Let's break this down.
> Corruption in gaming journalism
A strong start; a relevant point of discussion.
> is merely a tool
Although declaring a real problem nonexistent strongly reduces the likelihood of the statement being valid, let us consider Gödwin's Law as an example of real problems becoming thought-stopping debate strategies: "The Holocaust (while undobtedly tragic) has become merely a tool for attacking one's political opponents; therefore, I would like to ask you to please refrain from implying that my policies resemble those of the Nazi party unless you have a really damn good point to make and back it up with some actual fucking evidence." Rejection of such a mindset is certainly an issue. He could be going on to say that video games perpeptuate racial and gender stereotypes in an interactive manner and that the debate about journalistic integrity w.r.t. who slept with whom is distracting us from this fundamental issue within the industry.
> by which...is attempting to...
Was it really necessary to use that awkward of a sentence construction to convey your point? This isn't Latin, don't go spraying your subjects and objects any which way. Say instead: "The SJW hate movement uses the issue of corruption in gaming journalism as a tool to...etc."
>the SJW
Here's where it all starts to go wrong. SJW: three simple letters. Social Justice Warriors.
The easiest way to explain the term is in analogy to "Militant Athiest": such a thing likely exists, but is usually used to justify persecution of a group by claiming that they started it.
> hate movement
Ambiguous syntax. Is intended to characterize the mythical SJWs as comprising a hate movement, or is it a nominative subject of the sentence describing a group which hates SJWs? I assume the former due to context; still, it's just sloppy.
> culturally appropriate...western civilization.
Y'know, quoting scripture for your own purposes works better if you actually know what it means. Cultural appropriation, in the context of being an angry SJW, is the process by which one culture's rituals and/or customs are adopted by another, but generally implied to be somehow demeaning to the other culture. (Think white kids calling each other "mah ni**a".)
The problem with this is that "western civilization" is (1.) the establishment (and therefore is pushing its own cultural values on minorities already) and (2.) in any case made up of appropriations of appropriations of appropriations of mistranslations of half-remembered oral traditions that were probably originally made up as someone's bedtime story in any case, and the like--the "great American melting pot" is considered to be a _positive_ example of cultural appropriation and diffusion.
> and financially exploit western civilization
Aside from wondering how one financially exploits an entire civilization that doesn't even have a clearly defined central government (no, the UN doesn't count), I have to ask how the SJWs as a group intend to profit from anything, since they don't really have any clearly defined financial leadership of any sort. Anonymous financially *abuses* various corporations and groups by releasing credit card and bank information, but that's for the lulz and does not directly benefit them.
> We engaged the problem
It's unclear who we is. It's unclear whether the problem is "the SJW hate movement" or "Corruption in gaming journalism", or even an unspecified third problem.
> from the initial angle first,
Unless "the initial angle" is a technical term, I can't see how it can be anything other than first.
Speaking of which, I'm not sure what this angle, likely metaphorical, is. Perhaps he meant to say "Originally, the press approached the issue as if it were only about corruption, but..."
> but quickly realized its full scope.
Again, unclear what the full scope is; likely should be something like "...but quickly realized that the real issue was SJWs _daring_ to suggest that it might be a bad thing that society puts such pressure on women in ways that cater to men's interests."
> GamerGate activism addresses this full scope now.
And finally, we have a surprisingly strong finish; had what the full scope was been actually explained in the previous sentence, this sentence would make the bold statement that current GamerGate activism is broad by necessity rather than due to general belligerance. Or something. As it is, it's basically content-free, but in a different context, darn if it wouldn't be a great sentance.
Although it kinda sounds like the introductory sentance to an entire paragraph describing just _how_ GG activism is covering this full scope I keep hearing about.
Final Ranking:
1.5/10 - What the hell are you talking about? I actually can't tell.
