Male dev / journo fucks up=outrage
Female dev / journo fucks up=outrage

And what is so unequal about this?

I have to say, these kinds of disingenuous statements are really frustrating. By now you know that there have been stupid threats like that coming from the worst elements of both sides, and yet you're only willing to acknowledge those of the one side to justify your opposition as though both weren't equally guilty of the exact same things.

Like that time those on "your side" found the #notyourshield creator and got him fired from his job, or any number of other things a bunch of us have actual evidence of. You seem to dwell in this thread solely to frustrate people by feigning a certain amount of open-mindedness, only to instantly snap back to this deliberately manichean "GG are harassers" narrative as though it were an objective truth, paying no mind to the fact that being engaged respectfully here by those with differing opinions is itself strong evidence that said narrative is false (or at least overly simplistic).

Enraged? Who's enraged? I'm enjoying this as an intellectual exercise, a chance to practice and develop my debating skills, nothing more..
*edit* OK, OK, maybe a little impassioned, because I care passionately about some of this stuff but not enraged, there's a difference!

And the AAA / Indie dichotomy rather than the male / female one? Under the GG flag specifically?

How long have AAA been under fire? ages. are they still? naturally.

and no anitas side doesn't allow criticism either.
just today, mcintosh blocked me. why? he was shitting on anime, stating it only featured girls in little clothing, so i tweeted a picture of kamina, who as usual only wears pants, with the quote "not really". Blocked (attached the image i sent so you can see how horrible it was)
Blocked
Blocked
Blocked
and then the antis say we don't want discussion
but we want to disc-BLOCKED

Let's address this point by point.

My definition of censorship is the actual definition of censorship. The same as used by the American Civil Liberties Union. If anyone needs to buy a dictionary, it is you. But this point has been debated already, no point in rehashing it.

Voicing of opinions. You are again wrong. Not all voicing of opinions is censorship, but when one's "having a voice" is intended to effect the removal of content or the content as a whole, it is seeking censorship. When it succeeds, as in the GTA V petition, it is censorship. Rather ironic and hypocritical that you claim we are trying to silence your voice when you have silenced the voices of Rockstar, Obsidian, and it's $500 Kickstarter backer....

Overreact, stomp feet, yada yada. Who's the one stomping his feet? Pot meet kettle. You only call it an overreaction because you disagree. There is a difference.

Next paragraph. Again, whether one agrees or not, there is a difference between complaining about what one is not getting and complaining in a way that is intended to remove a game in whole or in part. Who gives you the right to decide for everyone else, what they should or should not be allowed to purchase?

And in the end, a great deal of strawmanning. It is a bit ironic that all this "harassment" started over an admitted Helldump user who has repeatedly been involved in situations where doxxing has been employed. Such as TFYC, where the head of the organization was doxxed by one of Zoe Quinn's followers who happened to be working for Destructoid at the time. In fact its rather ironic for someone who has been so "harassed" that Zoe Quinn, even during her "ordeal" kept going after people with her Twitter mob, such as attacking the Escapist for their choice of developers to interview. In fact, if you look at organized anti-GG Twitter mobs, the 3 biggest ringleaders seem to be Zoe Quinn, Arthur Cho and Brianna Wu.

And for the record, you keep getting this wrong even after being corrected, her game was not Freeware, it was Pay What You Want and would have been for pay on Steam, but Zoe Quinn couldn't figure out a good way to include microtransactions.

You should have sent him a picture of Balalaika from Black Lagoon.
Its evident he doesn't watch much anime.

AAA devs do BS, they get backlash
Indie devs do BS, they get backlash

Now that is some top rate equality if ya ask me!

In other news, Leigh Alexander oppressed by a pack of cards : http://www.reaxxion.com/8564/sjws-turn-their-guns-on-cards-against-humanity

take all the mean cards out of cards against humanity (name might be an indication?) and you get left with 2 black and 3 white cards which aren't even funny in combo

And perfectly retarded; just like their accusers.

I guess Wil Wheaton will not be on that train:

Cards against Humanity

I actually agree that, while I haven't played it, Cards Against Humanity seems potentially mildly hilarious but on the subject of Reaxxion - what a non-story! 'Review team doesn't like thing they're reviewing despite the fact that it's popular shocker!'
Barry Norman didn't like Bill and Ted all those years ago but I loved it and it spawned a sequel and a comic book - these things happen

*edit* in case it wasn't obvious, Barry Norman I / was (is he still alive?) the British Roger Ebert

You know he said ENGAGED right?

At any rate, it's pretty hard to organize a protest whenever a bomb threat get called in to such things. Or is that your idea of civilized protest?

CLOAK ENGAGED

*facepalm* OK my face red - let us never speak of this again! Pwease?

Ok then, let's maybe try to go further on the aspect of harassment ok? I'm going to try and help you get your points across. I hope you're going to be somewhat surprised with the outcomes.

From your post, there's not a lot about what constitutes harassment. Though it's clear you think there is substantial harrassment. You exposed more on why you find the harassment a manifestation of certain political or sociological currents, which I'd love to debate, but not in this thread. Later, elsewhere, maybe... been there, done that ;)

Here's what Google popped up on harassment = agressive pressure or intimidation.
Here's a more legal definition of harassment = the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands.

Which of these do you want to focus on? Both together is fine. Just note how they don't overlap perfectly. You can have legal harassment without meeting the broader requirement, ergo non-agressive and not-intimidating but unwanted and annoying stuff. You can have non systematic or sporadic harassment which won't be illegal.