[tptacek]

Stop moving the goalposts. The argument isn't "Thomas was totally unaware of the GamerGate debacle". It's "Thomas never accused this HN commenter of being a GamerGater, so a bunch of tweets about GamerGate aren't in any way germane to the thread".

You're the one who brought my Twitter feed into this discussion. That was a weird thing to do, but whatever; the real issue is that your argument doesn't make sense in context, except as a way of trying to generate extra drama. Instead of talking about the three examples of "radical" video game criticism, let's instead litigate all of GamerGate!

It also wasn't helpful to that commenter for you to suggest they'd been "singled out". Replying to the top comment on the thread isn't "singling someone out".

[brymaster]

No goalposts are being moved. Your relevant history on the subject is what was being pointed out. I think you know exactly why and it doesn't have anything to do with "generating" drama.

[tptacek]

It sounds to me like you're disturbed that I don't like GamerGaters, and so are inclined to dismiss anything I have to say about Sarkeesian. That's fine, but it's a pretty boring point to make, and it's not an actual argument, because it doesn't engage with the substance of what I said.

If you have a real point to make, do it directly, instead of by insinuation.

[brymaster]

Actually was disturbed that you felt 'exstudent2 should craft the conversation around whatever you want instead of his valid points about who this new Twitter committee associates with.

[tptacek]

I think if you reread the (now dead) thread, you'll see that's not at all what I did. My first comment on the thread didn't appear until after that commenter had already dug into examples of speech he found objectionable from Sarkeesian.

It's pretty clear to me where you're coming from now, so I'll leave it there. Thanks.