Poll: Wow...... Just wow......

[TAGM]

snip.

But there is a large majority agreeing with the article...I maybe shouldn't have used 'You all' but it was just a quicker way of writing it. Like I said, arguing semantics.

The main point of my post to point out how much feminist hating there was in the thread is still valid.

Sorry I don't make perfect posts while taking loads of pain killers.

Well, as I say, writing down "you all" and "most of you" are two different things. Still, I understand what you mean.
The thing is: How are you judging that there is a large majority?
I assume the easiest way would be the poll, but the thing about that is: It really doesn't discuss agreement, per say.
71 people (as of writing) say that it shouldn't exist. Well, that could mean either as a satire or as not, but we'll assume they mean it as not satire - and, well, that was the point. It's something made to be at least arguably wrong and silly. That doesn't really say anything about if they agree with feminists or not, just this article in particular.
15 people said that it brought up serious points. Well, that at the very least suggests that they don't hate feminists... Assuming they didn't click it as a joke.
And the large majority - 263 - Said that they realized it was a parody. But, here's the rub:
Realizing it's a parody says nothing about how much you agree or disagree with it.
So, the large majority... Realizes it's a parody. You can't really extrapolate much more from that. It's perfectly possible to realize it's a parody, and still not hate feminism.

And if you're extrapolating from the comments left, are you sure? Because it seems to me that a large majority seem to be saying "This is a really shit parody, was it supposed to be funny?" And so on. It's a question of perspective, really - what counts as disagreement? What counts as feminist hating?
In short, trying to extrapolate from comments is a dangerously tricky road to walk down.

And if you realize that your posts might be hindered by pain killers; You could always wait. There's no rush - besides maybe for relevance, and that can sometimes be ignored anyway - you have time to feel better.

 

[Legion]

snip.

But there is a large majority agreeing with the article...I maybe shouldn't have used 'You all' but it was just a quicker way of writing it. Like I said, arguing semantics.

The main point of my post to point out how much feminist hating there was in the thread is still valid.

Sorry I don't make perfect posts while taking loads of pain killers.

That depends on what you mean by "agreeing with the article". Most people who "agree" with it are agreeing that if you want to, you can find problems anywhere. Not that the anti-feminist sentiment is correct.

If you want to talk anti-feminist and sexist comments (which is what you were actually talking about in your previous posts) then posts 10, 57 and 78 are openly anti-feminist.

If you count posts saying "Some people" and "Some feminists" as being entirely anti-women/feminism then posts 7, 10, 57 and 78 are anti-feminist.

No sexist comments have been made. The other people, as mentioned before are not saying they agree with the anti-feminist slant, just with the fact that some (unspecified) people will try and find things to complain about.

So out of 100 replies, 3-4 is a "Large majority" of people?

And no, saying "You all" is not a quicker way of saying it, and criticising you saying it is not arguing semantics. Saying "you all" is what it is. You are saying that everybody is being anti-feminist or sexist.

That is an all encompassing statement. Changing that to "A lot of you" or "Some of you" completely and utterly changes the point you are making. It is the difference between saying "All feminists hate men" and "A small number of feminists hate men". Which is not insignificant in the slightest.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

That article pissed me off. I couldn't believe someone can be that stupid. Luckily the guy who wrote it wasn't being serious about it.

 

[MysticSlayer]

I thought it was hilarious and sort of highlighted the cherry-picking, changing of facts, and overanalysis that occasionally goes on in these types of debates. By Point #1 where he's arguing that Booker should be female it was just too obvious the guy wasn't being serious even for those who didn't read the introductory and concluding paragraphs where he stated explicitly that he was joking. It was a really good, humorous satire if you ask me.

On the other hand, it is unfortunate that feminists have become such a derided group in gaming, as this article sort of shows, all because of a few people with rather extreme and radical viewpoints.

 

[I.Muir]

No reason to get excited about it, the author is just a little bit off their rocker is all. Although I tend to think the same about anybody that claims video games actively promote gender inequality.

 

[Amaror]

My first thought -

"Aww shit, a BioShock Infinite article. I want to read this but I've avoided Infinite spoilers for too long to risk being foiled now."

Anyone care to assure me it's spoiler free or not? (Yes, I plan on playing the game soon. Probably next month after my friend finishes it.)

No, it's not spoiler free. It contains MAJOR spoilers.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

Nice to see the hatred of feminists really coming out in this thread. Way to prove that sexism isn't a problem in gaming.

Hatred directed towards certain feminists does not constitute sexism, thats absurd.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

Nice to see the hatred of feminists really coming out in this thread. Way to prove that sexism isn't a problem in gaming.

Hatred directed towards certain feminists does not constitute sexism, thats absurd.

Well most if not all of the arguments I've seen against Anita have been poor, most don't even listen to what she's actually said and decide for themselves what she's trying to say.

She's not trying to get games banned just improve the characters in them. I don't know why some guys have just a bad reaction to her.

 

[Frankster]

Honestly when it comes to this particular topic, i cant tell satire/injokes from seriousness anymore

So just a shrug of the shoulders from me.

 

[Generic4me]

Somebody doesn't understand a troll.

That was an awfully shitty troll though. I couldn't tell if they were going for satire or just straight-up trolling. There was no real message in that.

4/10 weak.

Also, can we get another topic to divide the gaming industry and hate each other about? Feminism is getting kinda old because nobody wants to really debate and rage anymore.

 

[Atomic Spy Crab]

COUNTER ARGUMENT TIME!

5. Elizabeth is not allowed to fight because she probably doesn't know how to use one safely.
4. She was in a contained environment. And if she tried to escape without Booker she would be caught and put right back in.
3. Maybe they don't overlap because they had only a minute or two on screen?
2. "Her influence is weaker than Bookers" There you go.
1. No, he shouldn't have. You want to make your own character? Play Fallout 3/NV or skyrim/morrowind/oblivion. And as Jim said, "Male characters make money". Does this make the original Bioshocks sexist? Or Gears of War? Or Halo 1-4? No. Also Booker wouldn't have been able to make the same connection or relationship if female without being homosexual (I have nothing against homosexuals, I think its ok to be homosexual because we are all created equal).