I'd rather not, because my perspective on the matter would differ greatly from your own, as comes with the territory of being on the receiving end of forming opinions based on sparse information as apposed to, in the latters case, personal experience.

I'll just leave it at this, I can see why you would choose to defend them based on what you know, and that's perfectly fine.

The real issue I present isn't the topics which most of these sites cover, we can all agree that sexism and racism is an issue that needs to be address, it is however a topic geared towards providing insight on to the corruption involved with both the games industry and the media that covers it, and how both use underhanded and in some cases illegal means to shape public opinion and reception.

I agree with this statement, but I don't think it applies to a lot of the controversial discussion happening around gaming in the last few months/years. I don't think your position is wrong, but I feel like this is an issue in discussion. Where is the right place to bring up criticism? There appear to be a fair number of internet users of the opinion that there is no correct venue to criticize gaming's social impact/what it reflects about us. Whereas I think gaming media is the appropriate place to do it.

People on the internet really like to seek out any criticism that exists and make it their problem. For example, on any set of metacritic reviews for a well liked movie and see where all the comments are (probably the few negative reviews).

Seeing as the question of the harrasment of Quinn and Sarkeesian is a basic question of the rules of public behaviour in democratic society - completely unrelated to, say, gossip within your line of work; or who was mean to who in the office; or at the gameslam; or whatever - I fail to see how your insider info would render you incapable of having an opinion.

But I can't very well force you to share it.

It just seems a bit odd to offer your opinion in the first place about "a woman" and the reaction to her, and the medias reaction to that, unless you're willing to have a discussion about it, or tell us in more detail what you're on about? Why the secrecy?

The true solution isn't a venue, the true solution is a correction to the way we educate that isn't to say the current generations are a lost cause, but no amount of discussion is going to change the opinion of someone dead set on treating a particular gender, ethnic group or sexualty the way they believe they should be treated, instead we combat it through education and over time the prelivance is reduced by dilution.

The same can be done with game development in place of generations of children, supporting the indies of today that strive to approach these issues with respect and dignity, will create the AAA studios of tomorrow that hold on to those same qualities, ultimately the way of achieving that however is to take the power out of games medias hands and put it firmly in the hands of those that want this change, and millions of gamers do, regardless of their gender.

By making a huge scandal out of the issue as the media tends to do, you force people to pick a side, and when that side is chosen one side provails while the other d underground, in effect, sweeping the real issue under the rug.

The other issue, one that nobody seems to take into account, is that in doing all of this high profile coverage, soapboxing and provocation, the message you are sending to women across the world who are victims of abuse, assult, rape or otherwise, that if they speak out then they will be met with the same tirade of hatred and disgust when that simply isnt the case, again, the actions of the few should not be branded as the attitudes of the many.

Rubs me the wrong way too. And I agree the representation of sex is largely better now than it had been, and there are more avenues to encourage progress positively in this and other games addressing similar issues than ever.
Thanks!

Then let me put it more clearly, I know Zoe on a personal level, as such my opinion of the matter is private.
Beyond it being private, it would simply end up a case of disagreement in opinions, regardless of the catalyst driving them.

Mine isn't (yay) she came across as a snooty self absorbed asshole to me.

Can't believe you went there, lmao

Yeah, what I'm saying though is that the matter of the harassment of Quinn and Sarkeesian is a basic question of the rules of public behaviour in democratic society. Spelling it out: anonymous threats and harassment by internet mobs are not permissible behaviour outside 4chan.org. That's something which anyone is capable of having an opinion about - whether they know Quinn, work with Quinn, love Quinn, hate Quinn. Skin in the game is (should) be imaterial to the basic principle.

And again, unless you're talking about Quinn, unless you're talking about Sarkeesian... What is the point in bringing up "a woman" and refusing to detail exactly what you're talking about? Seeing how Sarkeesian and Quinn are the two big controversies which seem to fit the situation you described, isn't that just a recipee for confusion unless you're gonna tell us what you're referring to?

You seem to just want the topic to be about either of them, it isn't lets leave it at that.
Just as people have a right to free speech they also have a right to privacy.

If you'd like to discuss either of them specifically, I would suggest making a thread.