Do differentiate, please. I can not spend my first of January picking out all the parts where you exaggerate my argument from 0.1 to 100 in less than a sentence.

The social context and impact of games is objectively best analyzed within the framework of sociology;
the narrative of games is objectively best analyzed with the tools handed to us by e.g. literature theory;
and feminism is one of many valid perspectives on the medium that's only rejected because it may be a little inconvenient to some.

There's ample disagreement within those individual faculties, theories and lines of thought by people with individual opinions, as is the nature of the 'soft' sciences. Yet only armed with the knowledge and teachings will any kind of progress emerge – "progress" as in informed debate instead of the present ever ongoing KiA outrage clusterfuck.

Maybe an individual example can help you get this point across.

Games are violent. It's a fact that ritualized modes and displays of violence are so much more present in games than in any other medium. For this fact, the medium has been attacked by people outside of game fandom. For decades. These people have, for decades, exhibited a deplorable understanding of the findings of sociology, all bent to their will in loops of logic. The weapon of game enthusiasts against those people should and could have been that very same science. Instead, for decades, I'm hearing "I vent my frustration through games".

Catharsis hypothesis? Yeah, sorry dudes, doesn't look like there's much to it. :(

We need an informed player base to argue for academic research in order to defend and participate in the beauty that is games, not the confused, scared to death and oh so insulted outcry of the uninformed consumer. We need an informed player base that understands and reads the studies the abstracts of which it usually just quotes. That analyses details of works of art critically while still appreciating the whole. A player base that actually treats games like art; a treatment that always involves criticial analysis. In short, we need what you, at the time, fight tooth and nail, but will ultimately, thankfully be unable to prevent emerging. You may, however, be able to slow it down, which is a definite shot in your own leg, but I'm certainly not too happy over that fact.

The work of the people who look like gamergate's greatest enemies may benefit the debate greatly, and furthermore influence public opinion about video games for the better. I will continue to critically listen to these people and, most of all, continue to broadly educate myself. And I will hopefully be able to stay the hell away from the perpetual version 0.1 of the discussion as represented in this thread.

We have two ways to describe a strong opposition to the sciences. One of them is amateurishness. The other is religion.

Thus ends the good faith discussion.

The only thing I'm reading in here is that apparently you seem to think that nazism endorsed free thought and welcomed the social sciences, and apparently I'm making a capital mistake, bordering on mind control, in embracing free thought as well as the social sciences.

HINT: You've been thoroughly misinformed. Maybe have a look at the authors the books of whom the nazis burnt and what those authors stood for before embarassing yourself with such comparisons? Start out with Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx, Erich Maria Remarque and Kurt Tucholsky. Oh, oh, no wait, start with Berthold Brecht, read the Caucasian Chalk Circle!! Doesn't take long. Man, the nazis really hated those people. And damn do I know why.

HINT2: Sorry but you're coming across a bit racist. Just sayin'.