Jack Thompson Claiming Games Industry in Collusion with DoD

mytrip brings us a Wired blog about Jack Thompson's recent press release, which claims an "unholy alliance" exists between the gaming industry and the U.S. Department of Defense. Game Politics also has a discussion of Thompson's main points. From Wired: "Jim Blank, the head of the modeling and simulation division of the U.S. Joint Forces Command, says that commercial games don't meet the demand of the military, adding, 'first-person shooter games really don't apply in this environment.' Blank's point is that game-like simulations are a valuable tool for training soldiers in situations that would be too expensive to simulate in reality."

and?

[spiritraveller]

Yes, they use video games to train. Yes, they use video games to market to recruits. Yes, they are in the business of war.

Somehow adding video games to the mix makes it more unholy than it already was?

Whatever. Will someone just shoot this guy already?

conflict of interest

[xzvf]

What will the extreme left wing, anti-war, anti-military establishment, conspiracy theory maniacs that are pro-pornography, pro-simulated violence in video games do? DoD using video games with subliminal messages to create new breed of professional military recruits and only Jack Thompson, evil video game critic to stand in the way. It's like being a Republican and realizing the only candidate that believes in what he's saying is Ron Paul. Guess the Democrats got that with Kusinich (sic). They both kind of remind me of Ross Perot, but I ramble....

Re:Have a pretty white jacket, long arms.

[Opportunist]

Freedom of speech and all that. Yes, I hate it as much as anyone that this guy can spew his drivel and waste valuable oxygen by continuous breathing and add to the carbon dioxide problem that way, but he still has the right to keep talking.

I think the 1st is more important than silencing him. He ain't that important.

Parsimony...

[RyanFenton]

Really, folks - which is a simpler explanation for these graphs:

Violent crime rate [usdoj.gov]

Video game sales [blognewschannel.com]

That (presumeably violent) video game use correlates with a massive secret drive towards violence, that is somehow counterbalanced in the overall violent crime rate, or that this (now) extremely common form of entertainment is at worst, on average, a similar factor in people's lives as movies or books?

True, the ever-shifting and politically influenced definition of violent crime may have shifted definition over the years too, but I highly doubt any theories on that line would be able to mask the accusations Thomson makes about the use of video games in society.

In order to match Thomson's account to reality in any way, you'd have to start making up any number of wild inventions to force the facts into place... kind of like what he's doing here.

Ryan Fenton

Don't Give Him Publicity

[Killer Eye]

Jack Thompson is someone best ignored. I think it is better to stop making headlines every time he goes off his rocker, and let him not be heard, than to give him free publicity for his stunts.

Re:It's the gamers! The gamers and the DOD!

[fastest fascist]

But his whole thesis is that video games make people violent, and obviously he's pissed off a lot of said video gamers. How is he still alive?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Why are we still talking about Jack Thompson?

[SlappyBastard]

Isn't there supposed to be a point where these people disappear from the conversation after their actions prove they're not relevant?

Re:Mr. Thompson, should I interpret it in this way

[innerweb]

I am pretty sure that was meant to be funny, but the truth of what is really being said is startling.

He is anti-american, like so many other neo-cons. The reason they want to change so many things of such consequence is they do not like the US. They want a new country with their rules in place. Something much more akin to the fundamentalist Muslim countries or Mussolini's government. A place where their ideals and beliefs reign supreme without that bothersome interruption from people who would think or believe differently.

I guess the scary part for me is that at one time, when I started learning about the neo-cons, I agreed with much of what I had learned. It was not until much later when I started seeing through the lies that I really got a grasp on what they stand for. It almost lends plausibility to those who believe they are trying to create a new world order. Because it sure seems like they are.

InnerWeb

Re:Mr. Thompson, should I interpret it in this way

[Connie_Lingus]

i guess its a lot easier to throw around a term like "neo-con" that dumbly lumps people into a group then to actually parse each individuals perspective in the group as to their beliefs.

please don't think that i am a "neo-con", or defending that particular POV. i guess in this current cycle of election-mania i felt the need to vent about the oversimplification of political rhetoric that bombards us daily from the news outlets.

Enough with Jack Thompson, already

[zhrike]

The guy is an absolute nut case, and is totally irrelevant. He is about to be disbarred, has made numerous clearly paranoid statements in the past, why the hell does his ridiculous ranting gain credence by being submitted to /. time and time again?

The next time someone submits a Jack Thompson story, please make the headline the following: Jack Thompson Bleats Again.

And the body of the text can be: Jack Thompson, well-known corrupt and insanely-paranoid former lawyer, makes another outrageous statement.

Re:and?

[Derosian]

A madman is a madman until someone kills him and turns him into a Martyr.

Re:and?

[Anonymous Coward]

If he was Muslim, he probably would have blown himself up by now.

If he was Muslim his community would have tried to put him straight and told him to stop making the rest of them look bad.

Sadly Jack Thompson's community is "Lawyerdom".

Re:and?

[AciD2BasE]

If he was a Terrorist, he probably would have blown himself up by now.

Fixed that for you.

Re:and?

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't stop the suicide bombers, does it?

Re:and?

[rhakka]

"thou shalt not kill", a fairly straightforward piece of divine advice, hasn't stopped the Jews, Christians, OR the muslims either. I suppose no one is very good at following their own religion, eh?

Re:and?

[Fmuctohekerr]

I agree with you that no one is very good at following whichever "word" they consider to be from "God," however they define it.

But let's be accurate:

• The early Israelite leaders (Moses, Joshua, David, ect) clearly interpreted "thou shall not kill" to specificaly mean murder. Killing first born Egyptians, warfare, ect., all OK to them. David on the other hand repented for "killing" a fellow soldier over a hot chick. So there is a difference in Judaism.
• Islam (the Qur'an) has the concept of Jihad, and spells out rules for warfare (not in a holy month, ect). 'Nuff said.
• Christ was a complete pacifist in every way. "Turn the other cheek" and "he who seeks to save his life will lose it" spell out a very clear message of non-violence, even for self-defense. I don't think Bush has read this part of the bible. This does not apply to God, however, He gives and takes as He pleases.
• Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism Dharma all consider non-violence to be a virtue. A primary virtue, in fact. I'm not sure elevating the concept to "sin" or "commandment" is quite accurate. I'll leave that question to someone who knows more than I do.

Obviously I'm down with JC. Just a disclaimer. I am biased.

But my point is that hypocrisy is harder to nail down in some religions than in others. Christianity, IMHO, makes glaring hypocrites of us all in short order. Christ set the bar ridiculously high. As was His point.

Sorry for the appologetics on the nerd site.

On topic, I'm all for video games depicting violence. I play FPS with my nephew all the time. Being human and intelligent requires some basic discernment, after all. Thompson should probably keep his mouth shut and not claim to represent "values" or any religion whatsoever, if he does.

Re:and?

[rhakka]

Interpretations aside, "Thou shalt not kill" is unambiguous. It is only made ambiguous by people who need to justify killing. As a commandment, in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition, it is present in all 3 religions.

How side-stepping that is justified in all 3 religions is of no interest to me. More, how hypocrisy, contradiction, and cognitive dissonance of all varieties and intensities are rationalized also doesn't interest me... well, honestly, they both interest me a great deal as a matter of curiosity, but it doesn't change the basic issue; According to all 3 religions, God laid down the law. In no uncertain terms (though it was obviously a "Do as I say, not as I do" thing in the old testament what with the plagues, floods, and smiting going on, hey, it's God.. if he says to not do something, and chooses to do it Himself, well, how the heck can anyone second guess that, right?)

I mean really! You can't really "interpret" thou shalt not kill... that's unambiguous, entirely unambiguous. That they did, wrote it down, and leaders teach "around" it... well, that just codifies the shortcomings of religion in general, if you ask me.

He's got it the wrong way round

[mormop]

If Call of Duty taught me anything (which I doubt), it'd be that war a crap thing to be caught up in as death can come at any time from someone you hadn't noticed hiding in a bush or a doorway. This random "died from being in wrong place at the wrong time" with no respawn is probably more likely to convince people of the benefits of couch-potatodom than it is to get them to sign up.

At least after being killed on the screen you can respawn a few times before crossing the floor to the fridge to extract another beer while you comtemplate the fact that you earn more sitting in your office than a soldier does in Iraq without having to put up with being shot at. On the other hand, if you are still at school and can't tell the difference between a game and reality you're more than likely better off in the army as they're probably getting pissed with soldiers who go "off message" on their blogs.

 

Re:and?

[Courageous]

I mean really! You can't really "interpret" thou shalt not kill... that's unambiguous, entirely unambiguous.

Well. I'm an atheist. And care very little. Be that as it may, why is it you are so sure? "Kill" is a modern word. And an English word. Surely you don't think that they were speaking English back then, right? The Bible wasn't written in English. That part was... what?... Aramaic? Old Hebrew? What was the original word used, and what were its connotations? And why are you so sure that the English word "kill" is a precise and exact carry over of all the connotations of the original word used? This needs some splainin'.

C//

Re:and?

[Fmuctohekerr]

Again, I agree with you. And I think that your point is a key message in Christianity. Christ never justified killing, in any circumstance. So I think you two read that commandment the same way.

But, you can't simply wave your hand and make the issue of interpretation go away. Did God mean "thou shall not kill ANYTHING" or "thou shall not kill HUMANS"? You could make the case that eating meat is killing a sentient lifeform and therefore breaks the commandment. Aside from other "commandments" (not the 10) that define what kinds of meat can be eaten and what can't. And if God says "do as I say, not as I do" (as may well be His right) then perhaps He meant "do not kill anything or anybody, unless I otherwise tell you to?" Because, in fact, the bible has plenty of cases of "the Lord" telling Isreal to "kill something."

And interpretation of the commandments is big business, ask any rabbi.

I interpret things for myself, and attempt to keep it simple and "unambiguous." For me, I think taking another human life is essentially an act of defiance... it is me losing faith that God is running the show down here (for whatever mysterious purpose). It is me taking things into my own hands. Loosing faith. My "interpretation" of the 10 commandments and Christ's "good news" is that killing is wrong, under any circumstances. For me . If God wants/wanted Isreal to defend itself (then or now) this is none of my business. And how would I even know this? When it comes time for me to decide what to do in a given situation (the draft, an intruder, mugger, when fascism comes), King David or Ehud Olmert is irrelevant. Christ told me what to do: this is enough.

I'm not sure what we're talking about anymore. I'm a vegetarian, but I don't think "thou shall not kill" means "do not eat meat." I don't eat meat because I care about sustainable living, the hungry, and the environment. I'm a (theoretical) pacifist (maybe one day we'll see if I have what it takes), but I don't belive that "thou shall not kill" means that the God of the Hebrews never wanted them to go to war. My understanding of the history of Isreal and thier belief system right up to the time of Christ and its (almost) complete annihilation by the Romans... is that it is at least internally consistent.

To respond to your post: yes, there are loads of evil and plenty of hipocrites in the "followers" of every religion. I'm sure Jack Thomson thinks Satan wants kids to play Halo and Jesus wants him to put a stop to it. The fact that this is insane will not stop him. I think Jesus wants me to "turn the other cheek" if somebody tries to rob me on the street. The fact that this is insane won't stop me. :) This is how I "interpret" things, and it is unambiguous to me. And Jack too, I'm sure. And the Muslim suicide bomber. And the Christian Crusader. And George Bush. Yes, some people try and do interpret "thou shall not kill" to justify their killing.

But you know? No one - EVER - has been able to twist Christ's words into a justification for killing. If they can, I'd love to hear that argument.

Just sayin'.

Re:and?

[Fmuctohekerr]

Pacifist != passive

My understanding is that no moneychangers were harmed in the making of that film.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_money_changers [wikipedia.org]

To be fair, Jesus never really said that disputes could be solved through non-violent means, or preached that non-violence was an answer to anything. He just said to do it, because it was the right thing to do. And "blessed are the peacemakers." Stuff like that. See Ghandi or Martin Luther King Jr. if you want the real pacifism, the kind that offers a solution to the problems of the world.

For the solution to the world's problems, Jesus had other things to say.

Parental Insanity

[Rai]

Keep in mind, Jack started this anti-game crusade after he discovered his son was playing them. So like any batshit crazy parent void of reason, instead of actually acting like a sensible parent and monitoring his child's activities, he's attacking the whole industry like a mother grizzly bear separated from her cubs. I guess he thinks it's easier to sink the video game industry than teach his kid the difference between right and wrong, good and evil, fantasy and reality...actually, I'm not so sure he can tell the difference between those last two. Here's hoping somebody adds a "Jack Thompson's Grave" level to Dance Dance Revolution until we have the real thing to get down on.

Has somone seen this man's rocker?

[RobK]

... He certainly seems to be off of it.