While not a gamer and so not really aware of what Gamergate was and which sides were to it I think I can understand your points.
So I have a few questions:
Would you agree that hyper-objectivism (as you call it) can lead to mysognist views of the world by reducing it to short-term contributions to a society that might not be ready to take contributions from everyone? Wouldn’t this be just hipo-objectivism (made it up) as people don’t accept their own oversimplifications, prejudices and overall blindsides?
Wouldn’t I be even more objective by saying that we have to create a leveled playing field for everyone not because it’s the right thing to do but because we still don’t know which kinds of contributions people might give to society or which kinds of ways the society still has to change to start accepting these contributions for the benefit of everyone in it?
Wouldn't someone who is hyper-objective have hyper-awareness of what they know or doesn’t know?
I’d like to believe objectivism can lead to fair world and I think I understand your message on how it can be dangerous. Could we define some guardrails to make it happen without major accidents or is it the wrong goal altogether?