Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, I see where we misunderstood each other. You're talking about conclusions she reached that are debatable - and, indeed, debated rather a lot. I also disagree with some of them, but don't feel that qualifies her as a liar, just someone with whom I don't agree on everything. Possibly even someone that sometimes uses hyperbole to make her points. I'm most likely guilty of the same sin myself and don't begrudge he…
In my mind, intellectual dishonesty equates to lying; especially considering how she absolutely refuses to accept any kind of criticism or address the very real and concrete problems with her conclusions. Some of these things aren't "debatable", she's completely ignorant (either willfully or not is another question, and i'm leaning towards 'willful' due to either the total lack of response or personal attacks that an…
As for the "well gamergate is worse" thing.
It was not what I meant, although I see how it could come off that way. My point was: the people who accuse her of lying have been repeatedly shown to be lying themselves. On the whole, I'd rather trust the person who has not (yet?) been proven to be a liar than the ones who have.
Lastly, it's usually the case that when accusing someone of something, said accusation looses all credibility if its author is guilty of the same thing - regardless of the initial accusation's merit. If you want your argument that she lies to be listened to, then you need to stick to the truth, hard as it can be. If you want to accuse her of witholding information, make absolutely sure you're not doing the same thing.
And, and this should go without saying, if you want to have any credibility, do not willingly associate yourself with people who threaten to rape and kill someone over games (I realise that you haven't explicitly stated you were part of gamergate - you're using the rethoric, but I apologise is my assumption is incorrect).
