Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Jack Thompson Will Be Featured In BBC Film 'Grand Theft Auto'

Posted by Soulskill on from the enjoy-your-legacy-buddy dept.

New submitter requerdanos writes: Former attorney and professional troll Jack Thompson is set to become a major motion picture figure, played by Bill Paxton, in the upcoming film Grand Theft Auto. According to Cinema Blend, "Paxton is in line to play Jack Thompson. A Miami lawyer, Thompson came into the public eye by frequently blasting Grand Theft Auto, creator Rockstar Games, and video game violence in general. Before that, he was known for attacking media companies who promoted both hip hop and sex. In 2008, allegations of professional misconduct, including harassment, defamation, intimidation, and false statements led to Thompson being disbarred."

9 of 118 comments (clear)

  1. We lucked out by gnaarly · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Jack Thompson was a man. That was the #1 winning point.

    1. Re:We lucked out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      it's why he failed at linking video games to violence, but Anita was successful in linking video games to sexism without any research to back up their statements.

    2. Re:We lucked out by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but what took Thompson down was not online harrassment, twitter trolling, or IRL threats of violence/rape/etc - it was clear-headed dissection of his poor arguments and the legal sanctions against his own atrocious behavior. In short, he was given enough rope to show himself up as the idiotic demagogue he is/was. Twitter trolling, sending pizzas to his house, and other Anon-style pranks may have made people feel better, but they probably had no positive impact in the court of public opinion. At the very least, that sort of behavior wasn't going to convince anyone that didn't already hate him.

      On the other hand, what about Anita Sarkeesian? Can we really say she's been responded to in any sort of rational way? No, what the public sees is a bunch of juvenile attempts to shout down a critic. We're not even talking about how inappropriate rape or death threats are, we're talking about how counterproductive it is to let the conversation change over to that, rather than pointing out how she's wrong, her criticisms are overblown and uninformed, etc. Hell, I would never have even heard of her if it wasn't for the threats and harassment, because THAT'S the story the media keyed in on.

      That's why her accusations stuck, not because anyone was evaluating them on any merits, but because a bunch of trolls turned it into a conversation about her being attacked, which caused people to take her side. I'm sure it helped that she was in the role of "feminist critic under attack" rather than "overly litigious lawyer" and thus much more sympathetic in nature, but the ultimate point is that the Gamergate trolls' behavior isn't just objectionable on its own merits, it's also proved rather counterproductive.

    3. Re: We lucked out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're joking, right? Her videos have been absolutely demolished by anyone who spends more than 3 seconds thinking about them. Some of her examples have been entirely debunked - she simply made up facts to back her argument.

      Of course, you probably never heard of any of this because of the incredibly persuasive response to those debunking her bullshit: misogyny!

    4. Re:We lucked out by Coren22 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People who at rationally generally get treated rationally. People who foam at the mouth and freak out at everything/everyone that disagrees with them get treated as the nutcases they are.

      Anita is not a rational actor, therefore is not treated as such. Anyone who calls up someone's boss to get them fired for daring to disagree on a public forum is not a rational person.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    5. Re: We lucked out by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, he's absolutely right. It doesn't matter if her examples have been debunked or not, or if they've been completely made up. What people believe is what's important, not objective reality, and people's beliefs are shaped by things like media coverage on the harassment she received. So basically, the harassment made everyone take her side, even though she may be (according to you) wrong. If she hadn't been harassed that way, and the critics focused only on the facts, this probably wouldn't have turned out this way.

  2. Re:Jack Thompson is a piece of shit by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He was reincarnated in the form of Anita S.

    --
    "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
  3. Wow... by NecroPuppy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Has it really been 7 years since he was disbarred?

    I remember celebrating when he got the boot, but I didn't think it had really been that long ago.

    --
    I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
  4. Re:Jack Thompson is a piece of shit by ckatko · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Anita isn't the problem. It's all of the morons who take her seriously. Why? Because people want to believe that we live in a world where all women are oppressed. And once you subscribe to that narrative, you're going to read anything that anyone says that supports that ideology of victimization.

    And news companies know their audience is a bunch of suckers that will react to "oh no, poor cute princesses are being excluded?!" and be outraged, which makes them quite a bit of readership money.

    This is not rocket science. It's yellow journalism. It's money. The news didn't care about ethics when we went into Iraq, or when we send the innocent Central Park Five black kids to jail for a rape they didn't commit. All that matters, is sensationalism to generate money.

    And the people that believe it are just as guilty as the news corporations that exploit them.