Actually even though in the quote section I called it a rant I did respond to the majority of your points. 

[quote=Hellis]Ok, Magnum, I have a few issues with how you continuesly try to present this as if Feminism is the problem here. Stop. Just stop. This has nothing to do with the political, female rights driven adaptation of ideologies that has achieved a shit ton of good. Statements like this; "Feminist Double Standards" "Feminism has been quick to move to Zoe Quinns defense, it's been adopted by them as a feminist issue."Are clearly nothing but sweeping generalization for the sake of a target to aim at. Feminism as a whole has not taken her stand. I see no sources of reputable, established feminsm organization raging in her defence, Making the second statement false and really, missleading as all hell. You are waving the "Femism is being oppresive" flag around in every post and the attack at apparent double standards seems to thrown in there to air your griviences with this strange enemy of yours. This isn't about feminism.[/quote]

All of this is essentially working on the assumption that I was attacking feminism as a whole, which once I made it clear that wasn't what I was doing there was no need to go forward. Cause the assumption these arguments were made under were then proven false.

I would ask for clarification by what you meant by "Hell, you were making no distinction before this" it seems unstated cause that was the only post I made criticizing feminism in this topic.
Everything else was in other debate's where, if you are half what active in OT you should be well aware that my issues with feminism is third wave feminism, not all feminism. 

That was something repeated often enough among this community I felt the clarification no longer needed repeating. But apparent you either forgot, or were never aware of my stance so I went back and clarified. So no, it's not a attempt to slate a thing over. It's having made a wrong assumption that you possessed a piece of knowledge in regards to my stance on the issue.

[quote=Hellis]A person like her may use the "Misogony" card but I have yet to see it taken up by any serius sources. And, if we are gonna go into the subject further; I work closely with people in the gaming industry, both indy and bigger names. I have many outspoken, feminist friends who happen to be gamers, or in the gaming industry. Quite a few of them here in sweden, you'd be surprised. None of them are even remotely taking Zoeys side. They think she is dragging what they stand for in the mud. And let's get down to the problem at hand.[/quote]

1. This is personal friendships, doesn't exactly hold much weight in debate.
2. Since I had already clarified above I only meant Third Wave feminists and you're described friends do not fit the Third Wave feminist criteria, simple logic should dictate I was not referring to people such as your friends. So saying "My feminist friends aren't like that!" was irrelevant, because they were not the kinds of feminists being criticized.

[quote=Hellis]To qoute Bravo, whom I agree with on the subject;"Games Journalism is a ship full of rats."Indeed it is, and you have no idea the amount of cheese the industry throw them to keep them from eating up the puppy that is overprices crap games. I was part of a small time editorial thing that did game reviews. Our chief editor, who ran the entire thing got us working with a more established site. You know what happens to us in the matter of days? Let me tell you; Despite us being small, shit all important nerds we still are deemed worthy of wasting money on. Our review copies were sent along with giftbackets, invitations and all sorts of neat stuff. They are fairly upfront with their bribing, let me tell you. Here, have a game, and all this shit to. But should we write to many bad reviews for a companys games, what happen? No more giftbaskets, buy the games ourselves! Not to mention us a brand is less desirable.Gaming journalism is click bait. Its sensationalism at it's 'finest'. Of course, some sites like TheDailyBeast and other will take the side of Zoey whatever her name is; Why? Becouse it racks up views, it is currently internet fucking famous. Most importantly, it's grabbing attention of everyone involved. That there is called ad revenue. It's what they live on. Wanna speak about the corruption of the game journalism industy, look at ONGAMERS, who were banned from reddit for upvoting their own stuff to the frontpage. A site who are essentialy, sensationalism garbage all around and who play obvius favourites in E-Sports. For a fledgling industry, they have adopted the failings of the old news industry giants very quickly.[/quote]

And this was all one big Logical Fallacy known as [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_relative_privation]the fallacy of relative prviation.[/url] Yes this kind of bribery is common in journalism, that doesn't mean Zoe Quinn is suddenly granted protection.

So, just because I didn't format your quote's into different sections did not mean I had not addressed/replied to your arguments?
Please actually pay attention to what I said next time, not how many quote boxes with your name in it that popped up.

[quote=Hellis]-Anita-[/quote]

The issue with Anita is that she has proven herself countless times to be dishonest, lying and unable to do her research.

For some examples, [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcPIu3sDkEw]recorded footage of her admitting she actually is not a gamer and doesn't like video games[/url] despite the fact that both during and after her kickstarter she has claimed to have been a gamer growing up. 

The next few examples I point to individual clips like that, there all parts of larger videos. [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixhr8mjy1fs&list=UUmb8hO2ilV9vRa8cilis88A]Here's one by Thunderf00t[/url] but it might have been some of this others that address a couple of these points.

1. Lying about the intention/motivation of Video games.
Such as her claim Hitman gave Gamers a derived pleasure of killing helpless women and desecrating their corpse. When it truth the game actually penalizes you for killing innocents.

2. Claiming that WatchDog's encourages the Sexual exposure/revealing of women
And when doing this she shows clips from the very mission you are meant to be freeing girls from Sex slavery. I'm pretty sure saving women from such a thing means you value their freedom and independence, not that women are objects to be exploited.

3. Many cases of taking very specific clips of gameplay footage from Lets Players (without permission) and showed them in a set up to imply/set up sexism.

4. The very fact she needed over 100k, for videos she rarely releases. And as even the most basic fact checking of the games she covers exposes a lot of cut corners, shitty research and/or outright lying about the games in question. 

Essentially what I'm getting at is Anita is completely dishonest, she has her own agenda and has proven herself time and time again that she can't be trusted.
If a sincere feminist, humanist, Gender egalitarian etc. came out saying there was sexism in games and brought arguments supporting it... That'd be another thing, but they need to back it up with legitimate reasons and proof. 
Hell, one show Extra Credit's does this constantly, highlighting examples of say racism, sexism, homophobia etc. In games. But have they ever gotten slack for it? No.

The reason is Gamers are not a easily offended bunch like you claim they are. It's just that if someone comes in and claims something we enjoy is sexist/wrong, and doesn't actually have arguments to back it up (and worse yet, caught lying in order to make games seem sexist) we're going to react badly. Cause she is blatantly attacking and painting a bad image of our medium simply to further her own agenda. But when say Extra Credits does it? Actually explaining it, having facts and good reasoning to back it up? We listen, we agree with them and then actually try pushing for changes in the gaming community because of it.