I recently asked a simple question in a Gamergate-adjacent space:
“Would you support a pragmatic alliance with sex-positive / liberal feminists against sex-negative / radical feminists?”
I wasn’t asking for ideological agreement — just whether temporary, issue-based alignment was possible.
After dozens of responses, the answer became very clear that They are not open to an alliance, pragmatic or otherwise. Not with sex-positive feminists. Not with liberal feminists. Not with anyone who still accepts the label “feminist.”
Many responses explicitly said any form of feminism is unacceptable, regardless of policy or overlap. Internal distinctions (sex-positive vs sex-negative, liberal vs radical) were rejected outright.
Multiple commenters stated that even if feminists agreed with them on a specific issue, alignment was still impossible. Identity mattered more than outcomes.
Several replies framed alliances as inherently manipulative (“you’d just make us pawns,” “any inch given will be used against us”). Compromise was treated as surrender, not strategy.
Most arguments centered on media aesthetics, DEI, HR departments, and branding
A few commenters acknowledged that different feminist factions exist — but immediately collapsed that distinction again by assuming hostile intent (“they all exploit men,” “it’s all the same underneath”).
TL:DR- this “Expirment” was fruitless
It would be like asking the KKK to support the Black Panthers in protesting gun control in California. It goes against their whole ideology fueling their organizing praxis. No tactical advantage can sway them.
Remember that Gamergaters only relate to each other by their Gamergate identity. It’s the basis of why they relate to one another. To cede ground to feminists (however they see that) is literally a deconstruction of that identity, and through that deconstruction an erosion of their group cohesion. Who are they in that space if they aren’t Gamergaters? Why associate with one another if they aren’t Gamergaters? The reflexive extremism is itself a signal of their adhesion of group identity despite the (apparent) tactical advantage.