Great, then.

As you may know, since we've both been in the forums for a while, I'm Basque and pro independence. As you may also know, there's a Basque pro independence terrorist group. I've been exposed to constant "whatver, you guys kill" as respond to any and all argument for years, regardless of what I or other non-terrorists may say, and it's fucking annoying. This is why this particular approach irks me a lot and I just had to post.

I guess I'll now just leave again. Bur for the record, I'll say I agree with your repeatedly stated stance of not mob lynching without proof. There are indeed people who love to jump the gun.

#GamerGate is explicitly about silencing feminist or progressive opinions in specific media. It is very concerned about, at present count, four specific women. Someone who supported or agreed with one of those women could not be a part of gamergate, it would not make sense. Someone who is supportive of free opinion mongering in games media, whether that opinion was offensive or not, could not participate in gamergate's targeted letter writing campaigns, which many gamergaters have claimed is the core of their organization. If gamergate legitimately was an organization concerned about journalistic ethics, then why does it not attract people concerned with ethics or journalism that are outside the gamer sphere?

#GamerGate is a closed movement. It requires that members have anti-feminist or anti-progressive views to participate. It requires adherence to it's odd leaderless and statement void form of activism. It demands a leap of thinking that twists a voluntary autoblock list into the denial of free speech. A gamergate member is part of a very specific group with some goals that might be hazy and unfocused, but are always about silencing specific opinions. One thing that's not required actually is an interest in games.

Hey, I'm not Basque, but am pro Basque independence as well, it was quite a big issue when I was younger but seems to have moved out of the public eye in Australia since. I was also pro East Timor independence and am pro West Papua independence. It is a major problem with those kind of movements and oppressive governments take great joy in lumping everyone together in one group.

My only point is, if someone is a member of a pro independence terrorist group, they should accept that membership means that they supporting doing some pretty bad things, even though they may consider it to be for the greater good. That doesn't mean that all people who are also pro independence, are also terrorists, however.

Anyway, all the best
But you can have those views and still tweet using the gamergate hashtag, can you not? In that sense it is very open, isn't it?

hmmm.... what gamergate are you talking about? Because the one I've read about on this is not trying to silence anything. It does seem to care about labeling opinions as opinions, that is true, but I haven't felt them wanting to prevent those opinions from being published. And I'd say people outside of the gaming sphere concerned with ethics and journalism have much, much bigger fish to fry to concern themselves with this. I like Pascual Serrano's criticism of the media, for instance, but I'd be disappointed if he spent time on this matter. All things considered, it's just not such a big deal, IMO.
Ok, that's plain not true. #GG is open, anybody can join (or claim to join) without any kind of requirements. If I had a twitter account, I could send a twitter labeled #GG and suddenly I'm a gamergater or whatever they're called. That's the very definition of an open movement. Everything else you say is just your generalized perception of a broad group of people, and that doesn't make you gain any points.

How is tweeting a hashtag an admission of membership though? Aren't twitter hashtags supposed to be the conversation, both for and against? If someone defends Zoe Quinn using the #gamergate hashtag, that certainly doesn't make them a member. If someone defends Zoe Quinn but then claims they support gamergate, wouldn't they be fooling themselves?

The "gamers are over" opinions. Or the opinion that Depression Quest is worth noting.

It's made news. What possible reason could someone interested in ethics and journalism have to dismiss it? Small or niche samples don't mean small reasons.

Again, talking about the movement and followers not simply the twitter conversation. If gamergate has no requirements, then what part of gamergate represents those that hold progressive of feminist views?

No, but those defending Brianna or Zoe or Anita, almost always link one of their hashtags to the post showing their affiliation..

That is true. How do you know someone is a member of #GG though and how are, feminists for example, prevented from participating?

Not sure what you mean. Are you saying the use of a twitter hashtag is an admission of affiliation?

Most of the time. Pro-Gamergaters tend to use the Gamergate or Notyourshield tags to show off the brilliant arguments in their own minds. And the followers of anti-GG figures tend to use the person they are following's tag to show what kind of "White Knights" they are being. Because, much of the time, Twitter isn't used to discuss anything important. It seems to be more used to show off one's own side. And what's the point of showing off if you aren't linking to one's own side's echo chamber...

It's either that or they re-tweet or link their response after the fact. Either way, it's not hard to see who thinks they belong to a given side.

Do they claim to support gamergate? Do they advocate actions that are considered part of the gamergate movement?

How does a feminist participate in pro-gamergate activity? What would that look like? What could be a feminist twist on gamergate's goals?

I think the critics were more in line of "are they stupid?" or "how dare they insult me!" than "you should not be allowed to do that".
Because it really is not a big deal. I words of one of those "gamers are dead" articles, this is all "because videogames". Let's face it, games are not considered highly. Nobody really cares. In this world, there are much more important battles that need to be fought and I'd rather have these people fighting those. Sure, they could make an offhand comment, but I'd respect more someone who shuts up on a topic not fully understood, than someone who comments with half assed knowledge. In fact if you only half assed knowledge and then complain about people not taking journalism seriously, there's something quite wrong there.
First, I still don't understand what progresive even means. People keep using that word, but I don't think it means what they think it means. I'd really like if somebody explained that to me, that may be worth posting about. As for feminism, many people appear to consider it monolithic when in fact there are many opinions within it. Not understanding that, and not being one following the whole matter closely, I'll have to pass on pointing to specific parts; but I dare say if I now try my new spell "Summon gamergater with progressive or feminist views" someone will pop up.

But more to the point is, anybody who considers themselves part of #GG is already part of #GG, there is nobody double checking entries to make sure that a feminist doesn't come in. That's what I mean for open. Nobody can ensure your entry, and nobody can ensure you're kicked out. There's no list of official gamergate people anywhere, and even the tag itself means different things for different people. How is that closed?

A feminist could potentially say I think Grayson was having an affair with Zoe Quinn and should have disclosed his relationship when he mentioned Depression Quest in an article he wrote?

So what side are people taking in a sports hashtag like #ChampionsLeague?
So when Kotaku rejects the timing of the affair and says it wasn't a disclosure issue, a feminist's reply would be what then?

Christina Hoff Sommers is a feminist and very influential, has been for a very long time. There are also plenty of feminists in NotYourShield. The difference is most of those fall into the "equality feminism" camp. In fact, that branch of feminism is far more progressive than the camp of feminism associated with anti-GG. Equality feminists generally don't have an issue with so-called objectification or displayed sexuality as this form of expression can be considered empowering to women.

This other branch is more in line with Dworkin and MacKinnen and believes in advancing women's rights by force. They consider sexuality as demeaning to women. That it is some form of subservience to men. They are more on the fringe. If you really are interested, it shouldn't be too hard to search out more information on the subject.

Then why to campaigns to end their sponsors?

You could be ostracized couldn't you? You could be shouted down? You could be called a shill? Dogpiled? It's not as if gamergate participation happens in too many places. Each of them allow for moderated replies.