No answers have been changed/merged for this one.
Some answers may not be included if they misunderstood the question – they may instead have moved to ‘bonus’ as a section. Will highlight if that is the case.
People are anon if they didn’t explictly say “call me x”. Email me again if you want to change that 🙂 Anon referencing consistent within this topic, but not with others.
1. What are your problems with the supposed academic conspiracy (the whole DiGRA thing)?
Anon1: “Agenda pushing, and the attempt to subvert a peer review system. Not the primary goal of gamergate though.”
Anon2: “In my opinion, this is a symptom of a larger problem. Timer wasters like sociology, women’s studies or communication studies have somehow managed to have people think that the nonsense they get up to belongs in the ‘sciences.’ This, in turn, embolden them to meddle in affairs that aren’t theirs. Real scientists (e.g. chemistry graduates or physics majors) have a right to meddle, because they are actually increasing human knowledge. All those ideologues ever do is confabulate, speculate, obfuscate and, quite often, outright lie – all under the pretense of being serious academics.”
Anon3: “I feel that the marxist form of 3rd wave feminism has seeped into academia through things such as women’s studies, etc. However, I do feel such classes are important. But there’s so much politics involved with school curiculums, etc. I have no idea how such a thing would ever be changed at a rapid pace. To change that would be to force your own mindset on countless women!”
Anon4: “Why is a political agenda targeting a media designed for entertainment of young people?”
Anon5: “At the moment is poorly researched, not enough evidence to talk about something going on. Still, there is enough evidence to keep searching. And my problem is that if it were to be true, it would mean that you have group of people trying to control the narrative and the culture. That’s scary and historically it never works.”
Anon6: “I saw the video, but it didn’t convince me there was anything particularly sinister going on.”
@Oboromusha: “I believe these people are a rising menace in social engineering. They stand against freedom and individuality, about rational and positive discourse. They are enemies of democracy and freedom, as much as the governments they criticise. To see that our education produces this sort of mentality is a warning sign that it’s in dire need of reform.”
Agayek: “I’m not sure on the whole ‘conspiracy’ thing. Mostly, I’m just not sure it actually exists as people claim it does. Assuming it does, however, I’m more than a little concerned about it. It’s a radical Marxist organization that desires the elimination of peer review and merit as a foundational aspect of worth, both of which are some of the most important aspects of Western culture. Our society and progress is literally built on those ideas, and the possibility of an organization that wants to eliminate them being in a prime position to manipulate and control my favored subculture is extremely worrying.”
Anon7: “its nothing out of the ordinary for ideology’s that want to change society( feminism, communism, libertarianism/neo-liberalism, religions,…) to try and infiltrate institutions to use them for propaganda purposes, so this does not surprise me. salafist islam(a very radical branch of islam) also tries to do this with important islamic religious institutions, typical behavior.”
@Kawalorn: “I’m not too deep into details with that one, but from what I understood they could be influencing the media to give exposure to their projects thus spreading their agenda and points of view. And that is bad. Journalists should always keep a neutral positon and write about things that deserve it in their own merit.”
Anon8: “I have massive issues with non-industry people attempting to co-opt a hobby they neither participate in, nor contribute anything useful to. It’s parasitic, and ultimately up to the industry to self-police. It’s low-grade leeching at its worst.”
Anon9: “conspiracy is hyperbolic. thinktanks exist. i’ve gone to them. i think digra would be better suited trying to fund media that supports their ideology instead of suppressing media that doesn’t. tfyc seem to have a better approach. “
Anon10: “my problem is that instead of trying for equal rights they allegedly pushed their way into the industry in any way possible in order to promote an agenda. imagine if the black panthers or white power did something similar (only using those comparisons as agendas). what they are doing is forcing an industry to change to their opinions at the cost of other rights. i’m talking about the second their message is argued against they put articles against white males claiming the industry doesn’t need them. so as you see trying to get equal rights while repressing others. if they wanted equality then yes i would agree but male hating agendas have been exposed involving silverstring media. i support the push for equality of men women transgendered and all others i’m forgetting.”
Anon11: “From what I read whole thing screams cult-like behavior, but I didn’t spend any more time into looking into it. If it’s true that they’re trying to change a entertainment medium based on their own sense of morality, then I’m against it. But since I’m not well versed on it I will decline to comment on the rest.”
Ashton Liu: “I think it warrants investigation. Enough information has been revealed that implies potential wrongdoing, but all the facts potentially available must be presented before decisions can be made.”
Anon12: “I only just found out about that stuff, so I’ve not looked into it that much. From what I did see, it’s bordering on shit that I would consider illegal. These people aren’t academics first and foremost, because no academic is that dense. They don’t care about how things are, they care about how they THINK things are, and how they can manipulate the system to change it to favour what they think should happen, regardless of what other people think. They openly said they were trying to educate the consumer or words to that effect, that is monumentally insulting. I’m fairly educated, and I know my shit when it comes to games far more than any of those chucklefucks do. I am a good consumer, and I buy shit that is quality, made with passion and with the goal of creating a game they would like to play, rather than with the goal of nickel and diming the consumer or thieving their money with lies, fake trailers/gameplay trailers, bullshots, and hype for short term profit. For some quasi-intellectual, self important agenda pushers, who are so blind they can’t actually see reality at this point, to talk shit about anyone else is bananas. It’s some proper we know what’s best for the stupid peasants bullshit.”
2. Do you think that this discussion was exceptional in terms of academic niches, or fairly standard?
Anon1: “Standard stuff overall, but shows more connections with an overall clique of people attempting to legitimize their position.”
Anon2: “Sadly, fairly standard.”
Anon3: “I’m afraid I’m not familiar enough with the topic to answer the question.”
Anon4: “It is not a discussion until it´s bilateral. We haven´t even begun discussing Digra.”
Anon5: “From standard and somewhat creepy. When people from the academy gather to discuss subjects in the media, they are not really that interested in talking about the media per se, they prefer to talk in how to be perceived correctly and to people know what they work on. When they talk in how to use the media, it become kinda creepy.”
Anon6: “I have no frame of reference to judge it.”
@Oboromusha: “No, not at all. Academia has a long standing history of not benefitting ideologue zealotry and sophistry. The fact that this precedent has been established should be cause of great concern for the future of Philosophy.”
Agayek: “I don’t know enough about academic discussions to answer this. I would assume that most academic niches don’t want to destroy academic niches however, so I’d feel safe in assuming it’s exceptional.”
Anon7: “i wouldn’t be able to tell, but i don’t think its that standard for a field like feminism or critical theory”
@Kawalorn: “I can’t answer. I don’t know enough details.”
Anon8: “Full disclosure, I’m probably biased in thinking it was exceptional, considering it involves a hobby that I feel they have no value or use in. Hey, at least I’m honest! :)”
Anon9: No answer given.
Anon10: “i think a lot of what was brought up in tropes was by someone who wasn’t familiar with the subject matter and was looking for problems in gaming rather than noticing problems. the second she was financially backed to bring up issues her motivations changed. as most would. anita had some very good points she was just using bad examples. like i said she never brought up dead or alive from what i’ve seen and that is a blatant example of sexism. i bring her up because the academics have propped her up as revolutionary. when she started with a good goal but used others footage instead of playing the games therefore she had no context to the things she was decrying. ”
Anon11: No answer given.
Ashton Liu: “Interest groups and constituents will always attempt to sway certain parts of academia and use these parts for their own purposes via political or economic means. As to whether this was exceptional or not, only time (and more evidence) will tell.”
Anon12: “Without more digging, who can say currently. I wouldn’t be remotely surprised if this was quite common amongst radical eejits like this.”
3. What concerns you most about potential academic links?
Anon1: “That they are going to push bogus studies forth to try censoring games that doesn’t agree with their ideology.”
Anon2: “That the overwhelming ‘academics’ from the humanities aren’t scientists, they are ideologues.” [PixieJenni note: Confused as to why people would think arts/humanites scholars are intending to be scientists at all.]
Anon3: “If a teacher takes it upon herself to teach this worldview to her students, many of whom likely look up to her, it could be troublesome. When people live their life based on grudges towards an entire gender or race, or live their lives thinking only based on consensus, it’s unhealthy not only for them but the people around them.”
Anon4: “Hey, Academics wants to discuss gaming? That´s fine. Just remember gaming as a whole has a preestablished culture. If you start going all “we´re the saviours of media, peasants/Indians you´re wrong” you are asking for trouble.”
Anon5: “Poor research, bad methodology, tautology propositions, and having support from the media without being critiqued.”
Anon6: “Academic links don’t concern me as much as Silverstream Media. Particularly their possible involvement in the dozen “Gamers are dead” stories that hit the web when this whole thing started.”
@Oboromusha: “The fact that it was motivated and derived nourishment from such an environment, means people there are commited to change things for the worse. Divide an Conquer is a motto of Imperialism and socio-cultural marxism in the same page. Politics will corrupt everything and it needs to be put into questioning by free-thinking individuals, ever step of the way until it is forced to step out of the pulpit to our level and present its arguments fairly. No trigger warnings, no orwellian discourse. They are not are masters and we are not their slaves. The peace in society they aspire to will not be obtained at the expense of Justice and Reason. We know this to be the perpetuation of axioms within political extremism.”
Agayek: “See above regarding elimination of peer review and merit as the foundation of value. It’s a frightful stance that runs directly counter to the ideals Western civilization, and if everything that’s come to light about them is true, they have a worryingly strong grip on the gaming subculture and appear to be actively attempting to destroy it.”
Anon7: “covertly pushing their agenda”
@Kawalorn: “As in point 1. Things that don’t represent any true value and are just a way to spread a certain point of view might get an unfair ammount of exposure.”
Anon8: “Essentially the arrogance in thinking they have any right to a seat at the gaming “table” so to speak. Contribute something of note, if you want your voice heard. Essentially, they need to check their privilege and entitlement. ;)”
Anon9: No answer given.
Anon10: “that they are wrong, improperly motivated, or in the worst case not caring if they are right or wrong and only using examples that fit their narrative. not to mention its an attacking tone with no look at what can be done to fix the problem. like sighting role models for women like ellie who late in the game is the only reason that joel survives or Tess who in the beginning of the story is the planner of the missions and connection for trade. then theres marleen the leader of the fireflys who has organized a nationwide post apocalyptic group that is trying to find a cure for plague on humanity.”
Anon11: No answer given.
Ashton Liu: “Academia is one aspect of society where facts and evidence should be valued above all else. The potential politicization of academia is incredibly troubling and disquieting.”
Anon12: “I dunno, that these idiots are in positions to teach other people, to ingrain their ideology and agendas on to them in order for them to pass their classes even, and to try and affect the industry over time even more by planting cancerous seeds in it. I’m sick of all the conspiracy tier bullshit as it is, people who work for multiple companies who are friends or partners or fund other people or parent companies who just ‘happen’ to own multiple outlets or whatever the fuck. It’s one big cliquey corrupt ball of yarn, you can’t have any objectivity or honesty from people liek that, nor can you ever gain the trust of your consumers.”
4. Anything else you would like to add on this?
Anon2: No answer given.
Anon3: “I support women’s studies. I support women’s history. But to any teacher who tries to impose such a stringent worldview on their students, such as what one tried to do with my fiance: shame.”
Anon4: “I dislike how these academic postures say that the end justifies medium. I don´t think the backlash that comes from the gaming community is because they don´t want change. Hell, Gaming is very different from how it was at the 90´s. If anything gaming is always changing.”
Anon5: “Well, critic is the most important element of the academy, if works can’t be criticized or are protected by journalists, you really can’t have any progress being made.”
Anon6: No answer given.
@Oboromusha: “The need for dialogue will nto change, regardless. These academics can emply all manner of subterfuge they so desire. If they cannot stand to be questioned, their relevance to the debate is forfeit and must be allowed to be dismissed as, so far proven, demagogues.”
Agayek: “Not that I can think of.”
Anon7: “that such a thing doesn’t surprise me at all”
Anon8: “Some constructive criticism, instead of constrictive criticism: Actually get involved. Everyone starts as an outsider to EVERYTHING. Don’t take it so personally, and don’t assume it has anything to do with your gender, class, race, religion, etc. Gamers are literally some of the most inclusive “niche” enthusiasts out there. Do bad apples sometimes spoil the barrel? Sure, but let’s be honest, there’s bad apples everywhere, and a backlash against any outsider with “implied parasite” written all over them should be expected. (I’m not saying all of them are, that would be bad to paint with that broad of a brush, but it’s how they’re viewed.)”
Anon9: “third wave feminism is diseased. once an ideology can no longer be critiqued, it can only stagnate and die. “
Anon10: “i think i have said my piece.”
Anon11: “Sorry I couldn’t be of any use to you here. This part of it isn’t really discussed in the /v/ threads so I’m not sure how important to the cause it is.”
Ashton Liu: “None at this time.”
Anon12: “Not really, as I said, don’t know enough at this point yet. A lot of what I’ve said is just my initial reaction to it having found out about it just before doing this.”