Slashdot Mirror


FBI Confirms Open Investigation Into Gamergate

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.

11 of 556 comments (clear)

  1. Who? by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Which ones are they investigating? The drama-mongers or the drama-mongs?

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:Who? by Schadrach · · 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?...

      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.

    2. Re:Who? by Schadrach · · Score: 4, 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.

  2. Most Unbiased Slashdot Gamergate Article by Kunedog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Slashdot's coverage of Gamergate has been abysmal. Every other summary has followed the template "harassment, misogyny, threats, harassment, misogyny, threats . . . oh btw Gamergate."

    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 /. thread about the Gamergate scandal itself: the journalistic lapses, the universal news media blackout and user forum/comment censorship (including reddit and 4chan of all places), and the still-ongoing coordinated smear campaign that was launched on August 28 with the "Gamers are Dead" shotgun blast of hit pieces. All of those milestones should have gotten at least one article here each.

    1. Re:Most Unbiased Slashdot Gamergate Article by DogDude · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's because none of that little shit matters. Nobody really cares about a bunch of guys who live in their parents' basements arguing about video games. People do care when a bunch of people threaten other people with bodily harm.

      Get some perspective, moron.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    2. Re:Most Unbiased Slashdot Gamergate Article by sinij · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I personally believe that this issue is worthwhile of further attention. Why? Because as a gamer that does not associate with GG, I still don't care to have gaming turned into radfem 'mandatory inclusion' platform.

      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.

    3. Re:Most Unbiased Slashdot Gamergate Article by jedidiah · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  3. Re:Excellent! by epyT-R · · Score: 4, 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.

  4. Re:"gate" by Opportunist · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  5. Re:Ethics? by dave420 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Calling something "social justice" does not immediately relegate it to obscurity. "Social justice" is just a term to mean "admit less-than-stellar behavior towards minorities or the underrepresented, and earnestly try to improve it". Unless you'd call Rosa Parks a SJW you really should stop trying to use terms like that pejoratively - it makes you look like a tiny-minded, scared child, who is worried their favorite toys aren't as awesome as they always thought, and lashes out at anyone who might point that out to them.

  6. Re:Media blackout by silentcoder · · 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.

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *