Interesting question. By 'Pro-GG' I presume you mean 'i support investigating and exposing corruption / journalism ethics issues' correct?Since I consider myself pro-GG, I don't know that I'm the best person to present a list of things to talk about - such a list would reflect my own biases, and I believe for any useful discussion to occur that such a list needs to be as neutral as possible.
Can i ask a counter-question (To Steph): i often read - eg in the article irrelephant linked, about the "anti-GG side". What would you consider 'anti-GG' to be in light of the above?
There is a lot of nonsense being written on both sides of this - now - to me this however is what i would describe is "abalances / reasonable" quote - but to the other i'd assume it's propagana / nonsense / plain wrong.
Discuss (in the form of context not content)I don’t think that everyone who uses Gamergate is evil, but moderates need to look at what is being done under, or within spitting distance of, its banner. Lives are being ruined and the world’s media is looking at gamers, just at a time when the medium was being taken seriously, and it is seeing its prejudices realised. Gamergate was front-page news in the New York Times when Sarkeesian had to cancel a talk over threats of a “massacre” (also dismissed as a “false flag” by Gamergate supporters); Cellan-Jones wrote on the BBC’s site that while he wouldn’t pick over the rights and wrongs of Gamergate (for the BBC is assiduous in not taking any sides in any debate),
“a couple of things are clear. It started with attacks on a female developer and the journalists she knew, and has given rise to a whole lot more viciousness, most of it aimed at women who dare to raise their heads above the parapet.”
Finally (really finally almost):
Is there any hope that a post with "serious concerns regrading the gamergate movement" would even be parsed/discussed instead of being snipped and dismissed. If so i'll put it together, if not i'll follow my own advice from page1 and just let the whole thing die.