FBI Confirms Open Investigation Into Gamergate 556
v3rgEz writes In a terse form letter responding to a FOIA request, the FBI has confirmed it has an open investigation into Gamergate, the loose but controversial coalition of gamers calling for ethics in gaming journalism — even as some members have harassed and sent death threats to female gaming developers and critics.
Who? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That would be the drama-mongers and the drama-mongees.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Probably the frothing horde that sends out death threats and threatens to shoot up universities. There aren't two sides in #gamergate, just #gg, their victims, and people who think #gg are idiots.
Re:Who? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not really accurate. Mostly because you're pretending that #gg is doing all the threatening and doxxing.
Even if we utterly "listen and believe" the folks who claim to have been threatened and then whip out their "donate to me to show how non-sexist you are" buttons that it's exactly as bad as they claim it is, you still have more people being threatened by anti-GG folks than by GG. Of course, many of those don't count because they have the wrong genitals to count as victims, and the rest don't count because women who don't agree with anti-GG folks aren't *really* women, such as https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Or to put it another way, no one in GG has sent filled syringes or dead animals to the anti-GG crowd, or called their employers to try to get them fired from jobs wholly unrelated to the topic at hand (this is actually a surprisingly common tactic from the SJW crowd when someone disagrees with them). The anti-GG crowd has done those things.
Though I'll admit, asshole that he is, I still find it funny how many times Roguestar has been suspended from twitter.
The only things anti-GG can claim against GG are people saying mean things over the internet, and a school shooting threat that both didn't claim to be related to GG (and let's face it, there are plenty of folks who hate Anita Sarkeesian in particular and feminist speakers in general who are wholly unconnected from GG), and was deemed not to be a credible threat by law enforcement.
Re:Who? (Score:4, Insightful)
Probably the frothing horde that sends out death threats and threatens to shoot up universities.
as the OP said...which side?
Re:Who? (Score:5, Insightful)
I, and most other pro-GG folks you'll find online will entirely agree with you that everyone that has engaged in threats and doxxing against anyone need to be tracked down and punished. I'm not worried, because I haven't done those things, nor have most other GG.
I'd love to see some kind of evidence linking the USU threat to GG though, because the threat certainly didn't mention it, and a *lot* of people hate Sarkeesian that aren't part of GG. I know you want to make every time someone says something mean to a woman a case of GG being evil, but then you have all the women that are part of GG and also get harassed (and men, but I don't think you'd consider them important enough to care about as victims). Guess who's doing that harassment? Hint: It's not GG.
Re:Who? (Score:4, Insightful)
Being a victim requires actual harm. What actual harm does a threat from some chickenshit web troll really do you?
If anything, the so-called victims here are happily basking in the glow of the spotlight happy to be the center of attention.
The real victims are people that have bought into all of this nonsense and have had the view of their own real world warped by it. There's the real psychological harm.
Re:Who? (Score:5, Funny)
Being a victim requires actual harm. What actual harm does a threat from some chickenshit web troll really do you?
In all fairness, they have been known to cancel the occasional movie.
Most Unbiased Slashdot Gamergate Article (Score:5, Insightful)
Sad as it is, this shitty summary is still the most "unbiased" simply because it straightforwardly mentions the movement as the topic of the discussion. The attempt to imply that the FBI said they were investigating pro-Gamergate people has already been destroyed in the comments (thank fuck users are still in control of the discussion here).
Four months later, there still hasn't been a single
Re:Most Unbiased Slashdot Gamergate Article (Score:5, Funny)
All of those milestones should have gotten at least one article here each.
Please no.
What we really need is an opinion piece by Bennett. Then the circle will be complete.
Re:Most Unbiased Slashdot Gamergate Article (Score:5, Funny)
Then the circle will be completely jerked. Ftfy.
Re: (Score:2)
What we really need is an opinion piece by Bennett. Then the circle will be complete.
Funny you mention that [slashdot.org].
/. alone.
A miracle occured in that thread. Both pro-GG and anti-GG Slashdotters refused to take the bait, laid down their arms, and stood together long enough to tell Bennett to go fuck himself and leave
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Destroyed in the comments? Mealy-mouthed arguments and claims of "false flag" (what the fuck is this, Infowars?) don't make a convincing argument.
Sure there has. Oh you mean the journalism aspect, which was never a relevant part and the actions
Re:Most Unbiased Slashdot Gamergate Article (Score:4, Informative)
Are you serious?
We have logs proving collusion, we saw sites getting censored the day Total Biscuit brought this to light,we have over a dozen websites publishing attack articles on the same day.
I do not give two shits about ethics in journalism, it's a pointless battle. But what I do care about is people denying the fucking obvious because it conflicts with their personal politics. Game journalism is corrupt as shit and used SJW bullshit to defend themselves - whether you think that's justified, whether you think the gamergate response of harassment and threats is the bigger story, fine I have no opinion. But denying the objective fucking truth is horseshit, and I can't believe /. stands for it.
Re:Most Unbiased Slashdot Gamergate Article (Score:5, Insightful)
If you troll all of your customers, don't be surprised if you end up with a few wing nuts going off the deep end.
The "journalism" response to this entire affair has been shameless pandering to some notion of political correctness and shameless exploitation of the situation. That's been true pretty much across the entire media spectrum starting with the very first set of trolling click-bait articles generated by the gaming and tech press.
Anyone that disagrees is branded as some sort of anti-feminist misogynistic scum who's opinions don't matter.
It's a perfect example of the "liberal media" that tea baggers like to whine about. The dogma behind the narrative is more important than anything else.
Media blackout (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no media blackout because the media does not care. How could you even condense this whole shit show down into a one minute news story? Outside of the gaming community nobody really cares.
Re:Media blackout (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Media blackout (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Media blackout (Score:4, Insightful)
That is because the "corruption" never happened, there is no evidence that it ever happened - on the other hand, the death threats and harassment was very, very real.
Re: (Score:3)
I would argue this point but then I realized that-- just as OP says-- noone including myself cares. I dont even really know what half of the people here are talking about with "pro-gamergate" and "anti-gamergate" because I stopped caring about halfway into the second article on the issue. Fact is that theres a lot of sleazy people and Im not really clear why an article on it is news, or why Yet Another Sexism Accusation against gamers is news either.
Noone cares because both sides are being dumb and genera
Re:Media blackout (Score:4, Insightful)
This malaise is the problem.
One side is saying "women get treated like shit in video games, this has to stop".
The other side is sending death threats and harassing the family members of these women.
The reason you don't care (and the reason you still felt you needed to comment TELLING us you don't care) is because you're lucky enough to have the luxury and privilege to ignore these stories. For the women and people of color who are being constantly assaulted because they had the nerve to say "hey this culture sucks for us," do not have this luxury.
Re: (Score:3)
The reason you don't care (and the reason you still felt you needed to comment TELLING us you don't care) is because you're lucky enough to have the luxury and privilege to ignore these stories.
No, the real problem is that I actually read the story way back when, understood the issues apparently better than you did, but because Im not agreeing with you you're painting me with a broad "privileged white male" brush and dismissing my viewpoint.
The issue I had if you must know is that 95% of the criticism leveled at Sarkesian-- such as her generally unprofessional (ie intimate) relationships with reviewers of her games, her apparent pathological lying, and the fact that she makes unremarkable games an
Re: (Score:3)
The issue I had if you must know is that 95% of the criticism leveled at Sarkesian-- such as her generally unprofessional (ie intimate) relationships with reviewers of her games, her apparent pathological lying, and the fact that she makes unremarkable games
People like you complaining about "political correctness" and "feminists playing the victims" are idiots, you know why? They get their women confused and can't even spell their names correctly:
It's "Anita Sarkeesian", she doesn't make games. She does videos about tropes in gaming.
The person gamergaters complain about that did make a game was: Zoe Quinn.
Their names are nothing alike.
Re: (Score:3)
The reason you don't care (and the reason you still felt you needed to comment TELLING us you don't care) is because you're lucky enough to have the luxury and privilege to ignore these stories.
Your privilege is not my privilege, you filthy capitalist bigot.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No. It looks like a coward backed down as soon as things got interesting. She fancies herself as some sort of activist but as soon as things "got real", she ran away like a frightened child.
She's just like the trolls that everyone is supposed to be so afraid of.
Re: Media blackout (Score:3)
AFAIK not one of the five named as sleeping with Quinn ever denied it. One had even admitted it. As the last time I payed attention there was legal action ongoing the lack of denial has interesting implications. In any case, Quinngate never would have turned into Gamergate had the gaming press not turned their Cursed Shotgun of Moral Outrage+1(Wielders must act like the dumbest Paladin trope on crusade with no regard to the injury afflicted on party members) on the entire gaming population in a piss poor at
Re:Most Unbiased Slashdot Gamergate Article (Score:5, Insightful)
Get some perspective, moron.
Re:Most Unbiased Slashdot Gamergate Article (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do you feel like "Gamergate" is worthy of additional mainstream news coverage? Mainstream news is an entertainment product more than anything else, and few people who watch / read it religiously are likely to be both heavily involved in gaming and passionate about the range of issues Gamergate purports to cover. It makes sense that it's more of a footnote or focuses more on the side that's likely to be of interest to a wider audience.
Discussions of the Gamergate issue haven't proven productive in any venue thus far, as they're often dominated by mistruths, irrelevant information, lies, and harassment. I usually avoid voluntarily exposing myself to it because I have no way of determining who is being truthful without significant investigation, and I frankly don't care enough to spend the time looking into the various claims; I suspect that's true of many people.
Let's be a bit more frank here, the movement has something in common with religion: its goals are so vague that the people who are trying to do 'good' and improve things are sheltering those who want to cause destruction. There is a significant vocal minority who are using the shield of the many moderates to justify their extremist tactics, which seem to revolve around harassment campaigns. When this happens to your movement you can either try to correct it or disassociate yourself from it and re-form in a more focused group. I suggest the latter is more likely to work at this point, it seems like it would be quite hard to drown out the vitriol I've seen without even trying to look for it.
You should really look into dropping Gamergate entirely, to divest yourself of its now relatively toxic branding, and creating several focused movements to replace it.
Re:Most Unbiased Slashdot Gamergate Article (Score:5, Insightful)
If you thought Jack Thompson was bad, read up on what radfem thinks about boys and gun play. If they have their way with gaming, next BG of CoD will have pink waffle bats and dolls instead of guns.
Re: (Score:3)
Why do you believe the gaming industry will be turned into a "radfem mandatory inclusion" platform?
This is completely ludicrous. This is not a zero-sum game. We can have games that don't treat women like pieces of meat AND you can still have your Call of Duty games.
When I see comments like yours proclaiming some end-days of "traditional gaming" I wonder what MSPaint conspiracy image you pulled that line from.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no need for "mandatory inclusion", half of gamers are already women. There isn't any "radfem" here either, just people complaining about abuse.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The people who are sending death and rape threats over the internet. The FBI doesn't give a shit about ethical lapses in gaming journalism or who fucked who as those are not crimes.
Re: Who? (Score:4, Insightful)
Wait wait what? The FBI investigating threats against a "commoner" is now reason for concern? Gosh, I'm sorry you feel it's so alarming that the FBI has decided to take a phone call from one of the little people.
Re: (Score:3)
They threatened to shoot up a school if one of their targets was allowed to speak at a conference. That's most likely the only reason the FBI gives a shit.
Re: (Score:3)
So at the end of the day, it still comes down to "no proof." Except what people in the media keep saying is "true" when again there is no proof. Amazing how that works these days isn't it.
Why what police force get involved when... (Score:5, Informative)
Well, that was mostly the cynic in me writing, but on the other hand, isn't a threat made against a single individual typically handled by the police? Why would FBI feel the need to get involved? Or is this on of the "because it happened on the Internet it's different" kind of situations?
Government agencies overstepping their boundaries and getting involved in things that aren't their business is certainly a reason for concern.
Why what police force get involved when...
This is a basic, 50,000 foot view; it's not intended to cover all the details, and corrections gratefully accepted, but I believe this covers the gist of it...
It's pretty clear that the threats, particularly against the appearance of Anita Sarkeesian at Utah State University were, at a minimum, interstate.
When the threats cross a state line, the move from local police jurisdiction to federal police (FBI) jurisdiction, since police forces may only operate within their own jurisdictions. If the crime spans larger jurisdictions, such as adjacent cities within a county, or adjacent counties within a state, then it may be handled by an inter-agency task force. If it gets bigger than that, then the next larger jurisdiction encapsulating the jurisdictions involved takes ownership. The jurisdictions and agencies, are as follows:
Within a city: The city police force
Within a county: The county sheriff
Within a state: The CBI (California Bureau of Investigation - agency name varies by state)
Interstate: The FBI
International: Interpol
Within these classifications, inferior jurisdictions are often acted to cooperate/participate in the investigatory legwork, arrest operations, searches, evidence gathering, forensic work (autopsy, crime scene investigation, and so on).
Exceptions:
When a crime occurs on a federal lands or reservations, the FBI always has jurisdiction. For "indian reservations", investigator power lies in both the FBI and in the tribal police force (depending on the nature of the crime).
When a crime occurs on a military base, the investigatory power lies within the branch of the military; for most crimes, this is the MPs or Military Police. For more serious crime, or crimes involving military personnel not on base, or non-military and military personnel both, it goes by branch of service:
Navy, Marine, Coast Guard: NCIS - Naval Criminal Investigative Service
Army: USACIDC or CID - Criminal Investigation Division of the Army Provost's office
Air Force: AFOSI or OSI - Office of Special Investigations
Generally, anything involving a civilian, or occurring off base, ands up being a joint investigation with local authorities, which can include authorities in other countries (e.g. naval bases in Japan, air force bases in Germany, etc.).
For terrorist threats, USDHS - DHS - the Department of Homeland Security - gets involved. They are probably already involved in the Utah State University threat. At that pint, they can call on the capabilities and services of agencies such as the DOJ (Federal Marshals office), the NSA (which is allowed to operate domestically), the CIA (which is allowed to operate extranationally), the DIA (which is allowed to operate with regard to foreign military), and so on.
All in all, the more something escalates in terms of geographic reach, or in terms of threat level, the higher up the food chain you go, further and further into territories where you do not want to be. At some point in the escalation process, you get to the stratospheric regions where people simply "disappear" (otherwise known as "extraordinary rendition").
Does that answer your question?
harassment attribution (Score:3)
is technically challenging to do as the internet can be anonymous.
In many cases it is irresponsible journalism to assume it is "gamergate" launching the harassment campaigns since we know the SA/4chan professional trolls are antagonizing both sides to incite drama.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
cowardice (Score:4, Informative)
The entire case against GamerGate is built of press pushing talking points off of empty claims made by professional victims. That's the start and end of the "threats and harassment" side of the story. Meanwhile a consumer movement against, ironically, corruption in the press is being libeled to suit political agendas.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"even as some members have harassed and sent death threats to female gaming developers and critics."
And OF COURSE Slashdot will conveniently leave out the fact the FBI is getting involved because it's the people against the Gamer Gate people that have been FAKING death threats.
Go fucking figure Slashdot's poor editing (or more likely intentional FUD) would give THE WRONG IMPRESSION.
GamerGaters can prove the threats against them were external. Anti-GG have been faking threats to themselves.
Slashdot is devolv
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Irony, given how many gamergate apologists sound like right wingers after viewing Fox News for extended periods.
Re: (Score:2)
Fox News with a left friendly bias = MSNBC, NYT et al. Welcome to koolaid flavored 'news.'
Re: (Score:3)
Seems like a very risky game to play, faking death threats against yourself and then asking the police and FBI to investigate. The chance of them finding out that you faked it and wasted their time is pretty high, and if the claim that it was all for financial gain via Kickstarter and free publicity is true it would be a pretty serious crime.
If you have evidence of this you should firstly pass it on to the FBI, and secondly post it here. By the way, just in case you didn't realize, a marked up screenshot of
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So in other words, IT'S A CONSPIRACY!
Given that there's nothing resembling membership rolls or a roster for gamergate, much like occupy and anonymous, anyone can claim they're part of gamergate and say whatever they want. And given that the birth cries of gamergate were basically textbook misogyny and harassment, it's pretty much impossible to separate the two.
Re:cowardice (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just as gamergate is skeptical of conspiracies like 'patriarchy theory'.
Re: (Score:2)
1. argument from authority. It's actually part of a long time conspiracy among so-called 'journalists' to promote victimhood among women (and other groups) in order to justify authoritarian ideology. They call it 'making a difference' in 'journalism' university programs.
2. It's the anti-gamergate crowd that can't handle criticism of their fallacious accusations, which they label as 'misogyny'. It's these accusations that ignited the long brewing issue in the first place.
Re:cowardice (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is GamerGate started with the attacks on Zoe Quinn, which turned out to be complete fabrications. The alleged positive review of her game doesn't exist, there was no conspiracy. It was all just some jilted lover's blog post and all the asshats who jumped on to the bandwagon by spreading lies and rumours about her.
When it became apparent that the whole thing was bullshit, GamerGate moved on to other targets. By that point it was too late though. The "Gamer" tag was poisoned beyond recovery, and the alleged journalistic impropriety was all just innuendo and thinly veiled outrage that women were demanding respect and fair treatment as gamers.
Look at the nonsense GamerGate spouted about Anita Sarkeesian, for example. You may not agree with her points, but that doesn't excuse endless fake accounts, fake posts about her using the Kickstarter money to buy expensive shoes, weaponized pornography etc. You could argue that it was only a few on the fringes doing all that, but that's just a No True Scotsman argument.
Old news (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"gate" (Score:5, Informative)
Can we please stop adding gate to the end of any controversial subject? It was barely clever the first time it was done and it's gotten to be pretty much the polar opposite at this point.
Re:"gate" (Score:5, Funny)
Agreed. Watergate had NOTHING to do with water.
Re:"gate" (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Watergategategate - conspiracy theory regarding why this retrofitting has not yet been done.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL the first time it was done it was the name of the place where it happened.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure that's not what the original poster meant. He was referring to the first use of "gate" as a suffix for a scandal alluding to the original incident at the Watergate complex.
Re:"gate" (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope not, it's been a pretty good label to identify the importance of a "crisis". As soon as -gate is added, you know you can skip the story without missing anything worth your time.
Great summary (Score:2)
Wow. This whole sorry clusterfuck sucks (Score:3, Informative)
Gamergate is made up mostly of kids who fling slurs that would make a sailor bluch around on XBox live, and anti-GG seem surprised when their slurs and insults that usually shut down their opponents bounce off. Gamergate, on the other hand feels that they are each owed a personal explanation for each and every point made by any of the main anti-GG side.
I'm leaving out a lot of the more unpleasant aspects from both sides.
Re:Sounds good. (Score:5, Interesting)
Some were admitted to have been fabrication. Some have been real but police advised people threatened that they were not credible, only to have those people go to the media claiming they were serious.
And then there were probably a few real psychos.
The saddest part is that most of the actual victims appear to be people who took part in the #notyourshield tag. The folks that basically made a point that "we're those minorities you opponents of #gamergate claim to be "protecting" and we're telling you under our own names - we need no protection from you". They and their families were brutally harassed and some were actually driven out of work.
It's going to be interesting to know if FBI is going to actually look at the whole thing rather than just #gamergate and what they will find out.
Re: (Score:3)
Being personally acquainted with at least one of the #NotYourShield folks, they definitely aren't all sockpuppets. There's people in back of there that really believe in what they're saying, There's also at least one developer in there who isn't either.
Now as to whether the people giving them grief are the anti-GG types, or the GG-types running a false-flag, that's another debate entirely.
Re: (Score:3)
This whole gamergate thing has been deeply confusing right from the start. It's hard to work out which side is which. Earlier this year, a couple of rape-threat trolls were jailed here in the UK - and one of them was a woman. Sending rape threats. To someone who was campaiging to get Jane Austen put on a UK banknote. I just can't make sense of the world any more!
Re:Sounds good. (Score:5, Informative)
Just shows how crazy it is to rely on Wikipedia these days. [cinemablend.com]
By the way, anyone else missing comments they recall making in this thread?
Re: (Score:3)
According to wikipedia, all gamergate related articles are edited by a one specific editor who was asked even by Jimbo Wales himself to stop editing because of his obvious extreme bias.
He's still editing the articles and they're all extremely obvious hit pieces.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, the practice of swatting would be one of those kinds of harassment where 'ignoring it' literally wouldn't work. Of course a cursory googling seems to show more gamergaters actually subjected to that than their purported victims.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Your argumentation would work better if it wasn't based on ad hominems.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As one of the few conservatives left on /., I can only agree fully with what the above smelly hippie has to say.
Back when Jack Thompson was the Anti-gaming Asshole in Chief, the Penny Arcade guys had a brilliant idea about that, and the Childs Play charity was born. We need a similar idea here. I had hoped that fine young capitalists might be that, but they really don't seem to have their act together, much as I like their intentions. Anyone else have a clever idea for a grand gesture?
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
The initial claim turned out not to be a simple quid pro quo. The person who gave the favorable mention of Depression Quest turned out to have been mentioned in the credits for the game, however. He gave a mention to a game he was involved in the development of. This is certainly less headline-grabbing than sex-for-coverage, but I don't think it's any better. Either way it's a tempest-in-a-teapot at that point... but the more peo
Re: Ethics? (Score:4, Informative)
Dude, the entire industry is dirty. Here's a tip: if you're worried about ethics start boycotting every video game.
It's funny how when it comes out that a gaming company acted unethically Gamergaters suddenly lower their standards by a few notches rather than give up their favorite toys.
Re:Ethics? (Score:4, Insightful)
I notice that all your links are to poorly made YouTube videos. Taking the first one, the links you claim back you up are actually just links to more YouTube videos, a document on Google Docs that is unverifiable, a seemingly unrelated WaPo editorial about a spat between journalists and bloggers, and a Gamasutra article that they clearly state was written by community member and not their own staff and which seems to be mostly irrelevant.
Your claims are built entirely on top of other unfounded claims and extremely weak evidence. That basically sums up the entire GamerGate movement, from the original lies about Zoe Quinn onwards. There are some genuine issues with games journalism, although why that surprises anyone I don't know because no aspect of entertainment journalism has much credibility, but those points are lost in a sea of bullshit now.
Re:Ethics? (Score:5, Interesting)
Post a link to the positive review she received due to her relationship with a journalist. I dare you. I double dare you.
Re: (Score:3)
Its about corruption, about members of the gaming press having relations, both physical AND financial, with game developers they were promoting,
We already found out that this was a non-story, so why are you repeating it? zzzzzzz
When the news came out? THIRTEEN gaming sites issued THE EXACT SAME STORY about how they didn't need gamers and that gamers were "dead".
So you're offering as evidence your lack of understanding of how "news" works today? I guess you haven't heard of a wire service, either. Hint: It's how news is made.
Its REALLY simple folks,
Some people are making mountains out of molehills.
Re: (Score:3)
I can understand you want the conflict to just go away, but that doesn't mean both sides are without argument and are just assholes.
You forgot to add #ThinkOfTheWomen to your little hashtag list. At least then your posts wouldn't leak your obvious opinion on the issue you claim not to care about.
Re:Ethics? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Excellent summary. What it boils down to is that some people were criticized, and they defended themselves by claiming these were attacks on their gender. The reason is plain and simple: They could not credibly defend themselves against the criticism itself, so they used misdirection and made it a gender-issue. Predictably, a lot of people with no clue whatsoever about what was going on then jumped on those criticizing, as apparently criticizing a person of female gender is an attack on them all...
Re: (Score:3)
Excellent summary. What it boils down to is that some people were criticized, and they defended themselves by claiming these were attacks on their gender. The reason is plain and simple: They could not credibly defend themselves against the criticism itself, so they used misdirection and made it a gender-issue. Predictably, a lot of people with no clue whatsoever about what was going on then jumped on those criticizing, as apparently criticizing a person of female gender is an attack on them all...
I think this is the best summary ever of #GamerGate. There are several books worth of stuff happening as a result of this, but this is the point of origin.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
a general attack on women because of their sex...may or may not be misogyny
Actually, that is pretty much the definition of misogyny.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
..and yet here you are, posting anyway. Thing is, the tempest entered the teapot from outside. Games are just one of the newer fronts on a much larger, ongoing cultural conflict.
Re: (Score:3)
SJW = Social Justice Warrior.
They are people who see Racism and Sexism in everything except themselves.
Credibility of Communications "Sent to Brianna Wu" (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That was quite possibly one of the worst anonymisations of writer of all times.
Re: (Score:2)
Haha, thanks for posting. That was just pathetic!!!
Re:Excellent! (Score:5, Insightful)
Large amorphous groups like gamergate (and yes, feminist groups and organizations as well) all have a few crackpots making threats. I am sure a few will be found, but that does not alter the legitimacy of the arguments made. I wouldn't be so quick to believe what three letter agencies put out either, especially since they are beholden to political bodies with interests in specific outcomes for the sake of image.
Re:Excellent! (Score:5, Informative)
How internet fighting works:
http://www.smbc-comics.com/ind... [smbc-comics.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Who are you to say what others can joke about?
Re: (Score:2)
Hope so, it's allegedly less painful when you relax.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
No one objects to women making games. But who was it who ran a successful campaign to get GTA V pulled from Target Australia because, specifically, of misogyny?
Re:did you see that piece (Score:4, Informative)
Giving sex or blow jobs for preferential treatment is not a problem. However, a journalist not disclosing that he was receiving a blow job from the subject of his review while writing it could be considered an ethical breach.
Of course, the same goes for any other more common methods of obtaining promotional preferential treatment, such as donating copies of games, travel or hardware. The producer of the product has rarely made any commitment to limit how they encourage promotion of their products, but the journalist does implicitly make a commitment towards their readers to perform their job with a certain level of professionalism and adherence to good journalistic practices, which is where the ethical problem appears.
Whether anyones genitals are involved in any step in those chains is frankly irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Amusing how the journo sites suddenly were mostly 'all from promotion team' adverts when forced to disclose.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
GamerGate isn't an echo chamber. GamerGaters do in fact question each others positions and claims. And sometimes find them wanting, as in the case of a pro-GG person who claimed he was physically assaulted and forced out of the apartment he shared with his girlfriend because of his pro-GG stance.
It's not surprising GG has a bad reputation; when you fi