-inspired gun violence. Would you ban movies or require that toys and games be purchased mail-order to reduce the instances of car accidents?
Also, the whole bloody-mayhem thing isn't exactly new. The most notorious example in the city I currently live in is that of Charles Whitman, dating back to the late 60s. I'd argue that mass media loudly publicizing such events has more to do with any recent surge (the existence of which I'm not presently ceding) than any other factor -- who doesn't want to be a household name?
I have to agree. Wasn't the agreement he had with Take-Two and such tell him not to do this stupid shit again? If I were Strauss Zelnick I would sue the bejesus out of Jack. I guess since Jack can't do legal stuff now (because of the sanctions) and maybe forever (because of the disbarment), I shouldn't be surprised that Jack Ass can't do much except write the mother of Strauss Zelnick.