Not many, because of attitudes and people like you, who instead of listening to them, and maybe looking into the situation, automatically accuses the male side of Misogyny and Hate, just for denouncing abuse performed by an ex-girlfriend.

Ever thought you might be the one preventing the voice of abused men to actually talk about their experience by labelling them as vile, sub-humans ? Because nothing makes a victim feel better than that amiright ?

Late to replying, but you're a bit wrong about SRD. It's Sub Reddit Drama, not Shit Reddit Does for one, and is the same crowd or thereabouts that uses SRS.

I've never seen "SRD" used to refer to Shit Reddit Does (which is as you described), only to refer to Sub Reddit Drama, which I invite you to peruse to see I wasn't wrong.

You mean the comments by AmiJoJo and narcc, which are replying to about everything trying to do damage control ?

I have a question for Mr./Mrs Wu : How much are you paying these guys, either in money or through other more basic needs, in order to get them to defend you so fiercely, and if not, what do you think of White Knights and do they have the chance of making your husband into a cuck or not ?

Like calling large swats of people "Misogynists" because they disagree with women ? Because that's an unfounded accusation levied way to easily these days and has disrupted the life of many people for the only crime of not trusting a woman's or male feminist's words without proof.

Use facts that can be proven. Leave faith to religions.

Women are not anymore or less "believed" or "not believed" than men. Humans in general are believed when they are using proven or provable facts. They are also "believed" when they build credibility based on a history of using such facts and truths in their discourse. This particular human being has not been truthful, thus her credibility is in the pits.

This has no link to gender. It's not about gender. People that make it about gender want to shield a specific class of citizen from criticism.

The better question is : why should women be about to lie and distort the truth and not be criticized for it ? Answer that, Mr. Internet Feminist.

Nope, SRS and SRD are still there and engaging in harassement as they usually do. So she didn't even manage to clamp down on harassing subreddits.

Don't mistake what the FPH ban was : a political move to gain mainstream political correctness point in the eyes of the HAES and FA movements. Remember : 70% of americans are now overweight (source : http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-statistics/Pages/overweight-obesity-statistics.aspx). It pays to cater to the majority.

If the goal was banning harassment, FPH was not the subreddit to ban. For the most part, they were simply keeping to their own dark corner and doing their thing amongst themselves. You had to go out of your way to "get harassed", by visiting the subreddit while fat and looking for pictures of yourself. Or worse: submitting your pictures in an attempt to get attention.

You just bought the media narrative hook, line and sinker.

You can judge for yourself if the question was or not loaded : http://i.imgur.com/TpNZ2jQ.jpg

Yes, that was the actual question. Didn't seem to phase Rev. Jackson who just offered a non-reply.

The main target seems to have been GameJournosPro and Leigh Alexander who wrote the basis of what was the "Gamers don't have to be your audience anymore" piece, which came as an answer to gamers asking why journalists were not covering TFYC incident, after it came out that the person responsible for that had had positive coverage by a journalist whom she was in a relationship with.

The banning and deletion of discussion on these issues really didn't help.

http://deepfreeze.it/ seems very journalist focused too.

It would be nice to talk about genders in gaming, without all the faked outrage. I mean, you realise that Anita is just a massive troll right ? Her E3 "1 outrage every minute" type posting was clear as day. I'd like a discussion about actual gender in gaming, and how gaming has always been open to both genders, but still has failed to draw women in further than casual games (my mother was a big fan of Doctor Mario and Tetris for one thing). Even though we had great women designing games like Roberta Williams, and even female protagonists as early as the 80s (Laura Bow anyone ?) : http://www.abandonia.com/games/218 I think Anita doesn't help any. In fact, polarizing the debate, and making it about "either you agree there's an issue or you're a misogynist" doesn't help anything.

You talked about Gamergate no ? From researching this stuff, I have found both to have been prominent Gamergate figures. So are you admitting you do not have all relevant information about the Gamergate campaign ?

I suggest more research before you continue discussion on the matter, because it's now apparent you're ill informed.

This is a piece Oliver wrote last year about this topic :

https://medium.com/@oliverbcampbell/when-a-black-game-journalist-spoke-up-on-gamergate-a1f36421022

What ? What's "notyourshield" ? Guess it's other stuff I gotta look up.

Oh well, chatting with you is nice, I get to uncover a lot of things digging around following your posts. It seems this Notyourshield thing is exactly against what you seem to be doing here : dismissing women and minorities because they agree with Gamergate. Pretending they don't exist and erase them.

My question becomes, what do you have against women and minorities that hold different world view than you do that you would go to such length as to completely deny their existence ? I hope this is simply lack of information on your part, and not intolorence to people who disagree with you.

The wikipedia article on this subject is rooted in controversy, up to the point that some of its editors were both topic and site banned from Wikipedia. At this point, no, I won't start with it as it's obviously not a neutral source.

What's this YOU stuff ? Who are you talking to ? You're assuming things about me... for instance :

I never visited the chan's, and have neither Twitter nor Reddit accounts. So those words can't be mine.

Now, let's review your list of allegations, all of which have no backing or evidence :

Where have you been prevented from discussing women in tech and how have you been prevented from doing so exactly ? I mean, if you try to inject "women in tech" in discussions unrelated to women, I could see how people would dismiss you and downvote you, but in actual discussions about women in tech ?

Do you have any evidence showing these female game devs were not harassed because of ethics in gaming journalism ? It seems the whole issue that launched this (outside of years of build up with things like Doritogate and other growing concerns) is the fact that Nathan Grayson wrote this favorable piece :

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/01/08/admission-quest-valve-greenlights-50-more-games/

It seems to me that the issue people have is not that the developer is a woman, it's that Nathan Grayson (a man) used a screenshot to feature prominently the game of a person he had a personal relationship with, without disclosing said relationship. On top of that, it seems Nathan participated in making the game as his name is part of the credits, so essentially pushing his work.

Rather shoddy for a journalist.

Looking at one of Gamergate's projects, http://deepfreeze.it/, all the listed journalists seem to in fact be journalists.

I mean, I could see where SJW (a pejorative term used for people who use Social Justice causes to label and attack other people, with little care to the actual cause itself) could be used to describe some more fringe "journalist" like Jessica Valenti of the Guardian, because some of her opinions are pretty extermist in nature (nothing to do with her gender before you draw the conclusion it's because she's a woman) though.

Do you have a citation for Gamergate asking Slashdot (specifically) to not discuss diversity in tech ? Because Slashdot doesn't seem to have listened, we have diversity in Tech articles all the time.

I'll have to ask for a citation on this. In fact, looking at GamerGhazi's (which seem to be a group that opposes Gamergate) post about this situation, it seems that Gamergate equates Anita and Jack Thompson, not hold them to different standards :

http://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/2shah1/kia_says_anita_sarkeesian_is_like_jack_thompson/

Do you have a different citation ?

I've read some of the Milo pieces, last one he did on Gamergate itself (in the headline) seems to be this one http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/05/04/how-gamergate-hater-and-social-justice-clown-arthur-chu-got-me-laid/ and it seems to be about bomb threats at a meet up people of Gamergate did, which coincided with strange comments on Twitter by a MAN (not a woman).

Wait, women in journalism now ? I mean, looking again at their Deepfreeze stuff, there are a few women there, but they seem to be targetted for their behavior, not their gender, and are no more or less targetted than the men on that list.

Do you have evidence that show this targetting of women in particular, and evidence as to it being done because of their gender ? Are you suggesting women cannot be held to ethical standards, because of their gender ?

You seem to talk a lot about misogyny, you realise that means hatred of women because they are women right ? No disagreeing with someone who happens to be a woman ?

Just checking.

To be fair, Facebook is still popular, but frankly, like at your timeline if you still have your account. It used to be your Timeline was your friends sharing pictures and thoughts and feelings.

Now it's mostly just the "brand" or commercial pages you liked that are showing you their latest product or "things you may like" type posts from pages you never even liked or affiliated with. The posts from your actual friends are few and far between.

For someone who preaches like you do, you sure seem to like labelling people instead of simply judging what they say based on the merit of it. You know, you don't have to agree or disagree with 100% of what a person says, just because you happen to have a different opinion on 1 subject.

Labels just serve to further fan the flames of hatred. If someone says something that is misinformed, debunk it. Next time they talk about another topic, if what they say is right and factual, agree with them. Don't hold grudges.

Got any evidence ? No articles online about your campaign has any evidence or direct quotes. It seems that a few individuals are trying to smear that movement in order to prop up their already highly profitable patreon accounts, but outside that, most news source seem to indicate that this movement cares more about disclosure in gaming media, and quite a few women and minorities seem to affiliate themselves with this movement.

Your post was downvoted for pretending people like Jenny Bharaj or Oliver Campbell are white male teenager, rather than a women and a black man.

At least be honest when you try to broadly paint a movement as something, as not to dismiss women and minorities like you did. You won't get down modded as much if you are truthful, rather than posting simple flamebait.