Well there aren't really any communists anymore so I think we need to adjust it so it has a more relative meaning. I'm pretty sure most of these people would be considered left-wing on a political compass test. They're just heavily authoritarian, that's perhaps the key factor.

Exactly, think how controlling the far religious right attempted to be once upon a time.  They act and behave in very similar fashion.

there are alot of far left people in europe, communists, anarchists... and not so far left, socialist.

"progessivs" are not just authoritarian, they are for a classbased society and for more rights for people because of their race and/or their gender. that has nothing to do far left.

Something to eat. It sounds tasty. I want to devour it.

There were a lot of mysgonisistic and harrasing tweets in gamergate. That wasn't it's oringal purpose, arguably, but it was a movement that got hijacked by mysognists. 

Unfortunately, Women, Action Media's Report completely refutes and debunks this claim.  Try again.  In every area of the internet, you will find people willing to sling mud, this is well documented.  Youtube, News Sites, etc..  Twitter is no different.  People being assholes isn't a gaming problem, it's a people problem.  To claim an entire hashtag, or movement, is 'taken over' by X, when a few random tweets here and there (which can be posted by anyone), coming from sock puppet, or throw away accounts, or accounts from known internet trolls (aka, not aligned with anyone really, just out there to shit on people, aka Ayy Group, Baphomet etc...), is absurd.  Again, according to the WAM report, these instances of stupidity only account for an incredibly small percentage (less than 1%) of individuals/tweets, using the GG hashtag.

 Then again, critical analysis and discussion are considered 'mysogny' at this point, which is why many folks against GG, refuse to discuss it like adults.  Retreating instead, behind blockbots to be comfortable in their echo chambers.  Their complete absence from the SPJ Airplay event was quite embarrassing, especially since Lynn Walsh, who helped write the code of ethics, agreed that of the examples produced by the GG Panel, all 3 were clear ethics violations.

If you want my opinion, the thing that's being lost here is you have the general public reacting to what most of us who've been online for years have already known.  There are trolls everywhere, and the best recourse is to ignore the trolls, do not feed their desire to create strife.  It's what they do, it's what they want, their intent is to piss people off and sit back and watch the chaos.  On almost any forum, we're told to ignore the trolls and the mods will take care of it.  The problem here is it's difficult to moderate a social media system that allows anonymity, and any number of accounts.  Unless we somehow come to a worldwide agreement to end anonymity online, there's absolutely nothing that we can do to stop it.  The only solution is to identify, ignore and educate.  Identify the trolls, educate the masses, ignore the trolls, then hopefully a reasoned and thoughtful discussion on the issues can happen.  But slandoring an entire group of people (whether it's a particular gender, gamers, casuals, etc...) will never result in the outcome you're hoping for. 

And if the media had actually investigated it professionally, rather than jumping at any kind of sensational scare-mongering headline they could find, we'd all have a much better idea of to what extent those kinds of tweets were from longtime gamergate supporters, or just third party troll accounts.

Some people were saying it's impossible to know either way and that that's just a necessary limitation of a hashtag movement. I think that's just incorrect. It would've been perfectly within the power of a big media organisation to do serious statistical studies on the hashtag.

So for example, you could take a random sample of these "harassment" tweets and rank them based on how well the accounts of their origin were networked with other long-time gamergate supporters. So if you've got these harassing tweets coming from accounts that are well connected across the movement, so if they're being followed by people like Sargon, Milo, Mark Kern, Totalbiscuit etc etc (the big names around the subject), then that's a legitimate criticism that the movement is at least inadvertently supporting harassment. Whereas if most of these harassing tweets come from fairly new twitter accounts that have very little connection to the rest of the movement, that's fairly easy to detect, and points clearly to third party trolls.

I've observed the movement fairly loosely but consistently since its origin. In my opinion, about 95% of the "harassment" falls into the latter category and only about 5% comes from serious gamergate supporters (which would put it as no more extreme than pretty much every other movement out there, all of which contain a small minority who take it too far)

The 2 articles on VGChartz are excellent.