I'd expect my teacher to know the definition of ad hominem at least.

...

Gamergate will be best remembered [sic] as babies [sic] first conserverative [sic] reactionary movement [...] go on buddy, keep blaming others for your movements [sic] inability to progress in the way you wished it to [sic]. Edit: Jesus, I just looked at your post history to see if you were a full [sic] fledged gator. All I can say is let the poor guy pray for you. You don't need that much edge [sic]. Friendly advice from a fellow classicist [sic].

You should probably educate yourself on ad hominem attacks. You won't get away with it on reddit, never mind in any serious intellectual context. You should also work on the arrogance, not just for academic contexts, but also for life in general. I'm allowed to be haughty occasionally - it comes with the territory - but if you behave that way to a tutor, expect to be disliked for the rest of the semester, particularly if it's this toxic combination of ignorance, arrogance, and ineloquence. Just to be clear, my post history is absolutely none of your business, and it is not relevant to the conversation. Don't lie, and don't be disingenuous. Nothing in any of your posts to me has been friendly, and it's wise not to pretend to be something you're evidently not qualified to be. I'm not an American, so I wouldn't demand deference, but I do find it irritating when students claim to be 'Classicists' - something they only seem to do anonymously, I've noticed - there's a reason that we have qualifications in the field.

So please banish my ignorance and show me where all these discussions of glass ceilings for minorities, type casting of women and general methodologies is taking place.

It isn't my job to educate you, thankfully. However, one place to look for this would be TotalBiscuit's interviews and writing on the issue. They involve an intelligent and methodical discussion of the issues from both sides. TB is good at undermining nonsense claims of sexism, racism, etc, and at identifying real issues that are often missed by all parties. I don't agree with everything he says - I rarely agree with everything anyone says - but he's quite even-headed. However, the press have, in general, branded him a misogynist, homophobe, a trans-phobe, and a racist. Even if I didn't care about these issues, having a feminist wife, with a trans-female for a best friend (who actually is a GG supporter), and a gay uncle (who campaigns for equal rights), with a number of ethnic minority friends (with involvement in various support groups), I'm constantly reminded of the imminence of these issues, so I'm on the lookout for them all of the time. Of course, I do care about all of these issues a great deal - far more than most, and I've done more than most to campaign for them. People in the GG movement (and in the anti-GG movement, for that matter) can be racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, and so on. However, I have never seen any indication from TB that would lead me to the conclusion that he was.

The major problem in this issue appears to be the lack of methodology. You'll learn, as you progress through your studies, that Classics isn't great for method, and this is a big problem for us. You have to look elsewhere to get a grounding in proper methodology, particularly the sciences. Feminist criticism - what is now called third wave feminism - is only pretty new, and it's almost entirely lacking in methodology, and this remains almost entirely unrecognised. That means that one can effectively assert that anything is 'sexist' (etc). This is a problem for third wave feminism in general, but it's manifest in VG journalism. For instance, I can argue that the original Tomb Raider series was, on the whole, positive for women and largely symbolic of feminism, while the modern Tomb Raider remake is actually a step backwards in feminist terms. I can do that using a clear methodology, defining my terms, and making only founded assertions. One could make an argument against that, but it would be an actual argument, not simply a battle of accusations and bald assertions (as is currently largely the case). I've never seen such an argument made. Someone may have, but I've never found it. There's no problem with unqualified journalists making unsound assertions per se, provided they remain isolated to their site. Once their influence goes beyond that then it becomes an issue.

TB has also discussed issues of methodology, journalistic ethics, and nepotism. He's rightly largely discarded the ZQ stuff - though it's a little dodgy, it's hardly a big deal. However, there are more serious inappropriate relationships (and I don't mean sexual ones) going on evidenced by the GameJournoPros list. Reviewers and developers should not be friends, and TB, as a reviewer, has been honest, open, and clear about his ethics, while most others haven't. Unfortunately, there seems to be an accepted culture of blacklisting for ideological reasons, and nepotistic and incestuous reviewing. That's very unhealthy for the industry, even if you agree with their ideological positions - which I largely do. Feminism is good, we should call out sexist, racist, homophobic (etc) games, and having reviewers with different explicit ideological positions (like Polygon) is a good thing for the industry. However, we should not create a giant industry blacklist for these games and try to prevent their production- the VG equivalent of book burning before the book is released. That is not healthy, and reviewers should not have this power. That's only considering the ideological aspects. More serious, in a way, but also more unambiguously wrong, are the prizes and 'rewards' reviewers are being given for a good review, and the practice of reviewer blacklisting, meaning that reviewers have to buy their own games if they give bad reviews. To that you can add the review embargoes. TB has given all of this extensive thought and discussion, and he is singularly qualified to do so.

You say that you are not a supporter of GG but were you ever? Not even at the beginning?

Why does it matter? What point are you making?

For your information, I've generally identified as the opposite group of whichever group context I'm in. Now that the fuss has died down more I tend to just admit I don't subscribe to either. I've been getting sick of being called a SJW by GGers and a 'gator' by anti-GGers, but honestly, it just proves my point. People who behave in this way - and the terms are a dead giveaway in terms of real world views, much like those who use the terms 'paki' or 'trap' - thereby prove that they aren't actually interested in the issues. They're out to slander, not think.