I've been following Gamer Gate very closely over the last couple of months. I think the movement is reaching what could be a dangerous point, and that some re-assessment of what people really hope to achieve (and can reasonably expect to achieve) should probably be considered, by all sides. Rather than starting yet another thread on the topic, I decided to post more thoughts on Gamer Gate here, since this seems to have become one of the better threads for back-and-forth on the GG topic.
Primarily in the interests of peacemaking, and in trying to de-escalate something that I think is becoming a bit dangerous, I'm going to address both the pro-GG people and the anti-GG/neutrals.
TO PRO-GG:
I understand your anger and dissatisfaction with the writers of the "Gamers are Dead" articles. I certainly understand a desire to have a gaming media that actually likes gamers. That being said, I think there's some things you need to consider:
1. Your movement has been going strong for about two solid months now. You have gained some significant victories, such as new journalism ethics guidelines on this site, and Intel pulling its ads from Gamasutra. Nonetheless, the cold hard facts are that nobody has apologized, and all of the sites you've been going after are still standing. I'm very doubtful that you can change that. The good news for your movement is that I think that major games publishers have probably heard you loud and clear. There is a shift going on from classic game journalism media to YouTube/"Let's Play" reviewers, and Gamer Gate has likely sped up that shift. However, I don't think you can do much more than that. I think at this juncture you probably have to accept that the people who wrote the "Gamers are Dead" articles, and the managers/owners of the sites that hosted them, are never going to apologize. And outright destroying a major website is no small matter, and if you had the numbers to achieve that, it probably would have happened by now. I think you might be somewhat overestimating the strength of your movement.
2. By the same token, I think you're overestimating the influence and strength of some of the people you're opposed to. Bayonetta 2 has been getting largely rave reviews, with only one exception, Polygon. This is in spite of how it was signaled out for criticism by Jonathan Mcintosh, a prominent anti-GG voice. I don't think you're ever going to get the firings/apologies/site destruction some of you would like to get. But I think you have helped make the ideological stance of these sites clear. People who agree with that stance, will continue to make use of them, and people who disagree with that stance, will go elsewhere. What that means is that these sites will be preaching to the choir, to people who are likely already inclined to dislike the games they'll be giving harsh reviews of. However obnoxious or disagreeable or overly politicized you may find these voices to be, I don't think you can completely drive them out of the industry. But you can give voice to other perspectives, and you don't need a hashtag to do it.
3. Let's suppose, just for argument's sake, that Gamer Gate actually manages to destroy Gamasutra. Even if that happens, I don't see Leigh Alexander being completely forced out of the gaming journalism industry. The fact is that she's now become a prominent name in the industry. I have little doubt she could go completely freelance, possibly with a Patreon, if she wanted to. She will likely remain in the gaming journalism industry as long as she wants to be there. I know that for GG this is probably a very bitter pill to swallow, but I'm inclined to think it's the truth. And I don't see how any consumer boycott movement can change that. She's going to have her supporters, because there are some people who share her viewpoints. They alone may well be enough, no ad money necessary. You may well just have to tolerate having these people continue to be in your industry.
I'm a big anime fan, and there are people at Anime News Network that have been openly contemptuous of some anime fans in the past. To the best of my knowledge, they never went as far as the anime equivalent of "Gamers are dead" (which would probably be "otakus are dead"), but they've come close. A lot of anime fans have just learned to ignore these people, at least insofar as they find them offensive. Perhaps those in the GG movement should make the same decision with some gaming journalists.
4. The mainstream TV media is now getting involved. The situation is escalating, well beyond your control. I think you have a numerical advantage on anti-GG (thought not anti-GG plus neutrals) at the moment, but that could change drastically and rapidly. If you lose the numerical advantage, then some of the gains you've made may well be lost, and you may well end up with a situation that's worst for you than where you started. I think one of the central ideas strengthening the GG movement is "The truth is on our side, so we will win." The problem is that Gamer Gate is an extremely complex issue at this point, which people just learning of it now would likely find daunting. There will be a temptation to listen to simple assessments of the movement, and "Hate movement" is a simple assessment.
5. There's been talk of a "nuclear solution" of boycotting the entire video game industry during the holiday season. That could easily backfire. If you don't have the numbers to take down Gamasutra, what makes you think you have the numbers to seriously hurt the video game industry in total? But suppose you actually do succeed in hurting the entire video game industry. Who's to say that your opponents won't be the people there that's picking up the pieces? Honestly, the big publishers are probably as "anti-SJW" as you can hope for, at this juncture.
6. People are in fact getting harassed. There is a lot of people hurting from this, on all sides. Simply from a humanitarian perspective, is the cost worth it? Especially when the likelihood of greater successes is dubious at best?
Taking all of this together - Maybe it's time to stop while you're ahead. You've made some gains, you've probably gained just about everything you can hope to gain (at least when it comes to what you've chosen to focus on), and there's serious risk in continuing on. And you should know that I'm sympathetic to your cause, because I believe strongly in creative freedom (my biggest personal concern with your opponents is that they may curtail that, though that concern has lessened given the reception to Bayonetta 2).
If you really do care about creative freedom, then I would suggest having more to say on Metacritic. From what I've read up on Gamer Gate and the issues surrounding it, I think Metacritic is probably what limits what gamer developers more than anything.
To Anti-GG and Neutrals.
If you truly want for Gamer Gate to end soon, then showing some understanding of where GG supporters are coming from is probably advisable. It seems very clear to me that some of the GG supporters are generally reasonable people who were deeply offended by the "Gamers are Dead" articles. You may disagree with their interpretations of those articles, but that doesn't lessen the offense they felt over them, nor does it mean that their interpretations of those articles are invalid. Personally, I've always considered "Gamer" to be a widely used term for anybody that plays video games a lot. I recall the whole "Hardcore gamers vs. casual gamers" discussions, such as in discussions over the Wii system. To have a "hardcore vs. casual" distinction, suggests that "gamer" alone includes a lot of people. So I think it should be understandable that a lot of decent, everyday people that simply enjoy playing video games a lot were deeply offended by "Gamers are Dead".
To achieve peace, diplomacy and the extending of olive branches is typically necessary. Now may be a good time to try to show understanding to GG supporters so that they can more easily ease off on the movement.
