The Armchair Politician

Continuing with the not-so-recent trend of scapegoating video games as the epic source of all human atrocities, we now have an interview conducted by CBS News on the topic of violence in video games. The idea, to ask the same questions to both sides of the debate, is being carried out by their weekly “GameCore” column, authored by William Vitka and Chad Chamberlain. The first interview went to Jack Thompson. Never mind the fact that his site is vaguely reminiscent of those late-night lawyer commercials: “Have you been injured in an auto accident? Help ease your pain with the compensation you deserve.” Right. Because lawsuits fix all the world’s problems, especially whiplash.

An interesting idea. Jack Thompson is pretty much the attack dog of the anti-videogame lobby whose rabid hatred of video games is only outclassed by the baselessness of his arguments, which are about as sound as a Play-Doh skyscraper and frankly, crazier than a bucket of horse testicles.

In the spirit of maintaining the particular level of argumentative vitriol that I enjoy using, I’ve decided to not only argue against his insane commentary, but also helpfully point out what logical fallacy he’s employing.

CBS: What constitutes violence in video games?

JT: There’s no real debate over that. Any M-rated game has violence levels unacceptable and definitionally harmful to anyone under 17. The industry will rue the day it accepted this labeled[sic] scheme.

Logical Fallacy: Straw Man

It certainly makes an argument easier when you get to define the oppositions terms. Actually, definitionally, M-rated games “have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain mature sexual themes, more intense violence and/or strong language,” according to the ESRB website. But then again, who’s going to check your facts if you authoritatively state that M-rated games are “by definition” harmful to those under 17? It almost makes you sound like there are studies backing your claims!

And of course, he then goes on to undermine his own argument. If M-rated games are truly that bad by definition, shouldn’t we be applauding the ESRB for taking a stand and acutally classifying those games as such? Regardless of whether you think stricter controls should be placed upon the ratings or even whether the video game industry should be policing itself, how can you possibly attack them for explicitly telling you what to expect in these video games? He’s attacking the rating system when he really wants to attack the fact that these games exist at all.

CBS: What percentage of all games made would you say are violent, based upon your previous definition of violence in video games?

JT: This gets to a fundamental lie being propagated by the video game industry.
GTA [Grand Theft Auto series] has sold 30 million units, with San Andreas expected to hit 20 million on its own. It’s the #1 seller in the world right now. That fact alone does not square with ISA and ESRB’s dodge that “the majority of games are not violent or M-rated.” What matters is how many units delivered are violent, and to whom they are being delivered.

Logical Fallacy: Unrepresentative Sample, Fallacy of Exclusion

Clearly, he has a point here. If one hundred games are made and ninety of them are nonviolent, can you really claim that “the majority of games are not violent or M-rated” when those ten violent games sell hundreds of times as many copies as the others do?

Unfortunately, he chooses only to tell us that the Grand Theft Auto series has sold thirty million units. That’s a huge number right? Certainly. However, even the vaunted GTA games can’t top EA’s kid-friendly “The Sims” franchise. According to a recent press release, the seven games in the Sims franchise have sold over 54 million units worldwide. Surely that was worth mentioning, Mr. Thompson. Except, of course, for the tragedy that the facts contradict his conclusions.

CBS: How many hate or violent crimes would you say are linked to or directly related to violence in video games?

JT: I have no earthly idea, and no one can guess at that. I can tell you that some crimes would not occur but for the violent entertainment. For the families of the deceased, that is the only statistic that matters.

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Pity

He doesn’t have an argument, which he readily admits. This is perfectly fine; his answer is probably the only reasonable one to the question. There is absolutely no way to tell what the actual figures are, or even begin to estimate them. But, being a lawyer first and foremost, Jack has to throw something in to build his case. This argument comes from the long heredity of “won’t somebody please think of the children” pleas. No matter how crazy it is, anything you support can be justified by the fact that it might, conceivably, in some cases, save a life. In theory. All he needs now is a weeping mother at his side to make the scenario complete.

I’m about to go eat, so I’ll update with the rest later.