What made you neutral?

On the other hand, anyone who never declared a side in all of this, what parts of both sides keeps you from fully committing?

Armchair "Pro", here. I got interested in this whole debacle after the sea of "[deleted]" hit Reddit. Not much of a gamer at all-- I'm more in it because of the "shoddy media" angle.

While the "Pro" side might be sponsored by anarchic, crude, hideous assholes, I still can't deny that the mission statement has valid points, slights still haven't been redressed, the odious wing of the opposition throws their own dirty punches and cheap shots while trying like hell to hide behind the banner of justice and self-righteousness-- which in general bugs the piss out of me-- and the grievance GamerGate encompasses is a part of my greater grievance against the rise of cheap, shoddy clickbait journalism.

The reasons I probably won't leave the armchair:

The "movement", in all reality, lacks restraint and tends to drift away from the goal whenever something shiny or infuriating comes up. The brand has been also been damaged quite badly, perhaps irrevocably, by shit-disturbers, and the culpable media who loves them. While GG has done a fair bit, the grievances are drying up, and the meantime is spent taking potshots at people taking potshots at people taking potshots, and when you tell KiA to stop looking at the damned Twitter fights, they call you a shill and stomp you to the negatives.

The reasons I won't disavow the label:

I'm not neutral, and I honestly can't find a way to be neutral, given the prevailing GamerGate narrative. It's like saying "You go due east from Alaska, I'll go due west from Florida, and we'll meet in the middle". The "sides" aren't diametrically opposed. "Poor Ethics in Journalism" is not the opposite of "Misogyny". A legitimate "pro" stance has little to do with misogyny, and a legitimate "anti" stance has little to do with "ethical laxity". This shooting-over-the-heads mismatched narrative is why the fight is unlikely to end. (My tinfoil-hat suspicion is that the press outlets involved welcome, if not actively court this mismatch, to keep questions unasked and keep a seam of low-value clickbait material ready to mine.)

And I don't see any compelling reason to abandon my agreement with the idea of pro-. I'm not a harasser, ostensibly not a misogynist, and I agree with the legitimate gripes and stances of the thing called GamerGate. I don't see any viable alternative moniker taking shape, and I'm at peace with myself and position. I don't apologize for things I didn't do, and I don't put much stock in the identity-politics that says I ought to.

Frankly, I suspect that if you take an honest 'Gater worried about journalism, together with an honest Anti worried about misogyny, and put them in a discussion with the mandate that both sides could only talk about their general concerns, and not about the other, you'd either end up with a civil discussion on multiple issues, or nothing in common to talk about. (I just got linked here today-- apparently this is that room?)

/r/AgainstGamerGate Thread