Like feminists, developmentally and emotionally stunted people typically resort to ad hominems instead of facts and reason to make arguments. What does that make you? What does that make them?

No. It's not a problem. Most gamers don't cry when someone calls them mean things on the internet. SJWs on the other hand...

Wu chose to use her real info when posting contentious shit online. She chose to expose herself. That was stupid It was probably also intentional.

Actually, the older engineers created the internet to share information so that they might learn as much about truth as possible. Guess that didn't work out so well.

Actually, what gamergate is doing is criticizing several women's elaborate conspiracy theories about gaming and gamer culture. If you're going to compare, do it on like terms. Sarkeesian did the same thing, though I think she's smart enough to have done it purposely. She had a ton of tards give her 160k in 'sympathy' money to make a few youtube videos. Not bad. She probably thinks people like you are useful idiots.

Maybe some of these women are self (or having others) posting fake threats, or they are troll posts. Who knows. What really matters is that these women are purposely taking these 'threats' seriously to drum up drama.

I find it interesting that if it was men who were pulling stunts like anita's, they would NOT be getting away with it. Who really has the privilege again?

No, it's a passive aggressive warlock hunt by "SJWs, feminazis and progressives" on gamer communities who refuse to accept the status quo feminist interpretation of reality, in this case in regards to games. Heaven forbid they want games free of preachy propaganda and shaming language. There's a reason no one liked "Wally Bear and the 'No' gang" on NES.

The whole thing started years before zoe quinn rode her first hipster micropenis. Sites like kotaku and polygon always mixed their political shit into their reviews. It was her involvement with the 'journalists' at these gawker sites that triggered the eruption.

and your type loves the ad hominem fallacy. Zero logic or facts required.

It is serious business.. to passive aggressive crybabies like Wu. The rest of us realize that someone out to get someone else is NOT about to announce it to the world on the internet.

Well she could start by apologizing for calling 2/3 of the internet population a bunch of bigots on fallacy ridden grounds.

Yes, it is just words. Perhaps your parents forgot to teach you the 'sticks and stones' nursery rhyme. Maybe we need to take all the pantywaisted hipster spawn of boomer and gen-x parents and put them into a 5 year bootcamp to toughen them up. Their parents obviously failed.

Actually, people can and do pull firealarms in school all the time. There's a lot of incentive to do so. The point being that the more enticing she makes herself as a 'victim' the more tempting a target she becomes, and the trolls will tailor their responses to the type of situation she claims victimized her. Of course, she knows this, and it's what she wants. Anything for attention.

A sustained COUNTERattack you mean, right? Like anita, she instigated this from the beginning by saying dumb shit about a very large online community. The ad hominem 'victim-blamer' is a shaming term used by the professional victim to shut down criticism of her claims. It isn't an argument for or against anything.

No one knows who 'faked' the message. It could just as easily have come from her or one of her followers.

Stop arguing from the law. That doesn't define reality. The reality is that internet threats are bullshit. People who really want to hurt you are not going to tell you about it.

That may be law, but it's not reality, or logical.

I've got a fun fact for you too..

If you can't take it, dont' dish it. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean you shouldn't protect yourself. Wu flamed a bunch of people online using her real name and she got shit on for it. Preachy idiots get zero sympathy from me.

..and people like you who equate empathy in someone with the relative level of 'outrage' are reprehensible to me. You refuse to acknowledge real victims and differentiate them from the professional harvesters like wu and sarkeesian who destroy any shot of the genuine victims from being taken seriously.

Your home address is public information. If you don't want it online, then don't use your real name online, preferably at all, or at least not while taking controversial positions. That's what anonymity is for. It's really not that fucking hard.

So is/was gay marriage. I guess gays shouldn't marry, eh?