Maybe I understood something wrong since the sentence is quite long,
but did you just imply that #NotYourShield harrassed Tim or that Tim has to fear being harrassed by them when he ridicules them on a stage in front of those business yuppies?
(Which he did without any justification/reason whatsoever btw, they've done nothing to him or anyone.)

Where has he been harrassed? Proof please.

No, I was giving a reason why Tim would support Anita generally,because that's what was asked
I said some stuff specifically about #NotYourShield back here:

http://www.gog.com/forum/general/the_gamergate_news_thread/post1946

I dunno, maybe if i was writing that again now, maybe my stance would have softened SLIGHTLY but, meh, still covered as far as I'm concerned

I agree with the fact that western feminism has lost its way. Seems obvious after you realize unfortunately. Anyhow; I'm not responsible for what my 2nd keyboard says........

''Proof? Yah how much proof does it take to convince a gamergater? One! You know what the problem is? Anti-GG doesn't have ANY proof!''

OK since you've asked and now you've made me think (damn you) Tim's joke was based on the irony that #NotYourShield is called that because they're TOTALLY GG's shield - the group GG can point at and say 'Look our group is totally legit because we have this group of women and minorities supporting us (or making it clear that they don't support the other side at least)' despite the fact that there were plenty of women who campaigned AGAINST suffrage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_National_Anti-Suffrage_League
or that ISIS can inspire school girls to travel half the globe to join them or the fact that Sarah Palin and Margaret Thatcher are people (or WERE in Maggie's case, thank goodness) so it proves nothing anyway

Thinking about it, the consensus that the sock puppet itself represented #NotYourShield is a huge assumption because it could have just as easily represented the dummy accounts that every GGer seems to think that every Anti-GGer, such as Tim, have to hand in case they need death threats made against them because of some lack of publicity-related emergency, because THAT's not paranoid *rolls eyes in sickeningly Anita-like way*

I think you didn't quite grasp the idea behind #NotYourShield.
Those are people that don't want to be used against their will by some hate movement for which the end always justifies the means. Many of them do support #GG openly out of their own free will and are making clear, that they can make up their own minds and minorities are not supposed to be used (as shields) in the typical "Think about the children!"-way.
People (fem freq, etc...) claiming that they are speaking for others and not only for themselves are either deluded, megalomaniac and without any respect for the groups they are using without even asking or simply manipulative liars without any respect at all.

If they would want to be a shield for the group that didn't force them into this position, I wouldn't see a problem (some of them do), but it's mostly about not being used as a shield by someone/something they don't approve of anyway.

Most people don't even see one of the main problems at hand:
There are very loud people at large who claim to be speakig for all feminists and too many just say "Ok, if they say so." and some feminists think "Oh, so that's what I stand for now, ok, no problem."
While Hoff Summers for example is just saying, that they are only speaking for themselves.
Of course she gets attacked and mentioned as "not a feminist" if she disaggrees with the yuppies and hipsters claiming to be the leaders now.
Leaders of a movement which claims to fight for diversity, is anybody seeing the irony? Anybody at all?

How much are you willing to be Anita is going to make an appearance at E3?

Remember the whole thing with her being a consultant for EA/DICE's Mirror's Edge 2?

Only if you're operating under the assumption that everyone in GG is white and male and those in NYS aren't a part of it. The point isn't to be a shield. The point is that they are GG every bit as much as the rest of us. It apparently never dawned on you or the others I've seen claim this bit of irony that it'd be ridiculous to say that someone's a shield for themselves.

Want to talk about ironic? How about the side that's constantly complaining about the "agency" of characters in games denying it to a group of real-life women and minorities by assuming that they're being used and just too stupid to see it (see: your Anti-Suffrage League quip) instead of accepting that they can make their own decisions. Good decisions based on facts and evidence and not at all impacted by a room full of plotting evil white men, even. Imagine that.

Well either she's lying about being a gamer NOW... OR she was lying about not being a gamer THEN *shrugs* dunno 50/50 at best, maybe she was embawassed to admit to being a gamer to that audience?
But it sheds doubt and she definitely lied at SOME point - I'll give you that!

That's just her modus operandi, you never know when she is lying if it serves her PR.

More lies revealed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSoDEA6yw24

I don't like capitalists, I don't like liars and I sure as hell don't like capitalistic liars.

"Actually, it's about ethics in game journalism"

==> So while USA looks more about some feminists VS mra stuff, there has been a mini shitstorm in the French gaming community due to a press tour in Japan for the release of Bloodborne (due in 2 weeks). A photo was taken where various French journos were gathered at a local restaurant:
https://twitter.com/Le_J_A_M/status/576419833916583936

This led to some kind of Doritosgate where one of the chief-editor started a damage-controling thread about "offered" press tours and saying that they have nothing to do with one notorious yellow game journo who was at the same table and don't want to be associated with him (hum, even if they do the same thing in this matter):
http://www.gamekult.com/forum/topic-a-propos-des-voyages-de-presse-825054n.html

Good find, my friend. Great to know that the international folks are also fighting this fight, don't want to put up with these crap standards. France is a strange place because the video game industry and journalism have always been very closely weaved, and I certainly don't want to see the ability to make games stunted there as it is here by these morons.

The really ironic thing about #NotYourShield is the fact that if you look a little deeper into SocJus and SJWs in general, the majority of them are white men (certainly on the journalist side). If anything, #NotYourShield just highlighted what is a very obvious truth, that many millennial hipsters suffer from crippling levels of race/class/gender guilt, largely instilled in them by new-age thinkers and progressive types in academia, who are at fault for using text books and class rooms as a pulpit to expand and deliver their political agendas. Once pushed into a crowd-chanting 'we fight for women's rights' it suddenly becomes like professional wrestling where the bad guy has to make fun of the good guy's mom in order to rile up the audience. And at that point saying the wrong thing can get you ostracized, shunned, or in some cases, beaten half to death. A great many people out there are now calling open season on freedom of speech. For some partisans out there it's like garlic to their vampire. They hate it and want it as far away from them as possible.

#NotYourShield just showcases quite clearly the hypocrisy of upper class white liberalism. I'm a white man, but if I wasn't, I wouldn't want those pretentious snobs trying to advocate for me or my beliefs. And it's sad to me to see so many so easily take the bait-and-switch. Opportunists will always try to ride waves of emotional reactions. It can be a very profitable tactic to those observant enough to co-opt the crowd's mood. Preachers and salesmen have been doing it forever.

Sorry, your plutocracy doesn't even have a 'left', certainly not a 'far left'. What happens within this extremely narrow all right wing political spectrum, or what is described from the lens of that extremely narrow political spectrum, or any kind of infighting within this system, is certainly none of my concern, I'm very sorry.

Individual, international developer, academic, journalist, feminist and consumer stances on diversity in video games are attacked and viewed together as attacks or insults by a single group, nay, a single person, THE social justice warrior, in order to serve as a better reason for running amok. That's the thing that keeps gamergate going, that epic smokescreen.

Pressing a narrow political belief system on elementary motifs in storytelling, which in one form or another have been with us since the ancient Greeks, is gamergate's excuse number one to go to war. Then there's the desperate attempt at finding 'collusion' everywhere. Witch hunt 101.

Yes, I find everyone going with the SJW conspiracy bullshit to be a person devoid of intelligence, or especially vicious, or both.

Calling a video game critic out as a "charlatan", as a developer, is extreme, no damn doubt about it. Chmielarz is firmly on an opportunist side of this. But Chmielarz makes games that gamergate people like Davis Aurini hate to the core, calling games that focus 'too much' on storytelling to be acts of parasite SJW, a mockery of the art of gaming. Chmielarz' pandering to gg will bite him in the ass eventually, I am very sure of it.

As to his three part strawman evaluations of video game criticsm, yawn. His basic position is that Sarkeesian says games were bad and essentially unplayable if they contained the damsel trope. Guy didn't pay attention.

Should the day come when GG wants him to bite the dust, make sure to look up the video of his 'holy grail of storytelling' video with that image in which the player is portrayed as a chimp pretending to play with handpuppets that are actually controlled by the game developer. GG gamers love that stuff. They get all nicely insulted by that.