Getting your information about GamerGate from Gawker Media is like getting your information about the political stances of Obama from the Tea Party.

Not at all true, but this is the narrative that works for those who don't want their ethics or standards examined.

when one "side" has dedicated itself primarily to driving targeted women out of their homes; and the other "side" was driven out of their homes, doesn't work so well.

You really don't see how this stance is asinine? Ending anonymous threats on the internet is not possible.

Why can't I be mad at both?

Ah, the ole Solve-Terrorism-Then-We-Can-Fix-The-Environment argument.

Conversation about shoddy ethics in gaming journalism has been going on for years, it just blew up recently - thanks in large part to the gamergate hashtag. These things grow organically, it's not like a group of people can get together, decide to use a new hashtag and keep malicious people out.

It's a reactionary hate campaign even though the overwhelming majority of supporters don't make threats or spew hate?

So, basically: "Your argument is invalid because someone else made an anonymous threat. Stop all anonymous threats if you want your argument to be taken seriously."

Very little in your link has to do with journalism. Pay-for-play, mentioned in the link, is one of the things being brought up.

I've made it clear that no one deserves to have their safety threatened. I have no idea why you're clinging to that as your argument for why questionable journalistic ethics shouldn't be questioned.

This has been building for years. This isn't a response to a singular event.

So the genuine arguments about journalistic impropriety and transparency shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone because a couple psychopaths made threats?

I have a hard time figuring out exactly what GamerGate is or what the beliefs are, but there definitely seems to be evidence of improper relationships between game developers and reviewers, and collusion between reviewers. Kotaku is one of the sites that being criticized here.

It did peak at VI.

Romo made a lucky throw. It looked like Jason Witten was the target and the ball sailed on him. Williams made a fantastic catch.

Why does FedEx have anything to do with the Grizzlies having a much smaller TV market and overall fanbase than the Lakers? It's not the size of the nearby corporations that's relevant, it's the reach and impact of the advertisement. FedEx, UPS, and Autozone would all pay 10x as much to put their logo on a Lakers…

I came in here specifically to stare at and then comment on that picture of eggs benedict, also known as the world's greatest thing to order for breakfast at a restaurant.

People weren't using the word "apps" yet because we were still saying "applications." We were too busy dropping Es make things xtreme to come up with shorthand versions of xtra lame tech words.