Weeks wrote:If you don't want to talk about it then simply stop talking about it instead of attempting to police the discussion into what you deem isn't "toxic".
Sounds fair then. I refuse to go down that path. You can go ahead without me. Part of it is that I don't really know how to respond to comments like that aside from posting toxic things that antigamergate has done.
But hey, if you want me to agree with something, I can agree that there's some fucked up shit going on under the #GamerGate banner. So I'll give ya that.
omgryebread wrote:Look, I'm sorry, but I'm not strawmanning. Ethics in video game journalism is important, and we need the conversation. GamerGate is not that conversation, no matter how much it claims to be.
You say you read my post, but you clearly didn't follow the threads that show the bankrupt origin of GamerGate and the complete lack of conversation about it's stated noble goals.
Let me requote myself then, in case you missed it.
I've also made it clear that #GamerGate is a political movement. It isn't about issues, but its about politics, gaining allies and supporters through whatever means necessary. Zoe and Anita have harmed feminist causes in their attempt to burn #GamerGate, while people on behalf of #GamerGate have also made some strange and contradictory moves on their own.
We seem to be in agreement on the issue of #GamerGate not really talking about games journalism as much as they could. I characterize this fight as a political one, not something for debate. Its about taking sides, not really about making points or talking through issues.