trunkage said:
No it was both.
Also, if the GGers took two seconds to listen to the Anti-GGers, they'd realise that the average Anti-GGers was agreeing with them generally about journalistic ethics. And if Anti-GGers took two seconds, they'd realise that most GGers didn't criticise women. But then the Internet just can't have nice things. A small minority on both sides manipulated the situation to cause huge issues. And both majorities lapped it up.
I agree with one thing about what you're saying - both sides didn't listen. The GGers didn't listen because a one-way distribution of their message was the point - Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Richard Spencer... distributing a message (propaganda) is their purpose, not listening.
The "Anti-GG" side didn't listen because they are arrogant. Instead of recognizing that their own position is a political one, they consider themselves to be True in the sense that alternatives are false. Especially alternatives that clash with their own beliefs. According to this logic, Anti-Racism is True, Diversity is True, Tolerance is True, with the opposites being not just politically undesirable but scientifically, against basic reality, and for the religious progressives, evil.
The problem with the Anti-GG side, or at least the culturally dominant segment of it, is that it's a form of blindness every bit as pernicious as the propagandistic myopia of the GGers.
Regardless of what one thinks of Richard Spencer, the only way to understand him is to avoid being terrified by and demonizing of his ideology. The first question asked of anything should always be Why? Why Richard Spencer? Why GG?
But because the purpose of the dominant culture of progressivism is the same totalitarian exclusivity of the alt-right, because the purpose is to create a New World without racism, hate, and greed, anyone who opposes this new world is wrong and evil. With Richard Spencer being the worst kind of wrong and evil.
It's two sides of the same coin.