Just because you're not paying attention doesn't mean it isn't happening
No, really, it isn't happening. People here who are pro-GamerGate are not, when they claim it's anti-corruption in journalism, giving examples. That's why I asked for examples.
And you're clearly ignoring the evidence when you claim that Nathan Grayson "did not do anything unethical in return" meaning I'm wasting my time replying to you
You're wasting your time writing stuff like that because you're claiming he did something unethical without explaining what.
In case you missed it, and clearly you did, the core GamerGate complaints started with journalists that were giving money to the developers they were supposed to be covering
Again, no examples. For fuck sake, all I asked for were examples.
There was the discovery of the "journo-list", a mailing list where gaming journalists were collaborating and conspiring to turn this into an issue about misogyny instead of corruption - you know, exactly what happened!
"There was the discovery of"... occurred rather a long time later. And it doesn't make much sense unless you're implying that said journalists infiltrated GamerGate and started dropping the term SJW everywhere, perhaps pretending it meant "Standard Journalist who is Whoring themselves" rather than "Social Justice Warrior".
The reason people are using SJWs as a pejorative is A) because it IS and B) the journalists who were caught saw that they could exploit the SJW crowd and get them to completely drown out the complaints
I hate to tell you this but this comes across both as a bizarre and utterly ridiculous conspiracy theory (the corrupt journalists ganged up and made it sound like a social justice issue to people not involved in the discussion?), and also as dodging the question.
All I asked for is for those people making the claim that this is about journalism to do the same thing that the people making the claim that this is about misogyny to do the same thing: to quote examples. And I pointed out that the fact that in this thread, they've chosen not to do so, and that this is hurting their argument.
It is. Responding to me saying "It is too about journalism and you're a poopy head because you haven't been reading enough of what we've written elsewhere" isn't helpful. It hurts your claim.