While I agree wholeheartedly with the ideal approach, I think we're both fooling ourselves to believe that it is the most appealing, or the path that will mostly be traveled. As a consequence of Twitter's limited communication range, people act under a sort of 'this world isn't big enough for the two of us' impression. I'm going to paste over something I replied with in the other thread:  I stress this because no small number of people and other communities have 'orbited' the 'core' of #GamerGate for being a galvanizing point against other abuses of SocJus. As is natural, there is some migration, and the result after almost a year is that the #GamerGate community has grown to represent and encompass more than just gaming, and to a point, more than just journalism. For better and worse. The problem I see isn't that people want to do one thing or another. I believe the problem is ambiguity in communication. I'll explain: Because of the broader scope of #GamerGate presently, any given set of issues will appeal to some and not others, and the worse case scenario of this is a sort of 'purity contest', or ideological purge by any set of people who believe their set of values are best for the whole. This can occur naturally or, as some rightfully suspect, it can also be orchestrated. It's mostly a question of whether the bridge falls on it's own or gets knocked down at this point. I'm looking for some way to resolve the ambiguity in communication. Does that make sense?