I'd be happy to argue in good faith with you, but from my perspective, you seem to be the one arguing in bad faith. You come in, and right off the bat "**** off, Gamergate." Then you make baseless accusations that have been disproven time and time again as if they'll magically stick this time.

You think GG's goal of ethics is a charade or a joke, but ignore the praise GG has given sites like The Escapist and IGN, who, in response to GG, have updated their ethics policy.

And did I miss something in the interview? all he said about GG was "I think the GamerGate thing is absolutely horrible." And then he says, "I don’t think you can or should discriminate one way or the other. Quotas in boardrooms, quotas in sporting teams, I personally don’t believe that these are the right way to achieve a world where discrimination is not prevalent." Which I absolutely agree with. But I don't see anything that explains why GG is so bad.

No, GG is about creating an ethical standard within games journalism, with a tangent of wanting more consumer advocacy. And you're operating under a false assumption that people within GG who praise people who donate to charity do nothing themselves. Emailing, digging for info on potential ethical violations, spreading said info, proposing new ideas, discussion with neutrals/antis in the hopes of changing perceptions, etc. There are many ways that many people contribute; to say that they do nothing for themselves because they support people who donate without donating themselves in disingenuous.

and no, what I'm saying applies to the group itself, not every individual within that group. I personally take no credit for what others have done, but that doesn't make it any less GG's accomplishment.

Representation is the support of an individual/s or action/s by the majority - a few speaking or acting on behalf of the many. the individuals who donated represent GG because the donations were made because of and in the name of GG, and with support and praise of the vast majority of GG.

individuals who threaten and harass are not representative of GG because they are actively condemned by the majority; individuals who donate to charity are representative of GG because their actions are encouraged and praised by the majority.

When you're talking about an unorganized movement, representation of that movement comes from the support of the majority.

If someone who claims to support GG decides to threaten someone, you can bet that damn near every other GG supporter would say, "Screw that guy, we don't condone that kind of stuff." (in fact, that's exactly what happened when Brianna Wu was doxxed on 8chan. Some troll/jerk posted her personal info, but the entire community lashed out at him until the mods deleted the thread a few minutes later. Despite the unanimous condemnation, GG as a whole was still blamed.) So I think it's fair to say that he doesn't represent GG, seeing as how his thoughts and actions are in the extreme minority.

Then we have donations to various charities. As you noted, People who donated were in the minority; and those who did donate, obviously didn't give hundreds. But we see a massive amount of support for those actions within the movement. As such, the individuals who donated DO represent the group.

It's not a double standard to say that GG supports something that almost all of them support and that they condemn something that almost all of them condemn.

I completely agree. Same with The Escapist; they faced a lot of pressure to silence discussion, but never did.

His other comments and jokes are irrelevant to this conversation, the joke that pissed everyone off essentially said, "NYS isn't a shield, but it really is."

idk how you can say he wasn't targeting women and minorities when the punchline of the joke targeted a hashtag specifically for women and minorities.

And this all goes back to what I first said:

When you say something like "The opinions and experiences of these women and minorities are just shields for these white guys," yeah, I can see how someone might take offense to that.

The way I understood the joke, The armor was meant to be analogous to NYS, with GG saying it's not a shield while still using it for the purpose of deflecting attacks. essentially meaning "NYS isn't GG's shield, it's their armor."

I could be wrong, though

We're talking about 2 different things now.

It's one thing to criticize GG, which includes the women/minorities, but when you criticize NYS, you're talking about, and only about, the women and minorities who support GG. So if his joke was meant to criticize the entirety of GG, then why did the punchline solely target the female and minority supporters?

Women and minorities can, of course, be criticized just like anyone else, but not just for being women/minorities; and to a lot of people, that's how the joke came off.

How was he specifically attacking GG when NYS was the punchline of his joke? What deflection is there?

I will say that GG's response is an over-reaction, but to say he wasn't referring to women/minorities when the punchline of his joke was about a hashtag specifically for women/minorities is ridiculous.

I disagree with that.

NYS was never about using minorities to deflect criticism. It was always minorities speaking for themselves because they were tired of people speaking for them. Furthermore, I don't see a problem with people calling out an obvious fallacious generalization for what it is. If someone says that GG is all straight white men that just hate women, then NYS tells them that they're wrong and provides proof; is that bad? is it wrong to disprove false accusations of sexism/racism? Are facts shields? Is it wrong to use facts to dismantle a poorly constructed argument, that essentially boils down to name-calling?

I just don't understand the logic in saying, "Those darned minorities are saying GG isn't all white guys! The white guys are using them as shields!"