What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$45 & up: Huge Hotel Sale view!
travelzoo.com - Great discounts on rooms for the holidays and beyond!
190 Comments
- Doodad, on 10/12/2007, -5/+129Just wait like three more months and post it again. No one will remember.
- skankyBacon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+53Can I have your autograph?
- spidoman, on 10/12/2007, -7/+52Don't link to a crappy blog, it's a bad habit that will lose you diggs, we aren't interested in your blog, we're intrested in the video.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+42Jack completely fails to answer the first question. and Adam stutters a lot which is distracting and then he gets into pointless nit picking about things like whether or not you will be hurting teachers. it doesn't matter. kids are going to do bad things regardless. hitler came way before video games. just (calmly) point out that jack is not answering any questions and ask if he would like to try again. then point out that violence has always happened and it is not governments job to pick sides on a moral issue and everything will be peachy.
- xeeton, on 10/12/2007, -1/+43Jesus, he mispoke then immediately corrected himself. Grow up.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+50Now you are a spammer STFU and digg me down as well
- hayovrheerz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+43Jack Thompson hater + G4 hater/TechTV lover = digg user
- VeganG, on 10/12/2007, -5/+43Wow, 4 comments and already a Hitler reference.
- Anubis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+37All 3 had valid points, but I'm finding myself agreeing with Adam and Mark Freedler when they say violence has been around for a long time. Kids don't need video games to push each other around, it's been happening for centuries. Jack doesn't believe that PARENTS need to be held responsible for allowing "M' rated or some "T" rated games to be played by children who have no business anywhere near those types of games. I don't think it's funny when a 11yr old kid is playing GTA and his/her parents don't care, or when a 18yr old shoots at other kids and then blames video games for his behavior. Everyone should be held ACCOUNTABLE for their actions, or lack thereof.
- EternalDarkWing, on 10/12/2007, -1/+37From the 1UP blog of a 1UP editor.
http://1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=7340918&publicUserId=5545444
Shame on You, G4
"Don't you know who Jack Thompson is? He's not someone to deal with. He's not someone to give any more publicity to. He's not anyone that ought to be taken seriously. He needs to be discredited as the fraud and sensationalistic self-aggrandizer that he is.
I'm really disappointed that you'd invite him as a guest on Attack of the Show to talk about violence in videogames. He will cheapen and distort an issue that ought to be taken seriously. He will twist words, he will insult gamers, he will use the platform to make ugly, untrue accusations as he always does.
There's no winning against some people, so putting him on the show to hope to argue against him is futile. He, like Bill O'Reilly and other pundits who make careers of shouting loudly at other people, will avoid reasonable argument because he knows it will defeat him. He seeks merely to inflame passions. He freely makes up facts and lies when he does not have the information - or when he does, he twists it to suit his agenda. He is, in the most classical sense, a troll.
I'm disappointed, because putting someone like him on the show reveals that you really have lost respect for gamers and their intelligence. That said, the issue of videogame violence and how it may affect both children and adults - and our larger society - is a crucial issue that can be addressed by many, many other people besides the self-inflated Jack Thompson, including Dr. Walsh, head of The National Institute for Media and the Family, who believes essentially in the same philosophy as Thompson but refuses to employ the same dirty tactics. Or anyone from Common Sense Media, or the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, or indeed any of the hundreds of media watchdog and consumer advocacy groups who are concerned with the impact videogames have on children.
Moreover, why are two journalists (Adam Sessler and Mark Friedler, president of GameDaily Biz) asked to defend videogame violence? That is not our job. Our job is to report. The job of defense clearly belongs to an industry lobby group like the ESA. Why aren't they represented? Because they know better. The ESA has a policy of not responding to anything Jack Thompson says or does.
By the way, editors at Ziff Davis were asked to appear on the show as well. We declined." - skankyBacon, on 10/12/2007, -6/+41"Just wait like three more months and post it again. No one will remember."
Someone will remember. And they'll go on a tirade about how this is a dupe, which is something no one will actually care about.
"'ve got to be honest here, until the last 20 seconds or so jack doesn't do half bad in this video."
He only looked reasonably coherent because they had him up against that raving buffoon Adam. He could hardly make a point because he was so worked up. I bet he punched something after they cut. - joebus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+34No. He pretty much got owned when Mark Frielder from Game Daily, said that it is the parents responsibility to watch what games their kids play.
- tidu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+36It's just that Adam cares a lot for video games and is more adamant when something like this comes along. Sometimes he wasn't coming across intelligently (like arguing about Britain's legal system at the end) but he cared for what he was trying to save.
- TonySki, on 10/12/2007, -1/+35Adam is a bit weird but I know that he acted how a typical gamer would act arround that douche.
- Zinite, on 10/12/2007, -1/+34Adam spoke alot more eloquently than I expected from him.
- thewebguy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+34i've got to be honest here, until the last 20 seconds or so jack doesn't do half bad in this video. i kind of wanted to hear where he was going with his last thing, but the truth is certainly that the first ammendment protects the games and parents must protect their kids.
- katakoon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+31Mm, well, one of you put it up on a blog, the other used the others video. I just uploaded it myself and put it linked to youtube.
Who cares? It's all the same thing. Oh wait, or do you really need all the diggs so you sleep better at night? I hope not. Jack Thompson got owned, let's just rejoice about that. - armbar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26Well, the good news about this lovely conversation is that I found 3 new people to block.
- blablaman, on 10/12/2007, -5/+30Dupe wars! Attack his orc barracks.
- Dragular, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22Agreed... I'm 21 and can buy alcohol and cigarettes with a less frequent carding rate than I can an M rated videogame.
- Rickler, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22I don't understand what Thompson is bichting about.. if I went down to Gamestop without my ID and tried to buy an M rated game they would not let me and I'm 20!
- ViRaZ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19Wow, an episode of AOTS that actually wanted to watch.
- da_bradler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18all that Jack Thompson proves is Jack Thompson makes video game players violent, Adam sessler is like the most layed back guy but put jack thompson in front of him and he turns into a killing machine.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21dude just stfu
- _Caboose_, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21Get over it already.
- XgManX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17Adam is my freakin' hero. Not only is he really funny on the last good show on the network formerly known as Tech TV (g4 . . .= blech), but he has a very serious side when it comes to hardtop issues like this. You have to give him props, he knows his stuff.
Jack, on the other hand, knows how to tie his shoes and sue the wrong people. jazzman is right, the parents are the only ones (if any deserve it) to blame for their kids' actions. If they don't play the game first to see if it is okay, and then buy it for them (Without even consulting someone who HAS played the game . . . or even consulting THE BACK OF THE BOX), they dont have a leg to stand on.
The biggest argument we (the gamers of the world) can offer is this: if violent videogames make people violent IRL, i would expect more fights to break out at LAN parties (Such as Quakecon 2006 in Dallas, Texas last week ahem), especially when the opponent, the source of anger, is somewhere in their vicinity.
. - Lumiras, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16work? hey, *****, Digg isn't about self-promoting
- n00bst3r, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17I liked this comment under the video:
Wow I play video games, I'm an inst-nerd. 0 s0rry 1 m34n7 t0 ta1k 1ik3 th15 b3c4u5e 1'm a st3r3otyp1ca1 n3rd. l0l. Kill yourself. Or: 01000111 01101111 00100000 01100110 01110101 01100011 01101011 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 01110010 01110011 01100101 01101100 01100110 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01110011 01101000 01101001 01110100 00100000 01101000 01100101 01100001 01100100 00101110
l0l h4x. - stenk, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18For Kids to become Violent all they need to do is watch the news. All I can say is the American Government isn't doing much to stem violence...Need I say more?. Video Games are less violent and graphic then the news at night, like Fox News for example!
- bizkit00, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14you forgot RIAA/MPAA hate
- RavenBlade, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16It appears to me that the position of Jack Thompson and other politicians against such content is placed for the right reasons on the wrong content. Simply put, many politicians fear that young children will mimic the characters they admire within a video game.
While this CAN happen in a videogame, thus the concern of these politicians, Jack Thompson has seriously overlooked other content and media AIMED at children which has caused the same result and a direct link to violence in children. Really quick one, anybody ever remember the show called Power Rangers? If you were a kid in the 90s' you'd now remember all the fights you had with your friends about who would inevitably be the Red ranger and who was relegated to the Blue ranger (or whatever is the case). Those arguments ALONE caused violence among unruly children who insisted on beind Red. Once the team was formed and the bandages in place, they proceeded to team up on other children who were deemed the "bad guys."
Why is this important? Because Politicians are blaming games aimed at adults for causing violence when everyday (and at peak hours), these children are consuming content AIMED at them specifically that promote violence among their friends and enemies. Not only that, but television shows with adult themes such as Family Guy (love it to bits but hear me out) are animated. At first glance, a child would watch this because it's a "cartoon". However, the themes and images depicted are nowhere NEAR what a child should be exposed to.
Question I pose to politicians. Are you so lazy that you can blame society's ills on something that, not only is not meant for a child, but is also a new iteration of a 'problem' that has 'plagued' society for far longer than videogames have been around to 'harm' our children?
Grow up. Fact is the government has too many contradictions in its laws.
An American citizen is allowed to own a fully functional firearm. Yet the depiction of such is looked down upon in a videogame (however glorified in Hollywood via films like James Bond and in the Music Industry with the insane popularity of rappers like 50 cent).
Any American citizen has the right to express themselves in any way that does not incite hatred towards others. Yet recent politicians have argued that videogames aren't a form of expression and thus can be limited. Even if that is not the case, the government passes laws making it illegal to expose those under 18 to such expression that is not deemed appropriate.
I'm sorry, videogames are not the problem. I'm preaching to the converted here but some people need to understand that when a teenager picks up a copy of GTA it only provides a model of human behaviour already known to them. There are many socioeconomic factors that can force one towards mimicing such a model of behaviour. Education, local housing, medical care all effect whether a child has the same opportunities to progress in society. If such legitimate goals as financial success aren't available to somebody due to socioeconomic factors, it is the only alternative of one to seek an alternate model of behaviour to achieve these goals. It's called anomie, Thompson, look it up.
These alternatives have been made available for a very long time. For decades society has known that guns and crime can make money where education and hard work fail. Videogames are just the latest iteration and therefore the new scapegoat that politicians use to ignore the factors which force teens into stressful situation in the first place.
I don't buy their garbage and niether should the rest of us. - G33k0ft3chz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Jack Thompson did get the ***** "pwned" out of him,and I agree with what one of the comments said:"if G4 was smart, they would have made a Jack vs Adam debate the whole show."
Agreed,it would have made that shows ratings go up that day,and I'm hoping this gets on diggnation to see what Alex and Kevin have to say about the disscussion.
Dugg for kicking Jackass Thompsons ass. This is the most times I have cursed on digg. - JWood, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13I love the end of it when Jack keeps calling for Kevin and Kevin just ignores him and ends it.
- kriegs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13it's really this generations flavor of the week to blame peoples behavior on. Back when our parents were growing up, it was the evil music and KISS was goin to make kids worship satan and such. And our kids will have a whole new thing for us to blame it on.
- Scruffydan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15They trained to kill by playing Doom.
Sweet I am now a trained killing machine. BEWARE! - D3koy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Wait....we have the ESRB. I (being under 17) can't go into a EB Games and buy a M rated game, I've tried. "Captain Jack" over here is saying we have no system. If we have no system, why wont EB games sell me a game? Do they want diminished profits? Do they want dissatisfied customers? No, they want money. If there was no system I would have games rated M. Secondly, all of his "research" comes from year-old screen shots of a early test of the game. If he hasn't played it(and no one has) he ought keep his mouth shut. END OF DISCUSSION !
- porplem, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13They don't give enough time for these debates. They just start getting interesting and then the segment is over.
- knupso, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15They want more diggs so Netscrape will pay them to submit to their site. :P
- guitarpro411, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13wow... I was on your side with the website thing.. but now your being annoying. i was about to check it out and now i dont even wanna take a look. idiot
- Dragular, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Look into the game before you start condemning it. Everyone started raising hell about this game before there were even SCREENSHOTS out. From what I can tell it's mostly going to be an ANTI-violence/bullying game.
- Buckets, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14boo hoo
- Zero82z, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11The thing is, Adam was actually right about everything he said. It's sad that he wasn't able to compose himself, otherwise he would have had a much stronger position in the debate. Though everything Jack said was crap, the fact that he was able to control himself somewhat actually gave him a stronger stance. In debating it's important to have better points than your opponent, but what's even more important is to have the ability to clearly and convincingly relay them. Friedler did a good job at this, but unfortunately he was cut off constantly by Jack, and Kevin seemed to be focused on giving Jack the opportunity to speak all the time.
One of the issues I had with this debate was also the fact that Kevin kept cutting Adam off when he was discussing the issue of violence in video games and trying to draw the discussion back to Bully. Not only are the subjects closely related, it also prevented Adam from getting his points across, since he couldn't get his points out fast enough. All in all, it really wasn't much of a debate at all. Mind you, I really wasn't expecting much considering this is coming from G4. - Lumiras, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11stop it, elchibo. Don't expect anybody to like you after this........you're proving to the world that you're an *****
- KevinJ, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12The center dude was right
Who the HELL IS JACK THOMSON TO PARENT HIS KIDS?
Seriously let the parents decide what the kids play
If the parents are too dumb to care about the games the kids play they most likely dont make a salary that allows them to afford buying a game.
Gaming do not cause violence. Too much free time to think about the game after playing it is where violent thought happens. - Arramol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11And if Adam Sessler can beat him that badly, what happens when you put Thompson against a more skillful speaker? I'd like to see a Thompson vs. LaPorte debate.
- Arramol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11We don't have a problem with your page, we have a problem with you repeatedly whining because your story didn't make the front page. I've had several stories that I posted get beaten to the front page by a dupe that was posted later. It happens. Spamming the comments about it just irritates people.
- EvilDr.X, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8So, are you guys gonna like, hug now or something?
- peregrine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8This was a bad situation from the start. Firstly. Jack Thompson is a POLITICIAN meaning that he can talk really well and get people to vote for him. Secondly he is a idiot who believes his views are the views of many. He's taken the responsibility given to him as a senator and decided that all must want what he wants.
Right now and forever their are far more important things then video games to be focusing on capital hill. Right now capital hill should be finding a way to remove the deficit, fix the economy, lower gas prices, fix the mess in the middle east, fix the broken health care/retirement system, bring this split nation back together, somehow make sure that that president doesn't take away any more of our rights/return the ones lost, and make sure that under no circumstances that president bush get control over out national guard. - Ignignokt01, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Adam was too angry to debate his points clearly. I'd be the same way, thompson's ***** gets me steamed.
I love how he thinks they 'trained with the game Doom'. OK, tell me, in detail, mr. thompson, how one trains to handle REAL firearms with the videogame doom? - Ignignokt01, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Adam just got really pissed off at the ***** spewing from thompsons mouth: The 'training' using Doom, the comparison of the laws of the U.S. to the laws of the UK, the fact that he hasn't even seen the game yet, his assumptions that the game will cause 'rampant violence among young people', his claims that most psychologists agree with his opinion.
Man, if I were in Adam's place i'd have had a heard attack from that massive load of *****. Thompson knows how to argue, he's a lawyer, he's spent his whole career arguing, thats why he seems so cool. But thats all to create the illusion that he is more competent, when in fact the only reason he's saying most of this stuff is so he can keep suing video game companies and keep getting richer. He's a lawyer, 'nuff said.
-First of all, violence has existed prior to videogames. According to many independent studies, violence among teens has actually been in decline since the 90's. But right now i should warn you that all statistics are somewhat *****, so even that one may not be true.
-Second of all: to attack somebody, you need a reason outside of videogames to do so. A videogame, regardless of its content, is not going to make you want to beat up your teacher. You want to beat up your teacher because he's a douchebag. If anything, videogames relieve some of those really agressive feelings by allowing you to cause massive destruction without actually hurting anybody (maybe yourself, if you get too into it like say... FPS Doug).
-Third of all: millions upon millions of people, mostly teenagers, play violent videogames now. If Jack Thompsons logic was correct, you would see a HUGE, i'm talking HUGE increase in teen violence. But the fact is: watching violence, especially simulated violence, doesn't turn a non-violent person into a ruthless killer/bully. It might give them ideas, but they would already have the intent which is the biggest requisite of actually hurting someone else.
And like zero above me said, the G4 debates are really crappy. You can't fit something this complex within a 10 minute timeslot, im not even sure its 10 minutes. -
Show 51 - 100 of 191 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is