I think one of the most interesting aspects I've read from this recently comes from PixieJennie's article on the different schools of ethics, and how the GG crowd is, by utilizing the vague terminology of 'ethics' to substantiate its pushing out against its detractors, fighting with terms similar to a transcendentalist movement.
http://geekessays.wordpress.com/2014/10/15/gamergate-patriotism-and-c-s-lewis
You cannot have dialogue with a movement that sees itself as this as Lewis says, the only thing a side with those transcendent goals wants is annihilation of dissent.
For GG to truly open itself up to dialogue, it needs to critically assess why it is clinging so desperately to those ideals to open itself up to the fact that they might be wrong. This is not saying that everything said by GG is wrong, I should note. But one cannot discuss ethics with someone convinced from the start that you are utterly incorrect about ethics. One cannot discuss with someone who believes their opinion is right and they are superior to you in those terms.
There's no set limit to anything, no 'here's when we can stop the fight'. It's either conform, or be destroyed.
Granted, this has been discussed a little insofar as it relates to there not being two sides, albeit from the opposite end of the spectrum, but the gravitas of the nature of 'argument' just kinda hit me. Such a one-sided, lack of willingness to 'debate', alongside the multitude of 'no true scotsman' and other fallacies, just puts things into perspective.