badgenome said:
I think it's implied. There's a socially responsible side, and there's a bunch of reactionary harassers. Fox causes harm; the Guardian doesn't. So it's okay for the author to write a piece about how "morons" are crowdfunding an anti-Sarkeesian documentary, but I suspect that he'd see the same invective being bandied about regarding Sarkeesian supporters as encouraging harassment. In these sorts of tribalistic affairs anyone from your side who does something reprehensible is an outlier, but anyone from the other side who does it is indicative of the whole. What's innocuous when you do it is often threatening when someone else does. |
I think whats more eluded to here is that there isn't harrasment and threats coming from their side. That maybe is an ignorant stance, but we certainly haven't seen a lot of it in the media, nor have we seen people from that side dismissing or cosigning that behaviour. Even in the case of Boogie2988 , from what he tweeted there was no direct correlation between the threats and gamergate opponents. The video the comment was posted in response to was actually opposing people on both sides of the fence. In opposite cases people have threatened and harrassed the likes of Anita S and very clearly aligned themselves with Gamergate.
