walpurgis8199: No I am pissed off because I have been told I am a basement dwelling neckbeard because I'm male and play games. I've gone to university, I obtained an accounting designation and then a further specialization. I got married and had kids, but suddenly because I like games I am a basement dwelling neckbeard. I put up with enough of that during school. I'm not going to be passive this time. I can join the boycotts and I can e-mail sponsors and advertisers.

chincilla: I don't think I have yet seen anyone actually break down what was wrong with the 'gamers are dead' articles. Its certainly clear that not every body read them in the same way, though I confess I didn't read them all. I also wonder how many people never read the articles in the first place and either took others interpretations as gospel, or just the headlines (which are fairly provocative) and reacted to that.

Jeysie: And I'm pissed off because I'm a bisexual female gamer who now has to listen to how all gamers are supposedly basement dwelling misogynist neckbeared men who hate women. Even though I'm obviously none of those things, even though I've never been anything but accepted and treated nicely by male gamers, even though it was always non-gamer women who insulted me for being a gamer, and even though I now have feminists busy trying to claim they're somehow helping me as a female game by bashing my hobby and bashing my identity while trying to erase me out of both completely in the process.

I almost preferred dealing with Jack Thompson attacking us; at least everyone agreed with us that he was crazy.

Red_Avatar: I wish they would listen more to people and actually talk to gamers instead of sitting on their high thrones and spouting their BS.

RaggieRags: It's funny how Gamergaters constantly bring up Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn, even though neither of them are journalists.

What was this movement about, again?

DavidG88: Regarding the reactionary articles. I'd like some more clarification on certain numbers if any one has them or can point me to them.

I've thought of the ZQ thing as something maybe a few hundred to a thousand people were in ITK about, if not involved in. When the articles & silencing came out the combined thousands of readers of those sites who up to that point were likely ignorant to the whole affair & were just shocked at what the journos were saying initiates GG. People were obliged to dive into the scandal because they just wanted to know why they were being attacked all of a sudden. People choose their sides, political, attention seekers, & social advancers jumped in to co-opt their thing, celebs showed up, trolls jumped in due to the invitation, & it's just been gobbling up more & more people since... But are these assumptions I made on numbers close at all? How many people is it safe to say were involved or aware of the issue in that time frame?

Jeysie: And I'm pissed off because I'm a bisexual female gamer who now has to listen to how all gamers are supposedly basement dwelling misogynist neckbeared men who hate women. Even though I'm obviously none of those things, even though I've never been anything but accepted and treated nicely by male gamers, even though it was always non-gamer women who insulted me for being a gamer, and even though I now have feminists busy trying to claim they're somehow helping me as a female gamer by bashing my hobby and bashing my identity while trying to erase me out of both completely in the process.

I almost preferred dealing with Jack Thompson attacking us; at least everyone agreed with us that he was crazy.

hedwards: It can be about more than one thing.

Anita and Zoe are both symptoms of the same disease. And ultimately neither one of them would still be in the mix if they could keep their large mouths shut for more than 5 minutes.

chincilla: Are they not entitled to speak freely in this debate?

hedwards: They're free to speak freely. They're not free from the consequences. In both cases they've been deliberately milking the situation for profit and at that point, they've pretty much given up on any good faith claim that they're not doing anything.

The internet can be an ugly place at times, but deliberately antagonizing people isn't a generally accepted way of avoiding such ugliness.

chincilla: And those consequences are what exactly? I'm very much trying not to read anything into what you are saying. I'm not entirely sure how they are antagonizing people, other than by speaking their mind, and in Anita's case by doing what she has done since before this kicked off. It seems to me that some people find them merely speaking up is antagonistic.

hedwards: I wouldn't go around making fun of men's mothers because I would expect to be punched in the nose. If I did go about doing it anyways, I wouldn't blame them for being upset with me for being an asshole. And I certainly wouldn't encourage people to give me money because I got my comeuppance.

If you're not sure how they're deliberately antagonizing people, I suggest that you go back and read all the stuff they've been doing. Also, take note of all the money they've been making off the people that feel sorry for them because they're being hated. Even though the hate itself is a direct reaction to their own behavior.

Being professional victims is their job right now, that's how they make money and the criticism I have for the trolls is mostly for playing into their hands. As far as I know, none of the threats they've received were credible and the kddobz threat to Anita was most likely written by a woman and probably by one of her supporters.

chincilla: I'm sure that you are in no way condoning harassment, but some of the arguments you are using to condemn this pair is very close to some of the arguments apologists for harassment use.

Brasas: Our ideological disagreements are becoming clear, that's for sure.

Even in opinion pieces, misrepresentation of facts should be avoided. In actual journalism, both favorable and unfavorable facts, and overall neutrality should be maintained, maybe by presenting both sides interpretation, maybe by choosing neutral language. Opinion pieces do not have to be neutral or present both sides, but if they go too far they stop being just opinion pieces and should rather be called the more correct propaganda pieces.

Revealing to me is how you say they shouldn't be forced. I don't see anyone forcing them. They choose to be journalists and should play the game according to its rules. They are free to stop pretending they are doing journalism and openly say they are political activists, where the rules are different. I'd say journalistic rules are the foundation of media independence rather than an obstacle. Obviously our conceptions of liberty are different.

You may prefer a polarized public space, where media takes sides and everyone takes sides, and somehow a winning side comes out eventually. I am certain those sides will form regardless and part of being in a culture of reason is to try, however imperfectly, to do and be better. Media should cover the story, give the facts, leave the reader to choose sides. Believe me, they have a lot of options to influence that choice through language choice and framing. Just look at supposedly impartial media today for several examples.