Controversial Tropes vs. Women in Video Games Series Comes to an End

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
4,119
1,828
118
Country
United States
Jamcie Kerbizz said:
[
Complaining for sake of complaining and making you feel better? Sure do that, gets you nothing but occasional slap from people annoyed by that.
I was talking about and to people who are interested in getting things improved the way they envision it. If someone just wants to moan how unhappy she/he is. Sure go ahead.
So the only way, the only possible way to argue how media can be better is to forsake anything that you don't find completely perfect?

webkilla said:
well, she and Quinn presented it there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3m-bcaCVbM

As for what she's credited with?

On page 25 of the report, in a segment where the report lists cases of 'violence', Sarkeesian has an entry. It reads:

Anita Sarkeesian
Feminist public speaker, media critic and blogger/founder of Feminist Frequency

Endured a campaign of sexist harassment including rape and deaths, personal webpages and social media were hacked, and personal information was distributed. She was sent images of herself raped by video game characters. Also a target of gamergate.
Yes, the report that was written without her input referenced her, which is why she was invited to speak. She did not actually have anything to do with writing the damn thing.
webkilla said:
Now... nobody has ever been able to find any police reports of any these threats. But you know, gotta listen and believe.
I mean, the FBI: https://vault.fbi.gov/gamergate/Gamergate%20Part%2001%20of%2001/view
webkilla said:
that's the only time she's mentioned directly in the report - and IMO I think that's bad enough. Half of this stuff has never been proven - that is, she has never really shown much of this, and for all the supposed threats she got, then she never went to the cops with it. She went to her kickstarter with it, to cry for victimbux. Sure sounds serious.
See above link. Have fun.

webkilla said:
Your claim: "video games reinforces stereotypes". (again, we were talking video games, not all kinds of media in existance, lets stay on topic)
So, any logical reason video games would be exempt from having the same sort of effect as other media?
webkilla said:
Lets see how your sources back that up.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/the-joke-isnt-funny-its-harmful/
- this is a blog. It doesn't really have much content on its own, but it links to more things. I would take this more seriously, if you had linked directly to the relevant things mentioned in this blog post, so I don't have to sift through all the chaff.
- it starts out with being offended over a tiny bit of science fiction, that jokingly talks about how women are so much better shoppers than men. Because that's offensive
- no that's not really relevant here.
- in fact, it doesn't seem to talk much about video games at all.
- oh hold on, here we go:
- it cites a study that claims to prove that reminding young girls that they are girls, lowers their test scores
- hold on, are you citing a source that claims that women are emotionally frail and can't handle challenges as well as men?

(that's like... sexist, isn't it? sexist science?)

Whelp, that is actually an argument against having women shown in video games.

At all.

As in, this study would support the notion of having all video game characters either be gender neutral or male because having female playable characters would make it more difficult for women and girls to play challenging games, if we allow ourselves to go from challenging tests to challenging games. IMO its not that big a leap.
- oh is that not the conclusion I'm supposed to make from that source? I'm sorry, but that's what the study it cited is pointing towards.
- Congratulations Alt, you played yourself. On your first citation. Top kek.
So, this study shows that reminding girls that they're supposed to be bad at math actually makes them test worse in math, and that somehow means that the study is sexist and women shouldn't be in video games?
webkilla said:
How about we just skip ahead to the next source you link?
I'm good mate. I've seen all I need to about the thought process you're bringing to the table.

Is. There. Any. Reason. Video. Games. Wouldn't. Effect. People. Like. Other. Media?

EDIT: Actually no, one more: If media repeating negative stereotypes about swaths of the population doesn't actually change people's attitudes and isn't actually bad, riddle me this:

Why is the repeated "false" stereotype of gamers being sexist a bad thing? After all, it would actually change anybody's perceptions, right?
 

Jamcie Kerbizz

New member
Feb 27, 2013
302
0
0
altnameJag said:
Jamcie Kerbizz said:
[
Complaining for sake of complaining and making you feel better? Sure do that, gets you nothing but occasional slap from people annoyed by that.
I was talking about and to people who are interested in getting things improved the way they envision it. If someone just wants to moan how unhappy she/he is. Sure go ahead.
So the only way, the only possible way to argue how media can be better is to forsake anything that you don't find completely perfect?
No you can also sit on forums, engaging in squabbles and pretend you are mentally challanged if your arguments carry no substance. Wait. Nope. That is the same as moaning.

To make it clear: the only way to change things is to act.
Don't rewrite this sentence for the 3rd bloody time to mean something different than it is.

Moaning and complaining isn't acting because it carries no impact = unless you were invited to provide feedback, there will be no reaction, no result. Any impact it may have is instantly removed if you still give everything the other side wants. Namely, money.

To make it even more clear. You do not send message to developers, you do not send message to artists, writers etc. You need to do something that is noticable to project owners and financial directors. ROI doesn't include magnitude of whining in it. But comparable lower sales will have an impact and deliver the message. That can be because people refused to buy faulty product or competitors provided something better.
And yes single person not buying a bad quality game is nothing. Single person not getting fleeced by pre-order scams, dlc scams, micro transaction scams means little to nothing. As long as gamers as community of consumers isn't acting en masse in their own interest things won't change.
Clear now?
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
4,119
1,828
118
Country
United States
Jamcie Kerbizz said:
altnameJag said:
Jamcie Kerbizz said:
[
Complaining for sake of complaining and making you feel better? Sure do that, gets you nothing but occasional slap from people annoyed by that.
I was talking about and to people who are interested in getting things improved the way they envision it. If someone just wants to moan how unhappy she/he is. Sure go ahead.
So the only way, the only possible way to argue how media can be better is to forsake anything that you don't find completely perfect?
No you can also sit on forums, engaging in squabbles and pretend you are mentally challanged if your arguments carry no substance. Wait. Nope. That is the same as moaning.

To make it clear: the only way to change things is to act.
Don't rewrite this sentence for the 3rd bloody time to mean something different than it is.

Moaning and complaining isn't acting because it carries no impact = unless you were invited to provide feedback, there will be no reaction, no result. Any impact it may have is instantly removed if you still give everything the other side wants. Namely, money.

To make it even more clear. You do not send message to developers, you do not send message to artists, writers etc. You need to do something that is noticable to project owners and financial directors. ROI doesn't include magnitude of whining in it. But comparable lower sales will have an impact and deliver the message. That can be because people refused to buy faulty product or competitors provided something better.
And yes single person not buying a bad quality game is nothing. Single person not getting fleeced by pre-order scams, dlc scams, micro transaction scams means little to nothing. As long as gamers as community of consumers isn't acting en masse in their own interest things won't change.
Clear now?
So, in other words, SJWs couldn't have possibly convinced devs or publishers to change anything about their games, because unless money is involved, that sort of thing doesn't work?
 

Jamcie Kerbizz

New member
Feb 27, 2013
302
0
0
altnameJag said:
Jamcie Kerbizz said:
altnameJag said:
Jamcie Kerbizz said:
[
Complaining for sake of complaining and making you feel better? Sure do that, gets you nothing but occasional slap from people annoyed by that.
I was talking about and to people who are interested in getting things improved the way they envision it. If someone just wants to moan how unhappy she/he is. Sure go ahead.
So the only way, the only possible way to argue how media can be better is to forsake anything that you don't find completely perfect?
No you can also sit on forums, engaging in squabbles and pretend you are mentally challanged if your arguments carry no substance. Wait. Nope. That is the same as moaning.

To make it clear: the only way to change things is to act.
Don't rewrite this sentence for the 3rd bloody time to mean something different than it is.

Moaning and complaining isn't acting because it carries no impact = unless you were invited to provide feedback, there will be no reaction, no result. Any impact it may have is instantly removed if you still give everything the other side wants. Namely, money.

To make it even more clear. You do not send message to developers, you do not send message to artists, writers etc. You need to do something that is noticable to project owners and financial directors. ROI doesn't include magnitude of whining in it. But comparable lower sales will have an impact and deliver the message. That can be because people refused to buy faulty product or competitors provided something better.
And yes single person not buying a bad quality game is nothing. Single person not getting fleeced by pre-order scams, dlc scams, micro transaction scams means little to nothing. As long as gamers as community of consumers isn't acting en masse in their own interest things won't change.
Clear now?
So, in other words, SJWs couldn't have possibly convinced devs or publishers to change anything about their games, because unless money is involved, that sort of thing doesn't work?
You want me to quote myself? I already wrote this here. It's meaningless, beside redirecting attention of community from meaningful problems to abstract nonsense.

They may have an impact if they don't buy the game. One of the reasons japanese studios are cautious to localize games (but it's not something new, they were always cautious about it) and release them on other markets is they deem their product niche outside of Japan. If as you called them SJW moaned and complained about what was it 'Tits Volley Ball Game' (?) yet after release it would have sold in droves and brought in tons of money, SJW buiyng them as well... guess how big of a deal would be their complaining about tits on girls in another Japanese game? I honestly wouldn't mind that Japanese have stopped being shy about their pop culture and just started releasing their games world wide. Sort of started to happen, backdoor style via Steam.

Edit:
If you ment the Fire Emblem cultural apropriation of localized version to 'western' standards. Yes it does have an impact but that's because of factor I mentioned previously. Japanese actively seek out and remove whatever may be culturally inapropriate in their niche product, so yes they will include in that review whatever edgy cultural BS is deemed unholy current year. They just want to make sure that... and by this time you should have guessed it, people actually buy the game and their already niche audience isn't undercut by any japanese pop culture tropes that would be misunderstood by non-japanese. In short Japanese care only about ROI too :S

This, in my opinion is poor assessment of the market on their side. People are curious about 'weird japanese ideas' and even if they have never wanted to make such things on their own, it is part of value their product carries and with such neutering appropriation practices loses.

All I can do is repeat myself. I really await the day 'japanese games' break this glass ceiling and start to be released worldwide inherently the way they are released in Japan.
 

webkilla

New member
Feb 2, 2011
594
0
0
altnameJag said:
Jamcie Kerbizz said:
[
Complaining for sake of complaining and making you feel better? Sure do that, gets you nothing but occasional slap from people annoyed by that.
I was talking about and to people who are interested in getting things improved the way they envision it. If someone just wants to moan how unhappy she/he is. Sure go ahead.
So the only way, the only possible way to argue how media can be better is to forsake anything that you don't find completely perfect?

webkilla said:
well, she and Quinn presented it there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3m-bcaCVbM

As for what she's credited with?

On page 25 of the report, in a segment where the report lists cases of 'violence', Sarkeesian has an entry. It reads:

Anita Sarkeesian
Feminist public speaker, media critic and blogger/founder of Feminist Frequency

Endured a campaign of sexist harassment including rape and deaths, personal webpages and social media were hacked, and personal information was distributed. She was sent images of herself raped by video game characters. Also a target of gamergate.
Yes, the report that was written without her input referenced her, which is why she was invited to speak. She did not actually have anything to do with writing the damn thing.
webkilla said:
Now... nobody has ever been able to find any police reports of any these threats. But you know, gotta listen and believe.
I mean, the FBI: https://vault.fbi.gov/gamergate/Gamergate%20Part%2001%20of%2001/view
webkilla said:
that's the only time she's mentioned directly in the report - and IMO I think that's bad enough. Half of this stuff has never been proven - that is, she has never really shown much of this, and for all the supposed threats she got, then she never went to the cops with it. She went to her kickstarter with it, to cry for victimbux. Sure sounds serious.
See above link. Have fun.

webkilla said:
Your claim: "video games reinforces stereotypes". (again, we were talking video games, not all kinds of media in existance, lets stay on topic)
So, any logical reason video games would be exempt from having the same sort of effect as other media?
webkilla said:
Lets see how your sources back that up.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/the-joke-isnt-funny-its-harmful/
- this is a blog. It doesn't really have much content on its own, but it links to more things. I would take this more seriously, if you had linked directly to the relevant things mentioned in this blog post, so I don't have to sift through all the chaff.
- it starts out with being offended over a tiny bit of science fiction, that jokingly talks about how women are so much better shoppers than men. Because that's offensive
- no that's not really relevant here.
- in fact, it doesn't seem to talk much about video games at all.
- oh hold on, here we go:
- it cites a study that claims to prove that reminding young girls that they are girls, lowers their test scores
- hold on, are you citing a source that claims that women are emotionally frail and can't handle challenges as well as men?

(that's like... sexist, isn't it? sexist science?)

Whelp, that is actually an argument against having women shown in video games.

At all.

As in, this study would support the notion of having all video game characters either be gender neutral or male because having female playable characters would make it more difficult for women and girls to play challenging games, if we allow ourselves to go from challenging tests to challenging games. IMO its not that big a leap.
- oh is that not the conclusion I'm supposed to make from that source? I'm sorry, but that's what the study it cited is pointing towards.
- Congratulations Alt, you played yourself. On your first citation. Top kek.
So, this study shows that reminding girls that they're supposed to be bad at math actually makes them test worse in math, and that somehow means that the study is sexist and women shouldn't be in video games?
webkilla said:
How about we just skip ahead to the next source you link?
I'm good mate. I've seen all I need to about the thought process you're bringing to the table.

Is. There. Any. Reason. Video. Games. Wouldn't. Effect. People. Like. Other. Media?

EDIT: Actually no, one more: If media repeating negative stereotypes about swaths of the population doesn't actually change people's attitudes and isn't actually bad, riddle me this:

Why is the repeated "false" stereotype of gamers being sexist a bad thing? After all, it would actually change anybody's perceptions, right?
Ok, so lets see here:

1) seeing as the information Sarkeesian gave to the report, in describing her 'case', is fake - then I would still hold her at least partially responsible

2) Did you actually read that FBI report? No you didn't, you silly little thing. It specifically ends with saying that the investigation found that nothing criminal had happened and nobody ever got charged. I'll admit that I could have worded my previous statement better: show me where someone actually got arrested and prosecuted, in connection with gamergate, for harassing Sarkeesian. See, filing what amounts to a false police report and the cops then ultimately doing nothing because no crime was committed, that doesn't count.

Congratulations, you have once against provided a source that debunks your own claim. You are doing a great job at destroying your own position and argument. Please keep that up.

3) You're not providing any evidence that video games do this. You're not providing any evidence that video games bad effects on people.
- I don't care how much you feel that video games do this
- I'm not the one who has to provide any logical reasons for anything. You made the claim, you supply the evidence
- It is called the burden of proof, and you have danced around this for ages now.
- so own up to the fact that you can't prove this or do the other thing, you know, supply evidence

4) that's not what the study was about, and if you read it, you would know - stop twisting the truth.
- it specifically states that the girls in the test performed worse purely when reminded of their gender identity (that they were girls)
- it was not telling them "You are girls and you suck" it was telling them "You are girls"
- Prove me wrong if you think otherwise


So again, you begging the question "but why wouldn't games do these bad things to people" - that's not an argument.

Provide evidence to back up your claims - or admit that all you have to go on, is feels over reals.

But sure, bow out. Give up. You never provided any evidence, I provided a bit though.

I think that means I win in this. Or you know, you could try to provide actual evidence that isn't just blog posts about hurt fee fees.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
4,119
1,828
118
Country
United States
webkilla said:
Ok, so lets see here:

1) seeing as the information Sarkeesian gave to the report, in describing her 'case', is fake - then I would still hold her at least partially responsible
So, in essence, you're holding Anitra Sarkeesian partially responsible for a report she had no hand in writing. Good Job.
2) Did you actually read that FBI report? No you didn't, you silly little thing. It specifically ends with saying that the investigation found that nothing criminal had happened and nobody ever got charged. I'll admit that I could have worded my previous statement better: show me where someone actually got arrested and prosecuted, in connection with gamergate, for harassing Sarkeesian. See, filing what amounts to a false police report and the cops then ultimately doing nothing because no crime was committed, that doesn't count.

Congratulations, you have once against provided a source that debunks your own claim. You are doing a great job at destroying your own position and argument. Please keep that up.
In what world does "we didn't find the people making bomb threats, trying to open bank accounts in someone else's name, and swatting GamerGate critics" mean "and therefore, it was all made up!" Holy hell man, it's like I've been transported to 2014 all over again.

Man, I couldn't prove to you the world was round.

EDIT: You know what? What page of that FBI report "specifically ends with saying that the investigation found that nothing criminal had happened and nobody ever got charged", because I'll be damned if I let you butcher the English language anymore.
 

Jamcie Kerbizz

New member
Feb 27, 2013
302
0
0
altnameJag said:
webkilla said:
Ok, so lets see here:

1) seeing as the information Sarkeesian gave to the report, in describing her 'case', is fake - then I would still hold her at least partially responsible
So, in essence, you're holding Anitra Sarkeesian partially responsible for a report she had no hand in writing. Good Job.
2) Did you actually read that FBI report? No you didn't, you silly little thing. It specifically ends with saying that the investigation found that nothing criminal had happened and nobody ever got charged. I'll admit that I could have worded my previous statement better: show me where someone actually got arrested and prosecuted, in connection with gamergate, for harassing Sarkeesian. See, filing what amounts to a false police report and the cops then ultimately doing nothing because no crime was committed, that doesn't count.

Congratulations, you have once against provided a source that debunks your own claim. You are doing a great job at destroying your own position and argument. Please keep that up.
In what world does "we didn't find the people hpmaking bomb threats, trying to open bank accounts in someone else's name, and swatting GamerGate critics" mean "and therefore, it was all made up!" Holy hell man, it's like I've been transported to 2014 all over again.

Man, I couldn't prove to you the world was round.
But they did find them just turned out to be a bunch of upset wakos/kids and the like, eg. page 169-171. FBI came checked if threats were credible ---> turned out completely outlandish BS ---> made perpetrators aware that what they do is not ok ---> forced perpetrators to say how sorry they are ---> dropped prosecution after making sure perpetrators are aware what happens if they do it again ---> moved on.
What did you expect to happen? That FBI will come and shoot 12 yo over dumb internet trolling and phone calls? Incarcerate them togeather with people that commit actual crimes that hurt 'a little bit more' than just feelings of victims?
 

webkilla

New member
Feb 2, 2011
594
0
0
altnameJag said:
webkilla said:
Ok, so lets see here:

1) seeing as the information Sarkeesian gave to the report, in describing her 'case', is fake - then I would still hold her at least partially responsible
So, in essence, you're holding Anitra Sarkeesian partially responsible for a report she had no hand in writing. Good Job.
2) Did you actually read that FBI report? No you didn't, you silly little thing. It specifically ends with saying that the investigation found that nothing criminal had happened and nobody ever got charged. I'll admit that I could have worded my previous statement better: show me where someone actually got arrested and prosecuted, in connection with gamergate, for harassing Sarkeesian. See, filing what amounts to a false police report and the cops then ultimately doing nothing because no crime was committed, that doesn't count.

Congratulations, you have once against provided a source that debunks your own claim. You are doing a great job at destroying your own position and argument. Please keep that up.
In what world does "we didn't find the people making bomb threats, trying to open bank accounts in someone else's name, and swatting GamerGate critics" mean "and therefore, it was all made up!" Holy hell man, it's like I've been transported to 2014 all over again.

Man, I couldn't prove to you the world was round.

EDIT: You know what? What page of that FBI report "specifically ends with saying that the investigation found that nothing criminal had happened and nobody ever got charged", because I'll be damned if I let you butcher the English language anymore.

If Sarkeesian supplied the people who wrote the report with false information, then she is partially to blame for the shit report. Yes


And are you seriously arguing, that because no evidence was ever found - that this proves that there is evidence? what?

What kind of strange alternate reality do you live in?

When the FBI say that they investigated, and that they found nothing - then that's sort of what it means. And if you want to get all pre-school and have me point to the blooody LAST PAGES OF THE REPORT then fine. Its in the last two paragraphs of the closing document of the report. Just scroll down the pdf like a good school child, and read the big words. They're not that scary.

Here's the line from the report: Page 169

"To date, all investigative steps failed to identify any subjects or actionable leads"

"It is requested that this investigation be administratively closed due to lack of leads"

The best they could find were some jokers who made crank calls - but even the freaking FBI found these to be not legit threats, and so no case was ever made.

They did not find any evidence or leads to show that there was anything worth pursuing criminal charges to anyone.


And do keep in mind that this FBI case was focused on Brianna Wu - who has been found to have intentionally set herself for trolling and online harassment at least once, quite possibly more. Could it be that the feds realized that she was just an attention seeking nobody and went "Whelp, there are no leads or evidence showing that there's any real case here - better close this and spend our time doing something actually productive"


Need I remind you of the time Sarkeesian got a bomb threat, and the local cops and FBI looked at it and went "no, our cyber crime taskforce has identified this as a fake threat not worthy of taking action on"

http://www.usu.edu/today/index.cfm?id=54178

Again: The FBI looked at this supposed threat sent against a Sarkeesian event, and found it to not be worth doing anything about. Sarkeesian herself canceled the event, and then lied to the press later saying that the event was shut down due to the threats:
https://www.theverge.com/2014/10/14/6978809/utah-state-university-receives-shooting-threat-for-anita-sarkeesian-visit

but as the FBI had pointed out: their experts said there was no threat

Another lovely case of feels over reals, mixed in with lying to the press for more victim status. When the police say there's nothing to worry about, and you then go say the opposite, that's not telling the truth.


But ya, do accuse me of mangling the english language. You're the one who can't read an FBI report.
 

CaitSeith

Formely Gone Gonzo
Legacy
Apr 14, 2020
5,184
173
68
webkilla said:
Now... nobody has ever been able to find any police reports of any these threats. But you know, gotta listen and believe.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/137521-FBI-Investigates-Death-Threats-of-Sarkeesian

Update: Albie Esparza of the San Francisco Police Department has confirmed to The Escapist that the SFPD has handed information over to the FBI from a police report Anita Sarkeesian filed.
webkilla said:
that's the only time she's mentioned directly in the report
That's what I wanted to know. Thank you.
 

webkilla

New member
Feb 2, 2011
594
0
0
CaitSeith said:
webkilla said:
Now... nobody has ever been able to find any police reports of any these threats. But you know, gotta listen and believe.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/137521-FBI-Investigates-Death-Threats-of-Sarkeesian

Update: Albie Esparza of the San Francisco Police Department has confirmed to The Escapist that the SFPD has handed information over to the FBI from a police report Anita Sarkeesian filed.
webkilla said:
that's the only time she's mentioned directly in the report
That's what I wanted to know. Thank you.
and if you followed up on that, you'd find this:

https://vault.fbi.gov/gamergate/Gamergate%20Part%2001%20of%2001/view

this is the final FBI report on their investigation into Gamergate

where they conclude that nothing happened that is worth pursuing criminal charges for, because there's no evidence or leads to the contrary - and thus they closed that investigation

My original point, while admidedly poorly worded, refered to the fact that nobody been arrested for any any these threats that Sarkeesian and her ilk harp on about - and, as the FBI report shows, then even the feds do not consider these so called threats to be anything worth pursuing.

but you know, if you just wanna stick to the half-way point that the feds did look into this? sure. But that is only half the story.
 

CaitSeith

Formely Gone Gonzo
Legacy
Apr 14, 2020
5,184
173
68
webkilla said:
this is the final FBI report on their investigation into Gamergate

where they conclude that nothing happened that is worth pursuing criminal charges for, because there's no evidence or leads to the contrary - and thus they closed that investigation
The ones who closed their investigation was the State of Massachusetts, and the USAO in San Francisco declined prosecution due to lack of jurisdiction. However the investigation revealed that the email with the death threat wasn't made up by Sarkeesian (page 170).

Yeah, even if the case was closed without pursuing criminal charges, I like the full story; which it's pretty different to "there was no police report".
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
4,119
1,828
118
Country
United States
Jamcie Kerbizz said:
But they did find them just turned out to be a bunch of upset wakos/kids and the like, eg. page 169-171. FBI came checked if threats were credible ---> turned out completely outlandish BS ---> made perpetrators aware that what they do is not ok ---> forced perpetrators to say how sorry they are ---> dropped prosecution after making sure perpetrators are aware what happens if they do it again ---> moved on.
What did you expect to happen? That FBI will come and shoot 12 yo over dumb internet trolling and phone calls? Incarcerate them togeather with people that commit actual crimes that hurt 'a little bit more' than just feelings of victims?
That is apparently what webkilla needs to have happened in order to believe they even existed. He's the one outright insisting that because the FBI couldn't find any leads on crimes that would stick, then obviously it was all a scam perpetuated by Sarekeesian et al.
 

webkilla

New member
Feb 2, 2011
594
0
0
CaitSeith said:
webkilla said:
this is the final FBI report on their investigation into Gamergate

where they conclude that nothing happened that is worth pursuing criminal charges for, because there's no evidence or leads to the contrary - and thus they closed that investigation
The ones who closed their investigation was the State of Massachusetts, and the USAO in San Francisco declined prosecution due to lack of jurisdiction. However the investigation revealed that the email with the death threat wasn't made up by Sarkeesian (page 170).

Yeah, even if the case was closed without pursuing criminal charges, I like the full story; which it's pretty different to "there was no police report".
There was no police report of any actual case that went to trial. Again, I've admited that my original wording was poor on that - and I've updated that post - but the point remains: the cops and feds looked the stuff and went "this is nothing, closing the case"

Hell, the bomb threat sent against Sarkeesian at that speaking event in 2014 was also found to be nothing to worry about, by the feds, but Sarkeesian still lied to the gaming media and said that the event had been cancelled due to threats, when it was her herself who had cancelled it - again despite the feds saying that there was nothing to worry about.
 

webkilla

New member
Feb 2, 2011
594
0
0
altnameJag said:
Jamcie Kerbizz said:
But they did find them just turned out to be a bunch of upset wakos/kids and the like, eg. page 169-171. FBI came checked if threats were credible ---> turned out completely outlandish BS ---> made perpetrators aware that what they do is not ok ---> forced perpetrators to say how sorry they are ---> dropped prosecution after making sure perpetrators are aware what happens if they do it again ---> moved on.
What did you expect to happen? That FBI will come and shoot 12 yo over dumb internet trolling and phone calls? Incarcerate them togeather with people that commit actual crimes that hurt 'a little bit more' than just feelings of victims?
That is apparently what webkilla needs to have happened in order to believe they even existed. He's the one outright insisting that because the FBI couldn't find any leads on crimes that would stick, then obviously it was all a scam perpetuated by Sarekeesian et al.
Its almost as if calling the cops whenever 12yr old online trolls talking shit is kinda stupid and a waste of police time?
Sarkeesian has repeated demonestrated that she just loves to capitalise on her victim status, which she has built up and maintained so carefully.

but hey, white knights gonna white knight, right boys?
 

CaitSeith

Formely Gone Gonzo
Legacy
Apr 14, 2020
5,184
173
68
webkilla said:
Hell, the bomb threat sent against Sarkeesian at that speaking event in 2014 was also found to be nothing to worry about, by the feds, but Sarkeesian still lied to the gaming media and said that the event had been cancelled due to threats, when it was her herself who had cancelled it - again despite the feds saying that there was nothing to worry about.
As far as I remember, Sarkeesian said to the media that she canceled the event herself because she asked to increase the security at the event, and they didn't want to. Or am I recalling a different canceled event of hers?

EDIT: The feds never said there was "nothing to worry about" (if they did, citation needed) That's pretty different to closing the investigation for lack of leads (which can be because the track got cold).
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
4,119
1,828
118
Country
United States
webkilla said:
altnameJag said:
Jamcie Kerbizz said:
But they did find them just turned out to be a bunch of upset wakos/kids and the like, eg. page 169-171. FBI came checked if threats were credible ---> turned out completely outlandish BS ---> made perpetrators aware that what they do is not ok ---> forced perpetrators to say how sorry they are ---> dropped prosecution after making sure perpetrators are aware what happens if they do it again ---> moved on.
What did you expect to happen? That FBI will come and shoot 12 yo over dumb internet trolling and phone calls? Incarcerate them togeather with people that commit actual crimes that hurt 'a little bit more' than just feelings of victims?
That is apparently what webkilla needs to have happened in order to believe they even existed. He's the one outright insisting that because the FBI couldn't find any leads on crimes that would stick, then obviously it was all a scam perpetuated by Sarekeesian et al.
Its almost as if calling the cops whenever 12yr old online trolls talking shit is kinda stupid and a waste of police time?
Sarkeesian has repeated demonestrated that she just loves to capitalise on her victim status, which she has built up and maintained so carefully.

but hey, white knights gonna white knight, right boys?
It's all just trolling until people try to open bank accounts in your name or send a swat team to your house.
 

webkilla

New member
Feb 2, 2011
594
0
0
altnameJag said:
webkilla said:
altnameJag said:
Jamcie Kerbizz said:
But they did find them just turned out to be a bunch of upset wakos/kids and the like, eg. page 169-171. FBI came checked if threats were credible ---> turned out completely outlandish BS ---> made perpetrators aware that what they do is not ok ---> forced perpetrators to say how sorry they are ---> dropped prosecution after making sure perpetrators are aware what happens if they do it again ---> moved on.
What did you expect to happen? That FBI will come and shoot 12 yo over dumb internet trolling and phone calls? Incarcerate them togeather with people that commit actual crimes that hurt 'a little bit more' than just feelings of victims?
That is apparently what webkilla needs to have happened in order to believe they even existed. He's the one outright insisting that because the FBI couldn't find any leads on crimes that would stick, then obviously it was all a scam perpetuated by Sarekeesian et al.
Its almost as if calling the cops whenever 12yr old online trolls talking shit is kinda stupid and a waste of police time?
Sarkeesian has repeated demonestrated that she just loves to capitalise on her victim status, which she has built up and maintained so carefully.

but hey, white knights gonna white knight, right boys?
It's all just trolling until people try to open bank accounts in your name or send a swat team to your house.
Please cite a specific page(s) in the FBI report regards this bank thing - as well as where they state that someone tried swatting Sarkeesian.

And you do realize that a number of pro-gamergate individuals have also gotten swatted, right? Its almost as if there are trolls on both sides of this debate? Or maybe even third party trolls? Can be kinda hard to tell sometimes
 

webkilla

New member
Feb 2, 2011
594
0
0
CaitSeith said:
webkilla said:
Hell, the bomb threat sent against Sarkeesian at that speaking event in 2014 was also found to be nothing to worry about, by the feds, but Sarkeesian still lied to the gaming media and said that the event had been cancelled due to threats, when it was her herself who had cancelled it - again despite the feds saying that there was nothing to worry about.
As far as I remember, Sarkeesian said to the media that she canceled the event herself because she asked to increase the security at the event, and they didn't want to. Or am I recalling a different canceled event of hers?

EDIT: The feds never said there was "nothing to worry about" (if they did, citation needed) That's pretty different to closing the investigation for lack of leads (which can be because the track got cold).
No, if the FBI had thought it was a legit threat then they wouldn't have recommended that the even continue. Really big difference there. If they had thought the threat legit, but had no clue who had sent it, they would probably have cancelled the event.

and:
http://kotaku.com/terror-threat-targets-anita-sarkeesian-for-speaking-at-1646371245
here it links to FemFreq tweets that read "Forced to cancel my talk at USU after receiving death threats because police wouldn't take steps to prevent concealed firearms at the event."
- because a single speaker doesn't get to chance state carry laws, even if it spooks them
- and nobody forced Sarkeesian to do anything, she CHOSE to cancel the event, so that's simply not true

its funny: the kotaku article actually cites the Utah state uni's statement on the topic, where they say explicitly that the threat was not considered credible. It doesn't get any more clear than that.

...but the article doesn't question how that conflicts with the tweet that Sarkeesian was 'forced' to shut things down.

I know its nit-picking - and honestly this could just as well be taken as an example of lazy kotaku journos who just didn't care to actually sit and think for a moment - but the tweets alone do IMO display an attempt by Sarkeesian to spin a lie that they had to close things down due to the email threats.

This vid covers other example of lazy/disingenuous headlines derived from the the threat and the cancelled event in its first 30 seconds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgHmTmUjFF0

When the cops say there's nothing to worry about, you do not have any reason to imply that the threats are real. I know that requires some level of trust in the various involved law enforcement agencies, but you want to know what the really fun bit is? Have you actually read the threat sent to the event venue?

I recall some commenters having a go at it back when it happened, speculating on what in the email made the FBI choose to not believe that it was real. What they found was rather obvious: It reads the like babby's first threatening email, and spoke of Sarkeesian oddly respectfully (which doesn't make sense if it was supposed to be written by someone who hates her enough to start shooting people) and generally just sounded way too stilted to be serious.

oh here we go: https://i.gyazo.com/e41c005015fccf1893fbfd6815108680.png
- threats usually don't include a bit bragging about exactly what kind of weapons you have
- the marc lepine reference is to a school shooting some twenty years ago!? Really?
- Its just... I dunno, a little too overdramatic? Like, it reads like someone just googled "school shootings" and then started name-dropping like crazy in order to look legit

but ya, the FBI took a good look at it and said "Nah, this isn't even worth issuing campus-wide warnings about"
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
4,119
1,828
118
Country
United States
webkilla said:
Please cite a specific page(s) in the FBI report regards this bank thing - as well as where they state that someone tried swatting Sarkeesian.
Page 93.
The Swatting was page 67 of Iggy Galvez.
And you do realize that a number of pro-gamergate individuals have also gotten swatted, right? Its almost as if there are trolls on both sides of this debate? Or maybe even third party trolls? Can be kinda hard to tell sometimes
So, yes. Lots of harassment going on.