GamerGate became a thing--and even before then.  I suggest you head on over to Breitbart.com and read Milo's articles on the subject since he entered the arena without any dog in the hunt.  He was a quasi-failed entrepreneur who essentially returned to his journalism roots after his business difficulties.  But if you choose not to do so I'll still try to demonstrate what the situation *actually is* rather than what the mainstream media has told you what it is.

The first step in this whole debacle came a few years back when Jack Thompson infamously lobbied for video games to fall under some form of censorship agency due to what he cited as insidious effects on the minds of our youth with all of the violence and rampant disregard for all of the things that keep society humming.  His claims that video games somehow promote socially unacceptable behavior in a real world context were haphazardly disproven, but when he was llobbying for the creation of a red pen over the video games industry literally every single video game entity in the world united, lock-step against him and fought back with everything they could manage.  They did win, but it felt like a close-run thing at the time (I know; I was a small part of it and I'm not given to histrionics).  But what came from this was the collective understanding that this wouldn't be the last time the video game industry and community would face accusations of this nature, so in a sense the seed was planted and it grew for the better part of a decade following Thompson's defeat.  Video games were left to operate essentially within a free market, and they've continued to grow to the point that they now out-sell Hollywood movies on an annual basis.  Go ahead and google it if you like; they're that big of a deal.

The first thing is that Sarkeesian (who, I must firmly correct you, is not, has not been, nor will ever be a gamer) was very publicly acting distraught about being unable to make her speaking engagements (which, I might also add, only became a possibility for her AFTER she entered the arena of video games to criticize the medium, its products, and those who consume them).  She actually pulled out of several engagements citing fear for her safety, though none of the investigations conducted by campuses where she threatened to, or actually did, pull out of a prearranged engagement revealed situations where they felt it necessary to do more than assign her a personal security guard, which isn't really all that unusual for controversial speakers (as Christina Hoff Sommers can attest).

The second thing that needs to be understood is the nature of how this whole thing kicked off.  So I'll give a little history lesson :-)  This whole GamerGate situation began when Zoe Quinn released a game called Depression Quest which, according to all but one person I've spoken to who actually played the game, was downright dreadful and probably didn't even qualify as a game but rather as an interactive novel of some kind.  The topic was, naturally, psychological depression and examining some of the things people do to themselves, their lives, and those around them when depressed.  But the game itself was horrific, according to the people who played it, and yet it got rave reviews from one of the most powerful games review sites in the world and so a whole slew of people went out, got the game, played it, and were so disgusted with what they felt was a misrepresentation on the part of the supposedly dispassionate reviewers that they decided to dig around and figure out how this reviewer could have gotten it so wrong.

Well, it turns out that Zoe Quinn was having a sexual relationship with one of the prominent figures at the games review site, and a little more digging revealed actual coordinated efforts on the part of this person and colleagues in the field to promote the game because they thought it was an important subject and they knew it would need a little help to get exposure.  This is where the first bit of proverbial feces hit the air circulation system.

Fast forward a bit to Anita Sarkeesian, who leaps into the fray (after publicly declaring herself to be nothing of a video game player during a college presentation on themes in video games, even going so far as to say that she had to spend several weeks researching video games in order to understand the terminology and landscape of the industry; this is all on YouTube for you to peruse at your leisure) ostensibly to defend Zoe Quinn against what she and the people who had attempted to promote her game were terming misogyny and bigotry.  Understand that the people who had the bully pulpit to start this issue were the very game-centric websites which had proven to be corrupt (there was a whole cascade of information brought to light, including an email where major personalities at these games journalism sites secretly tried to determine how to essentially circumvent the free market in bringing what they thought were important issues to the table), and those same games journalists IMMEDIATELY began declaring that anyone who criticized them was a misogynistic, neckbeard, basement-dweller--and THEN the games journalists circulated a slew of articles declaring that gamer culture was dead, and that the aforementioned neckbeards needed t oget over it.

Understand that, until this point, you have NOTHING coming from the consumer side of the argument except, "We want journalistic integrity, meaning primarily objective analysis, in our games journalism.  We don't want agendas forced down our throats; this is a hobby and a lifestyle, so please just report facts objectively and let us make up our own minds."  But right about the time the 'Gamers are dead!' articles hit the e-presses was when the consumers rolled up their sleeves and decided that things were only going to keep going in the direction they had gone if they didn't stand up for themselves.

Back to Sarkeesian for a second.  She has a YouTube channel called Feminist Frequency, and she started a Kickstarter campaign where she asked for I think $6,000 to create a series of videos criticizing sexism in video games.  She received like $150,000 for the campaign, owing primarily to her entering the debate about Zoe Quinn and hurling accusations of bigotry and hatred of women at the people who disliked Quinn's game, Depression Quest.  She routinely crows about this massive amount of money she raised whenever she speaks on campuses about whatever it is she chooses to speak about, which often includes video games but not always.  An interesting point is that she has failed to make the videos she promised she would make, in the time frame she promised to make them, after her Kickstarted was successfully funded.  I don't think it takes tin foil around the ears to suggest that she wasn't really interested in making the videos, but rather she was interested in using the situation to leverage exposure for herself and her ideas.  And she has largely succeeded, so good for her :-)  But she has not been, is not, and likely will never be a gamer--again, you can find the evidence for this if you read people like Milo or listen to YouTube videos made by her many critics--chief among them being the Honey Badger Radio group, which is an eclectic mix of WOMEN including Karen Straughan, whose online alias is GirlWritesWhat and has been an outspoken anti-feminist for several years.  She's also probably the most, or at least top three most, recognizable anti-feminist in the world, and she's like Camille Paglia's ideological sister with the polar opposite personality--that personality being calm, hard-nosed, and ruthlessly brutal in favor of being theatrical, agile, and razor-sharp.

So where does that lead us?  Well, Milo Yiannopoulos is a...let's call him a 'colorful character' who understands and gleefully accepts the role of provocateur.  But when he got involved in GamerGate, he openly confessed that he was not a gamer nor did he ever see himself becoming a gamer.  He had also written several critical articles about gamers where he, too, joined in the bashing of what he thought was an entirely straight white male industry.  So he embarked on this quest to discover what all the fuss was about in GamerGate, and just a few months into his involvement--and after firmly aligning himself on the side of the consumers--he received a syringe and a rodent corpse in the mail at his apartment (the rodent corpse had an artfully placed razor blade in its neck, the meaning of which Milo glibly pontificated about on one of his YouTube videos).  To date, I know of no such analogs for Sarkeesian, Quinn, or Brianna Wu--and every time they've been asked to publicly present these threats, they have refused to do so.  Interestingly, also, is the fact that the FBI's website quite clearly states that if you receive what you deem to be a death/rape/violence threat, you should report it to the authorities and not mention it publicly under any circumstances.  Sarkeesian, Quinn, and Wu immediately made the threats they had allegedly received public affairs by storming to Twitter and tweeting about them (but, again, without providing the actual threats themselves).

Interestingly, Milo went to the police with the evidence of the not-so-sublte threats which he received (syringe and dead rodent) and then continued to do what he does best: investigate and describe the fruits of his investigations in his own peculiar style.  So we've got an interesting situation where champions for the side accusing the other side of threatening gestures doesn't produce evidence of their threats, though they go out of their way to make known that such threats have been received, whereas a champion of the side being accused of intimidation is abiding by the rules by informing the authorities publicly when such gestures are made.

Ok, so now it's time to examine a Twitter hashtag called #NotYourShield to get another angle of the GamerGate story.  #NotYourShield sprang to life after the games journalism sites ran their anti-straight-white-male articles, declaring that their gaming culture was dead and that it was time they accepted the changes that were a-comin'.  Since the games journalists were by and large accusing straight white men of being the heart of the supposed misogyny in GamerGater and, more generally, allegedly in the gaming community, this de facto suggested that anyone who was NOT a straight white man was not only apart from the SWM (sorry, sick of typing 'straight white men' out long-hand) but had every reason to jump onto the anti-GamerGate bandwagon.  Indeed, the anti-GamerGate journalists started invoking minority rights and interests, suggesting that these minorities NEEDED the games journalists to fight on their behalf against the straight white male horde that was oppressing them in their gaming spaces.

This backfired rather spectacularly.

#NotYourShield was comprised ENTIRELY of NON-SWM, and they took to YouTube, Vine, and other video outlets to create videos where users would sit in front of a webcam, clearly showing that they were either not white men or, if they were, then publicly declaring themselves to be not straight.  Latinos, Blacks, ASians, women, trans-folk, gays, and any other non-SWM identity you could think of joined the hashtag movement and said, "Don't use me as a shield to hide your agendas and accusations behind.  I love my gaming culture, the gaming medium, and the community I identify with as a gamer just the way it is, so I am Not Your Shield.  Go make your argument on its merits and leave me out of it because I love my games the way they are."

There is more, but I think I've laid the groundwork here.  People like Christina Hoff Sommers have been publicly interviewed and offered effusive praise for, and support or, GamerGate, calling it the greatest consumer revolution in human history--and a genuinely successful model to fight against totalitarian control in future arenas.  Bear in mind that Hoff Sommers is an OG feminist from the 60's, who stood beside women like Camille Paglia and even present-day enemies like Gloria Steinem back when they were fighting for equal opportunity for women and collectively railing against the injustices committed against women.  That such a high-profile figure would publicly endorse GamerGate, and that she would do so as one of the most recognizeable feminists in the entire world, should give one pause before he/she hurls accusations of misogyny.

What we have is a fast-growing artistic/entertainment medium in video games which sits firmly outside the corridors of power in the Western World (those corridors being Hollywood and the Old Media, which one would assume would gleefully accept the opportunity to impose censorship and/or thematic controls over this terrifyingly powerful new medium).  Is it any wonder then that we see the mainstream media (including popular police procedural television shows!) casting in on the side of the anti-GamerGate crowd of which Sarkeesian, Wu, and Quinn are such prominent figures?  Video games are going to continue to devour market share from Hollywood and television, and we all know that the pie is finite in nature.

This is a consumer revolt against intrusion into a medium, pure and simple.  Nobody is arguing that games like Depression Quest shouldn't be made--my sister played it and liked several of the themes, though she's the only person I've known who didn't roundly condemn it--but GamerGaters started off with the (absurd?) notion that games journalists should be as objective as possible when reporting on, or writing reviews for, new games.  What GamerGaters object to is the coopting of a medium which they enjoy, and which they often feel is their only real outlet in a world that makes less sense with the arival of each successive dawn.  GamerGaters love the idea of artistic games like Depression Quest getting made, but they are (rightly) opposed to having those games presented as deep, fulfilling, rich experiences rather than the quirky, narrow-themed, and less enjoyable ones they actually are.  We all watch indie art house films, and we all watch summer tentpole blockbusters.  What we don't want is the indie art house film to be represented as two and a half hours of rip-roaring fun for the family when, in reality, it deals with the sad, harsh reality of something like suicide, rape, or murder.

The sequence of events, however, has been truly fascinating to see unfold.  The anti-GamerGate crowd's arsenal is well-and-truly depleted (the best they could do at this year's E3 was to declare that the GamerGate movement is done with, for better or worse, so let's all forget about it and move on--ha!), and the GamerGaters are standing strong with victory banners waving over the majority of the field.  Were lines crossed?  Of course they were; that's human nature.  That doesn't excuse line-crossing, or efforts at intimidation.  When such efforts of hostility are made, one should notify the authorities and would generally be wise to follow their advice.  But the willful association of people like Hoff Sommers, who was nowhere near this thing when it began, should probably encourage a person to be a wee bit careful before invoking rampant/embedded misogyny lest he/she end up with rotten egg on his/her face.

I'm not even offended that people assume I'm blind to the 'reality' of this situation; it's what opponents of free speech always claim of those who support freedom of expression (which is, oddly, what this whole situation has morphed into, since only a few weeks after Sarkeesian entered the fray there were calls to soft-censor the entire industry--calls which were quickly retractedwhen the people making them were reminded that this would make them just like Jack Thompson--this was what got me interested early on).  I've been doing this longer than most, and I've been engaged in heated debates on the subject from day two (I wasn't involved in the first week or so of Gamergate, so instead of saying 'day one,' I'll go with 'day two').  I've seen more accusations of bigotry from people who seemingly have no interest in investigating the subject any deeper than reading a Kotaku article.  Frankly, that phase of the conversation is a few hundred miles in my rearview mirror.  The primary advantage of an opinion born of reason is a lack of emotional involvement with it.  I roundly condemn people who have engaged in genuine intimidation attempts against anyone involved in this incredibly important debate, and I do so because I'm on the side holding the evidence and a position born entirely of reason.

I also know nobody in the gaming community who condones the use of threats or intimidation as acceptable beahvior in public life.  For sure there are fringe people on both sides of any given issue who will employ such reprehensible tactics, and those people should be punished according to the law.  But I'll also note that I only ever see GamerGaters saying as much, as a group, while their opponents choose to do nothing but accuse GamerGaters of condoning such tactics.  Taking places like 4chan and 8chan and claiming they represent anything except the absolutely extreme fringe of society is either A) extremely naive, or B) purposefully misleading.  My sister used to lurk there, and it always made me cringe whenever she would cackle darkly at whatever their latest abomination was that sprang to life.

So what has happened as a result of this consumer uprising?  The games journalism industry has been functionally decentralized, with the entities that engaged in collusion and cronyism at the outset of this situation giving way to YouTubers who hadve actually improved on the old model and streamlined gamers' ability to make an informed decision about a game before buying it.  People like Quinn, Sarkeesian, Wu, Yiannopoulos, and others have risen to public notoriety and continued to engage in the debate as often and best as they are able.  And people like Hoff Sommers recognized the magnitude of what was happening in the greater context of freedom vs. totalitariaism and applauded, with no personal/financial stake in the debate, the efforts of those who defended the former in the face of vastly more powerful foes who sought to send them scurrying 'back into their basements' but only ended up poking the bear once too often.

And, most important of all, games designers are still free to create the games they think their consumers will enjoy or, at the very least, which they think convey important themes and conversations about who we are as a species and where we're going.

Freedom won this round, and I'll be forever grateful that it did, though I hope the next time this arises (probably in 5-6 years) we can conduct ourselves with fewer histrionics, more evidence, and generally greater degrees of compassion for people who are different from ourselves.

Also, please refrain from hurling accusations at people when they say things you don't like.  Someone with thinner skin than I might actually be discouraged from participating in the debate...and doesn't that basically mean they would have been intimidated into withdrawing from the debate?  Think about it, please.

...and I sincerely mean that as a compliment.  It's one of the best things about your site--it promotes conversations that don't often exist elsewhere--at least with two sides of an issue allowed.

But in the end, I guess I have to surrender.  I do not have the bandwidth to respond to the Revolutonary War, Maureen Dowd, Grand Theft Auto, P*** Christ, the Vagina Monologues and the supposed leftward slant of Wikipedia all at the same time.  You win!  (For what it's worth, I thought the BLM disruption of Saunders was unconscionable, and should have reulted in arrests.)

However, I do want to repsond to your (and MJ's) point about 'ignition'.  I stick with my assertion.  It was 'ignited' by threats and anti-female outrages which I know you, and any mentally balanced individual in any society would condemn.  And I say this not as a matter of opinion, but because I have been following this as part of my job since the beginning.  

If the discussion went along different paths in some places, that would not surprise me.  But the irony couldn't be more pronounced.  Gamer Gate was not 'ignited' by trumped-up charges of  'male toxicity'.  Quite the opposite is factually correct.  It began with actual male toxicity, voiced by some unknown number of mentally disabled.   

Certainly those three examples you mentioned are much better off than they would have been two generations ago in America. Perhaps me calling respectability worthless was going overboard.

But it hasn't retruned the dividends that those in power (generally white men) have promised over the years. I think Barack himself has admitted that he has to be twice as good as if he were white, and even still he won't be treated the same by some in the MSM.

Take a look at how the police interact with african americans. If they don't respect an order in the same way that a white person does, they generally get a much worse fate and no "benefit of the doubt" that their counterpart would get. And even if they do follow the orders, that often doesn't matter either.

Would we be having the conversation about policing in America without widespread protests and confrontational behavior? I doubt it. Asking nicely doesn't get you to A-1 in the newspaper. And having this conversation isn't a nice to have if you are in that community - it's existential.

See the rates of suspension for wihte vs. black children. Even at a young age they are seen as more suspect and worthy of punishment.

Martin Luther King Jr. his ownself, preacher, well known pacifist and practitioner of non-violence was routinely met with death threats from every direction INCLUDING from the FBI. And was ultimately assassinated of course. What better example of respectability is there, and still that's how he was treated.

So while I certainly think Barack Obama has done a lot for race relations, namely his election in the first place and how amazingly well he has represented our country... look at where we still are wr/t/ policing, Ferguson, etc.

I think part of the frustration is men coming to terms with how it might have felt to be a woman since... forever :) Men speaking our mind has always been the default, and when confronted with the idea that our opinion isn't the most valid just because we said it, it feels strange.

Doc I'm not saying that's you – just one read on it, though.