Well, I don't know a whole lot about Gamergate. But I would put forth Tienanmen as a fine example of genuine oppression -- the very kind that shouldn't be confused with phony oppression. In fact, the protestors at Tienanmen seemed to only be wanting the very freedom that people here possess....despite so many claiming to be similarly oppressed.
As I said in my initial response, I'm not challenging the existence of real oppression -- including any real instances which happen here. Instead, I'm scoffing at the notion that much of what's called oppression here actually qualifies.
The protestors at Tienanmen were quite right that they were stepped on and held down by the people who held all the power. So, while it's fine to hold it out as an example, it's not fine to analogize it to most anything here on the homefront -- including Occupy (which, yes, the author does refer to).
This discussion kind of reminds of the idea that only a member of the racial majority can be racist, because they hold more power than racial minorities. Well, that's an absurd idea. According to this logic, if I attended Howard University, I could do or say anything I want regarding race...armed with a really convenient shield against the charge of racism. Because, in the Howard community, I'd be in the distinct racial minority. Somehow I don't think that idea would fly in such a situation.
Again, I think the big takeaway for me from the essay is that virtually everything he describes can be attributed to any politically-charged situation. I don't know if, in his calculation (or yours) the Tea Partiers qualify as "powerless" or if its critics qualify as "the powerful." But hasn't pretty much every thing he points to been used against them? The gun rights folks? Christian conservatives? If so, then what exactly do his points have to do with powerful people ginning up hate for powerless protestors?
Sounds to me more like what most any opponents of most any political movement do to discredit those movements.