>>932327Seems like you're the brainlet here. That letter says exactly what I said.
Quinn writes that her fucking five guys is not something that should be reported because it is private and not really newsworthy.
>I'm not going to give the bullshit "journalism ethics" excuse for these attacks the time of dayIf there were any evidence for some journalism ethics violations, this would be something to be alarmed by, but the point is there is very little to no evidence of journalism ethics violations.
The brainlet gamergate logic is
1. They're all speaking out against the harassment.
2. They're not speaking about corruption in gaming journalism.
3. This means corruption in gaming journalism is real.
4. This means we are right to harass them.
Forgetting that there is no evidence of the corruption of the reviews-for-sex corruption they were alleging.
The ED article is 95% about the media's reaction, framing it as ridiculous and that it would have all gone away if they had just admitted wrong in the first place. The problem, is that there was no wrong to admit. Some girl fucked five guys, that's really all there is to it.
I have yet to see any evidence of "a shitload of collusion and favor trading for shilling of each other's games and organizations".
That is the premise on which all of gamergate is based, and without that premise it all falls apart exposing the schizo seethe that it was.
And gamergaters got owned spectacularly. They made Zoe Quinn and Sarkeesian more popular, they accelerated the SJWing of games, and they drove shitloads of traffic to gaming websites.
