Schrier's comments seem correct, to me. I think some of you are missing how this got ignored: not because no one had heard it before, but because we hear so many things that knowing which are real and which aren't is difficult. I'm sure in any comment section, Evilore is called a Nazi but also a communist; a great leader but also an asshole; a person who sexually assaults women but also a pedophile. It isn't that they haven't heard this stuff before -- it's that someone in Evilore's position has been accused of basically everything, so knowing which accusations have real meat and which do not can be difficult.
Note that this isn't a response directly to this post, but just in general to the former moderators and admin of GAF. I think there were a couple main problems, with the site, and it doesn't necessarily mean you yourself a part of it.
First is, there was little understanding of the word 'objective' by the community there. Take for example a typical flame thread I would see, involving road rage. It usually could be someone in a car or a motorcycle driving like a dick, which then prompts another driver into rage to react in an attempt to kill or seriously injure the person. This is a classic GAF response thread, where most would agree the reaction to try to kill someone is absurd, and then you would have individuals pointing out the person initializing the entire mess deserves fault too, and the poster stating that would usually receive a huge backfire until they may be eventually banned.
GAF allowed non-objective initial reaction statements constantly like this to just call people pieces of shit, etc - which then caused the predictable 'well there's both sides blame here' response too. Neither one of these statements is objective, and objectiveness is very dry - like PBS or CSPAN dry - but for years GAF allowed that kind of ruthlessness if you were on the "right" side. If you weren't, well, you were banned. I'm guessing no moderator or administrator read books like "Feeling Good" by David Burns on how to practice Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and what name calling and generalizations lead to, but GAF is a prime example of the pit it leads to.
I'm not even religious, but if you had a thread on the Pope calling for some income equality and someone replied, "well he's still a homophobe POS", no one cared. If someone had a thread on a legitimate scientific study on the dangers of climate change, it wasn't a discussion about the study, it was knee-jerk smarmy remarks about how Republicans may ignore those issues. It's not even the fact I agree with the Catholic Church's stance (because I don't), or agree with the disregard of climate change, it's just the fact it was just CONSTANT subjective one liner after another demeaning something or someone.
Second, is the complete lack of awareness of victim blaming vs. pragmatism. A good example I recall is the unfortunate US college student who went to North Korea via China, and was essentially eventually murdered, after being put in a labor camp, for stealing a North Korean flag. He absolutely didn't deserve it, but at the same time, it doesn't change how the world is. If he were my brother and told me he would goto North Korea, period, much less pull that stunt - I would call him every name in the book for his idiocy and do everything possible for him not to go because I would not want to see what happened, happen to him. In an ideal world, a woman should be able to dress how she wants wherever she goes, a person should be able to travel the world without oppressive local customs, but it's not realistic. That doesn't mean they're to blame for when something happens to them, but at the same time it's just as reasonable to comment on the lack for awareness why the world is. Just because I should be able to walk in the bad part of town with a new iPhone and $100 bills hanging out my pocket with nothing happening to me, doesn't mean I should disregard common sense and safety to do so.
These are just a couple examples of many others that the community and moderators fostered that I believe were completely unreasonable.