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

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

Already saw people on /v/ trying to take this seriously.

DIRECTLY FROM THE ARTICLE:

"You can twist many things in life to prove your points, and amazingly, without much thought, I?ve been able to pull out 5 points that may prove that Bioshock Infinite is another sexist game."

Final line: "Do I actually believe Bioshock Infintie is sexist? Hell no. Are the points extreme? That?s par for the course in these arguments."

He's pointing out how easily you can come up with arguments that everything in the world is sexist.

 

[Reeve]

An excellent satire that demonstrates that Anita has almost nothing useful to say.

 

[Subscriptism]

Congratulations, you proved that people only scan read things they expect they won't like.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Wow, what a shit article. Just pure, 100% strawman with no interesting points whatsoever, which makes the satire fall flat on its face. It is about the same quality as that terrible fecking Thunderf00t video. :\

 

[Subscriptism]

Wow, what a shit article. Just pure, 100% strawman with no interesting points whatsoever, which makes the satire fall flat on its face. It is about the same quality as that terrible fecking Thunderf00t video. :\

I don't think he was making any specific argument, which means it can't have been a strawman.

He's making the best of Poe's Law, showing that some things feminists say are so bizarre that the satire is indistinguishable from the genuine article.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Wow, what a shit article. Just pure, 100% strawman with no interesting points whatsoever, which makes the satire fall flat on its face. It is about the same quality as that terrible fecking Thunderf00t video. :\

I don't think he was making any specific argument, which means it can't have been a strawman.

His specific argument is that feminists deliberately look for things to get angry about and set out to be offended. Each one of the entries in the article is an attempt to strawman a common feminist argument (that he doesn't actually understand). That is what the entire article was about, laboriously expanding on his point that feminists shouldn't actually think critically about media and the implications it has on our culture, and should just shut up.

 

[Subscriptism]

Wow, what a shit article. Just pure, 100% strawman with no interesting points whatsoever, which makes the satire fall flat on its face. It is about the same quality as that terrible fecking Thunderf00t video. :\

I don't think he was making any specific argument, which means it can't have been a strawman.

His specific argument is that feminists deliberately look for things to get angry about and set out to be offended. Each one of the entries in the article is an attempt to strawman a common feminist argument (that he doesn't actually understand). That is what the entire article was about, laboriously expanding on his point that feminists shouldn't actually think critically about media and the implications it has on our culture, and should just shut up.

I don't think that last sentence was his point. You appear to be shoving words into his mouth. He's saying that some of this shit is so absurd that you can't tell it from the genuine article. That's his point, he's not saying feminists shut up, he's not saying anything else.

He pulled these points out of the air and to non-feminists they are indistinguishable from the genuine piece because that's how little sense the genuine stuff makes to everyone else. Poe's law is the first sign of radical nonsense.

His makes no tangible argument against the actual feminist arguments, nor does he attempt to. If you think he does, you are missing the point.

 

[BreakfastMan]

I don't think that last sentence was his point. You appear to be shoving words into his mouth. He's saying that some of this shit is so absurd that you can't tell it from the genuine article.

And what do you think that this, you know, actually means? It means feminist arguments are absurd. And absurd arguments are stupid. I think we can all follow that from there.

He pulled these points out of the air and to non-feminists they are indistinguishable from the genuine piece because that's how little sense the genuine stuff makes to everyone else. Poe's law is the first sign of radical nonsense.

I don't give a crap how much sense it makes to the uneducated. It doesn't mean it isn't right. Evolution doesn't make sense to a whole heaping pile of people. That doesn't invalidate evolution just because a lot of people don't understand what it actually is. Creationists can poe's law evolution all they want; it just exposes their own ignorance.

 

[Berithil]

When I first saw that title of the article, I rolled my eyes and thought "Oh boy, another article trying to complain about stuff that is either incredibly minor, or nonexistent", but...

It's satire. Anyone who read the opening paragraph knows that. However, I'm sure there are people on both sides who are going to jump at this. People who are going to complain about how stupid the article is without actually reading it, or the people who are going to use those exaggerated points to uphold their views.

In any case, even with the disclaimer, I'm thinking this might be an example of Poe's Law at work.

 

[Dead Seerius]

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.)

 

[Subscriptism]

He pulled these points out of the air and to non-feminists they are indistinguishable from the genuine piece because that's how little sense the genuine stuff makes to everyone else. Poe's law is the first sign of radical nonsense.

I don't give a crap how much sense it makes to the uneducated. It doesn't mean it isn't right. Evolution doesn't make sense to a whole heaping pile of people. That doesn't invalidate evolution just because a lot of people don't understand what it actually is. Creationists can poe's law evolution all they want; it just exposes their own ignorance.

Don't go comparing this to science. There is no objective truth in these arguments.
Regarding the creationist comparison, the thing is most of the time when you explain a science to someone, you can give them the basics at least and the majority will accept it. With feminism however, you explain this even in simple terms and a not insignificant amount of people will not buy it. You know why? Because the supposed consequences do not fit the action. That is the issue I and most people who agree with me have, it's that you get outlandish claims about oppression and misogyny but we see this disconnect between the things that are routinely slandered by feminists existing and the supposed consequence of women being stomped on by society. Don't get on about privilege either please (I assume that's your counter-point), the whole concept assumes that men have no empathy or don't observe how other people interact. I find this deeply insulting.
I probably rambled a bit much there, sorry.

 

[Atomic Spy Crab]

Hah, I read that earlier and made the same mistake you did til I noticed.
Yeah, it's not a serious article. At all.

Your profile picture represents what I did after reading this

 

[Tom_green_day]

I think you forgot to read the very last sentence in that article.

He doesn't actually say that, he just says the points are in the extreme because the tone in these debates dictate it. He's not actually disagreeing with the the facts he has used. Or at least that's how I read it.
But I could just as easily be wrong.

'Do I actually believe Bioshock Infintie is sexist? Hell no.'
I think making Elizabeth literally perfect could have been a bit too far, but other than that I wouldn't call it sexist.

 

[major_chaos]

Wow... for a second there I thought this was a real Anita article. It sure looks like what I would expect from the person who tried to paint Bastion of all things as sexist for amazingly stupid reasons.

 

[freaper]

My very first thought was "A Modest Proposal, this is not."

The comments are absolutely hilarious, though.

Spoiler

They're delicious!

OT: Aside from the fact that on the subject of sexism I'd like a little less conversation and a little more action [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkCWVNaX6-k], I actually read the whole article, including the disclaimer. The imaginary author has some points, or rather, only point 2, but it's still stretched to the extreme.

EDIT:

<==Satire==

--Ozone layer--

[sub]tumbleweed[/sub]
*me*

 

[charge52]

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.)

It's not, while it doesn't spoil any of the major twists, it does still spoil some character stuff (how certain characters stories end etc.) and other important information.

 

[Frission]

You have to read the last few lines.

OT: The article was amazing a portraying stupidity. Do people actually write articles like this?

 

[BreakfastMan]

Regarding the creationist comparison, the thing is most of the time when you explain a science to someone, you can give them the basics at least and the majority will accept it.

No, they won't. See: Evolution. Or the nature of homosexuality. Or a half dozen other controversial topics.

With feminism however, you explain this even in simple terms and a not insignificant amount of people will not buy it. You know why? Because the supposed consequences do not fit the action. That is the issue I and most people who agree with me have, it's that you get outlandish claims about oppression and misogyny but we see this disconnect between the things that are routinely slandered by feminists existing and the supposed consequence of women being stomped on by society. Don't get on about privilege either please (I assume that's your counter-point), the whole concept assumes that men have no empathy or don't observe how other people interact. I find this deeply insulting.

This entire rest of your text is based on misinterpretation and just plain ignorance of feminist theory. Not really sure what more to say here.