That's only twitter. And it's only the non-deleted tweets.

I was there for lordkat's twitch stream (the one about IGF and Indiecade) and there was about one of these threats (or worse) every 15 seconds. Many of them using the GamerGate hashtag, of course.

Yes.

My translation program does not recognise "disvow" but I hope I know what you mean.
So: Yes.

Yes.

Or to make it easier: If you're by principle not willing to take a stance against any of those (or might even rather defend them because they are part of your "group") then my answer is yes.

To be more precise with the examples you used:

- SJW as a label suffers from the similar problem as GamerGate. It cannot be saved. So yes, to stepping away from it.

- Westboro nutjobs. If you're very vocal about being "Christian" then yes, I'd be in favour of stepping away from that label as long as no way is found to shut these nutjobs up.
Alternatevly try using very specific labels that expressively exclude the nutjob streams.
But I fear all that won't work. Didn't work for the non-extremist Muslims either.
So, just like them it might be a good time to be quiet about your religion if you don't want to be affiliated with the nutjobs.
Or maybe better find a way to shut them up or drown their voices.

- America. I'm not sure what "disvowing" a country would mean, so it is a more tentatively yes from me here.
But also here goes: Saying that what your country does is shit if your country is doing shit seems to be the right way for me. Protesting, marching on the streets when things go wrong also seems to be good from my point of view.
I don't see the need to be quiet about shit (if you don't risk your life/health/etc. by doing so).

You choose which group you belong to (well, maybe with the exception of family, I'd say ;-)). If you decide to get in with extremists don't be surprised if people judge you by that.

Edit: Spelling.

Then I'll quote/translate the neo-feminists (and make a short version) :

"You can't say you're humanist because the term doesn't name discriminations such as sexism, racism, homophobism and then the combat against those discrimations tends to be forgotten into the "big picture".

Or

"Humanism is a combat for both men and women but as long as women are still subordinated to patriarchy, we have to fight under the feminist banner"

Those neo-feminists really have an answer for everything :)

Original articles in French below (from two famous neo-fems active on twitter):
http://www.crepegeorgette.com/2014/08/06/humanisme-feminisme/
http://cafaitgenre.org/2013/09/02/arguments-anti-feministes-4-on-devrait-se-debarrasser-du-terme-feminisme/

EDIT: just had a look on the french twittoshere and they just launched two new hashtags:
#tweetlikeahetero and #tweetlikeacis (translated from French, maybe they exist in english)
I should post a facepalm GIF here.... :/

to disavow - verleugnen

Ah, sorry and thanks.
I'm making pizza and getting a toddler to sleep while typing here.
Disvow is how often misspell disown. I should have thought of disavow though.

Sorry, no French for me, regrettably.

Of course, just like the religious people. And the fanaticism can reach equal heights. I've seen tweets of German neo-feminist women stating that women should gang up in the streets and beat up every single man and cut their balls off. And those people incited each other to even more violent fantasies what they would do to men. And none of it showed the slightest hint or sign of irony or sarcasm or anything. I kind of could understand it if it were a rape victim support group, but these were "normal" educated middle-class women writing this. In public.
This type of "feminism" is actually an enemy of humanism. Humanism is about tearing down walls, those people erect them. And place barbed wire, mines and spring guns there.
I think that's my problem with Social Justice Warriors. Many of them them are first and all Warrior, and "Social Justice" ist just the banner that leads them to fame and glory. Just like the "holy" crusades. They wouldn't want to be "Social Justice Negotiators".
And it's not only feminism. You can't call bullshit on a colored person, a gay person or the Israelite or Ukrainean government, no matter how deserved, without people creeping out of their holes calling you a racist, homophobic, antisemite or Putin troll.

With this kind of hatred and trench-digging all over the place my outlook for the near future is really gloomy.

That actually sounds good.
Maybe too good.

All of them were nobody's who got a lot of free flattering publicity on the basis of claimed threats.
In the instance of Felicia I don't think she even got one. This is the news thread as it says in the title. The one with more discussion is here.
http://www.gog.com/forum/general/the_zoe_quinn_scandal_highlights_how_gaming_journalism_is_corrupt_and_has_turned_to/page110

Correct Felicia did not receive a death threat. The person pretty much just stated her address can be Googled, took 6 minutes, here it is. No malice whatsoever. But I guess its a better story if you claim death threats. As to your every 15 seconds, you are clearly exaggerating, else the screenshots would show that. Not saying there wasn't hate, but every 15 seconds of "I want to kill you" or "I want to do rape you with a tire iron" is impossible to believe. And how do you know that didn't include deleted posts? As an analytic group, they may very well have access to such?

As to group identification, your argument becomes silly. So, no point in even forming groups if the group is the worst member. No more feminists because there is an extreme few? Makes no sense, all it would take was one opposition person to fake it and the group get disbanded. Much more reasonable, is to expect members of a group to disavow the extreme actions of fringe members (or impostors if the case may be); to be willing to criticize members who go off-message. That most of Gamergate does and with regularity.
I also see you conveniently forget all the doxxing, death threats and harassment on the other side like the guy how was doxxed and sent a knife through the mail telling him to go kill himself. Doxxing has happened dozens of times now by the anti-GGers yet that is almost never reported. Nope only women matter, hence why your argument has no weight.

Here is a pretty good (but long) interview with Brianna Wu:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETVcInunAss

David Pakman has an interviewing style that is polite and respectful yet a little more confrontational than mainstream interviewers (he doesn't hold back) but Ms Wu doesn't seem to appreciate his style, particularly at the end.

Doesn't appreciate it sounds like an understatement, Mr. Pakman has gotten a lot of flack for his interview, Ms. Wu even called it a hit piece on her on twitter apparently. I find that quite interesting.


Edit: Did what I hate others doing, so here's the tweet where Mr. Pakman brings attention to my claim. https://twitter.com/davidpakmanshow/status/526803087164723200

I think she called it a hit piece to his face. It was a hard interview, no question, but i have been following him for years and whilst I don't agree with him on everything, he is consistent. In her defence, I am sure it would be difficult to go from interviewers who are on your side and asking easy questions, to an interviewer who is not afraid to ask difficult questions and disagree with his guest.

I think you will find that there are a lot of people who go on his show and then leave accusing him of doing a hit piece, being unfair, etc.

I'm going to be honest though, all I remember seeing about her was the memes that she made, and I'm still trying to figure out why she's so interesting. Still don't know who she is, I don't think she's a games journalist, and I keep hearing how she needs to 'talk' to all of these different places on why they aren't covering this or why they haven't spoken out. I'm still trying to figure out who the fuck she is and who made her so important.

Reread her post, and then reread what I wrote.

While she realizes her decision was foolish and laments the division of gamer communities, she shifts blame to gamers and GamerGate instead of the SJWs that spew divisive rhetoric and push a narrative that she openly admits wasn't true, and she tries to shame gamers into dissociating with the GG movement/hashtag.

Seriously, why isn't she speaking out against the attack articles and radical feminist narrative if her experiences with gamers were admittedly positive? Remember that GG didn't blow up until those articles. Why is she attempting to guilt the very people who apparently have embraced her as a welcome part of their communities into abandoning a cause they feel is important?

She's a game developer who was very vocally (trollishly, you might say) against gamergate on Twitter, then got harassed by some anonymous Twitter account. Then got to be on national TV. That's about all I know.

http://blueplz.blogspot.com/2014/10/whose-side-am-i-on.html

I think whatever "side" you're on, we can at least all get behind this, yes?