392 réponses à ce sujet

[Inquisitor Recon]

So anybody shouting nonsense on the internet is an academic now? I'm going to start calling myself one.

[slimgrin]

Do people not understand what the phrase "an academic" means?  You don't have to agree with her.  In fact, I disagree with the majority of other academics.  It's kind of the point.

 

You don't get to debate it with her, that's the very opposite of academic. Lady Nuggins laid out her approach as academic. Maybe so. Her conclusions are so full of holes that it doesn't matter. 

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

She presents her case in an academic format, that is to say her videos are a visual form of argumentative essays. That's not to say her points are valid or that she is a particularly good critic/analyst. Or rather, that McIntosh is a particularly good critic/analyst. But they are structured decently.

 

Hey if this is a jab at my thread "DId Sarkeesian take a corn filled diarrhea on David Gaider?", then I'll have you know that I learned my research ethics from the honest professionals at Kotaku, Polygon and Gawker.

 

It's probably a jab at me, but it's been my life long dream to work at Gawker, so this was a good practice run. Hopefully I can get in.

 

Spoiler

Not as an intern though.

[sandalisthemaker]

She gets Fenris'd.

 

What do you mean by this?

 

There are so many ways that this can go.....

[Lady Nuggins]

She's a mixture of blogger and academic and maybe that's why people are finding her credibility lacking.  She does do all of the things that you mention, but she also fails to acknowledge the context of the data, which (at least in my field) is a big, academic no-no.  If you are using subjective interpretations, then you should always include alternate interpretations or at least acknowledge that they exist (without outright dismissing them).  Social science research is filled with cherry picking of data to make a point, but it loses a little 'validity' (not a social science term, I know), when it's not acknowledged that it's cherry picked.

 

Other than that, yeah, she's pretty standard fair academic, including citing herself, which I saw as a critique earlier.  Most academics cite themselves because their work builds from one study to the next.  Otherwise, they'd never make any progress.  They just have to make sure to not only cite themselves, because then it's just circular logic. 

 

And, to be honest, this whole thread was created around a giant misrepresentation of her words, including actually quoting her with words that she didn't say in that video.  So, it's not like her opponents are paragons of research ethics themselves.....

 

See, I'm coming at it from a literary criticism perspective, not a social science perspective, so maybe that's where we're seeing it differently.  I see her videos as analyzing games the same way that there is feminist analysis of books and poetry.  If the thesis of her "damsels in distress" video is "damsels in distress are common in video games" then what would be the alternative interpretation that she should present?  That there are female characters who are not damsels?  That doesn't actually counter that point, because you can have both a female heroine and a damsel in distress in the same game, and it doesn't make the damsel magically disappear.  

 

You don't get to debate it with her, that's the very opposite of academic. Lady Nuggins laid out her approach as academic. Maybe so. Her conclusions are so full of holes that it doesn't matter. 

 

Most academics don't debate directly with each other.  One publishes a paper and then another publishes a paper with contrary conclusions.  If the actual point she makes is not a good point, there is nothing stopping people from writing their own posts/articles/videos showing the different conclusion they have reached.  

 

The problem is that people attack Sarkeesian herself instead of discussing the actual topics she brings up.

[daveliam]

You don't get to debate it with her, that's the very opposite of academic. Lady Nuggins laid out her approach as academic. Maybe so. Her conclusions are so full of holes that it doesn't matter. 

 

Did people try to debate her academically?  Or did they resort to calling her terrible names and accusing her of criminal actions and making death threats?  It can't be both ways.  You can't expect her to have to take abuse and then use her blocking of that abuse as a mark against her credibility.  If she took a "no interviews, no comments, no questions" policy writ large, then, yeah, I'd agree with you.  She's just controlling the setting in which she debates this stuff and, frankly, with the response she's gotten, I don't blame her. 

 

Again, it's not all gamers who make those comments and I'm saying this as someone who is only lukewarm on her anyway.  But the dismissive responses here just prove the point.  Come at her with a logical, academic debate.  Otherwise, don't be surprised if your arguments come across as supporting her case.

[The Hierophant]

It's probably a jab at me, but it's been my life long dream to work at Gawker, so this was a good practice run. Hopefully I can get in.

Spoiler

Not as an intern though.

I doubt they'll be hiring soon. Class action lawsuits tends to do that to some companies.

[LPPrince]

The problem is that people attack Sarkeesian herself instead of discussing the actual topics she brings up.

 

Nah, the problem is that people are actually discussing the actual topics she brings up but an extremely small number of people claim to be part of that group, attack her, she gets loud about it, and then people jump to the conclusion that "people attack Sarkeesian herself instead of discussing the actual topics she brings up" implying its a widespread thing. Which makes the group actually talking about it(people in this thread, ourselves included) painted as villains.

 

Her getting attacked is an issue, but its one of several that don't need to exist. Being attacked is not permission to attack others.

[Isichar]

Nm. LP ninja'd me

[General TSAR]

Ahh, I'm late to the party.

[daveliam]

See, I'm coming at it from a literary criticism perspective, not a social science perspective, so maybe that's where we're seeing it differently.  I see her videos as analyzing games the same way that there is feminist analysis of books and poetry.  If the thesis of her "damsels in distress" video is "damsels in distress are common in video games" then what would be the alternative interpretation that she should present?  That there are female characters who are not damsels?  That doesn't actually counter that point, because you can have both a female heroine and a damsel in distress in the same game, and it doesn't make the damsel magically disappear.  

 

 

I say social science because I think she's a sociologist by training, so I would expect her to adhere to conventions of social science research.  Social science research, especially qualitative social science research, usually follows the format that I mentioned.  But, as you point out, she's really exploring the themes within a medium and it gets into a weird mixed academic area, because it's often something coming out of the humanities.  To be honest, I'm not familiar with the academic language in the humanities.  And then, add to it, that's not publishing the papers in academic journals, but putting them on a blog, which makes it even muddier. 

 

 

Most academics don't debate directly with each other.  One publishes a paper and then another publishes a paper with contrary conclusions.  If the actual point she makes is not a good point, there is nothing stopping people from writing their own posts/articles/videos showing the different conclusion they have reached.  

 

The problem is that people attack Sarkeesian herself instead of discussing the actual topics she brings up.

 

This was what I was trying to say in my last response.  Well put.

[slimgrin]

Did people try to debate her academically?  

Yes. In counter videos. I've yet to see her in an actual debate, aside from Colbert.

[General TSAR]

I heard Sarkeesian couldn't name three video games during her time on Colbert's show, that true?

[daveliam]

This is the problem with her argument.

 

What is common? If we're going to pretend to be academic, then we need to introduce statistical significance. Do the number of "damsels in distress" satisfy that criterion? Further, what is a "damsel in distress?" We need a universal definition for our nomenclature if we want our conclusion to be valid.

 

Does she do either of these (show statistical significance or show a universal definition for "damsel in distress")? I have this odd, odd feeling that she doesn't, in any way whatsoever.

 

Being an academic is more than arguing a point. I can't write a paper stating "The Vaquita is an endangered porpoise in desperate need of conservation efforts" without analyzing ALL known sightings. I can't just pick five known dangerous areas and say "okay, conservation is necessary." Overly specific example, but you get my point.

 

No, you are making a giant misconception about research.  You don't need to introduce statistical significance to be valid.  There are, literally, thousands of academics who do valid, meaningful qualitative research that has no statistics involved.  Her work is qualitative in nature.  She needs to support her statements (she does this well) and she can't claim generalizability outside of the context to which she's speaking (she does NOT do this well), but she doesn't need statistical significance for her statements.

[Mr.House]

Did people try to debate her academically?  Or did they resort to calling her terrible names and accusing her of criminal actions and making death threats?  It can't be both ways.  You can't expect her to have to take abuse and then use her blocking of that abuse as a mark against her credibility.  If she took a "no interviews, no comments, no questions" policy writ large, then, yeah, I'd agree with you.  She's just controlling the setting in which she debates this stuff and, frankly, with the response she's gotten, I don't blame her. 

 

Again, it's not all gamers who make those comments and I'm saying this as someone who is only lukewarm on her anyway.  But the dismissive responses here just prove the point.  Come at her with a logical, academic debate.  Otherwise, don't be surprised if your arguments come across as supporting her case.

The thing is, people have debunked her stuff with proper arguments that did not insult her, she ignores them. She can't counter because her arguments are full of holes, cherry picked and half the time got the info wrong.  So why should people NOT dismiss her? This is a woman who scammed alot of people, has lied, has faked death threats for press and has shown to have no clue what she is even talking about with getting basic facts wrong half the time.

[General TSAR]

Your picture is highly amusing. nanomachines, son.

Ahh yes, Senator Armstrong would probably be Anita's ideal personification of a Misogynist. 

[slimgrin]

I heard Sarkeesian couldn't name three video games during her time on Colbert's show, that true?

She named GTA, the whipping post of SJW shaming. It was funny how Colbert put her on the spot. She didn't fare too well.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

I wish she would accept CH Sommers' invitation to debate her as part of a panel. That would be something to see. CH Sommers doesn't have intimate knowledge of video games, but as a feminist academic, she is fearsome when it comes to dismantling the craziness that tends to emanate from third wave feminism.

[daveliam]

Yes. In counter videos. I've yet to see her in an actual debate, aside from Colbert.

 

Has she tried to block them from making counter videos?  Or does she continue to make her videos and bring up evidence in her videos that runs contrary to what they are saying?  If it's the former, then yeah, she's avoiding discussing it.  If it's the latter, then, she's doing exactly what I would expect an academic to do.  It's not like academics have debates like politicians.  She makes a point, someone else makes a counter point, she makes another point, etc.  That's academics.  You don't have to respond directly to the person by name.  Although, in written papers, that's usually covered in citations.  In an academic presentation, I rarely mention another researcher by name (it's kind of tacky to do) and instead allude to concepts that they've raised and then provide the evidence for my argument. 

 

Again, I think she's kind of right on the mark for academia.  She's sloppy, in my opinion, with her generalizability which is ultimately why I can't back her fully.  But she's certainly not simply "shouting nonsense".

[LPPrince]

I've seen several people play through Hitman over the years, and have NEVER seen anyone specifically go hunting for women to drag around dead.

 

"Implicitly encouraged" she says. While the score counter goes down. Mhm.

 

I should note that this kind of misogynistic behavior isn't always mandatory; often it's player-directed, but it is always implicitly encouraged.

[General TSAR]

She named GTA, the whipping post of SJW shaming.

Oh god (facedesk).

 

I guess satire is an alien concept to SJWs like her.