User talk:Anton199

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Archives of this page

edit Equestria Girls

Thanks for actual feedback on VFD; I have trimmed the plot a tiny bit. (The hashish "joke" was ill-advised.) The use of {{Wikipedia}} indicates that it is best enjoyed in comparison to the actual plot.

Regarding the remaining entry in this flurry of nominations, can you suggest new directions for the smallish Barf? The illustrations and Frequently Asked Questions are from before I worked on it, but even the FAQ still strikes me as funny in many different ways. Spıke ¬ 13:30 9-Dec-14

Yeah, it's good, although I don't get the point of the first picture. Sorry, but I don't think I can contribute to it personally due to my tastes (and maybe principals). However, if you need an idea, I think it'll be interesting to look how it's portrayed in movies. For some reason of which I am unaware, it seems like it's becoming one of the essential part of a blockbuster alongside blood and nudity, and not only. You can see plenty of that right now in cinema, even though in many cases (like blood and nudity) it's really unnecessary. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 19:18, December 9, 2014 (UTC)

I don't get the point of the first picture either (It's from a fan-art blogsite) but I sure don't have a better one, so I focused on its caption instead. I was unaware of the emergence of barf in the popular cinema. (I must be watching the wrong movies.) (Is it time for you to archive?) Spıke ¬ 19:31 9-Dec-14

Apparently (but I haven't seen the movie), Pulp Fiction started the trend. And yes, I will archive. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 19:39, December 9, 2014 (UTC)

Your wish is my command! It is now your move. Spıke ¬ 20:18 9-Dec-14

It is still your move, by which I mean replace the initial photo if you have a better idea, and/or vote to save it on VFD. Spıke ¬ 04:19 12-Dec-14

edit The Article Whisper

Are you allowed to mae an article for TAW here and then copy and paste it into the spoon and enter it into the spoon TAW (and win twice)? Sir TheWikiMan026 CUN,UmP, (Chatter) Norn Iron Flag 20:58, December 20, 2014 (UTC)

Why not? As long as you follow the competition rules (submit your page between December 28 and January 10), it should be fine. Good luck winning! Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 14:59, December 21, 2014 (UTC)
Are you allowed to make an article while standing on your head? If so, is it ok that the handwriting is a bit scruffy? Sir ScottPat (converse) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 16:34, December 21, 2014 (UTC)
Don't tell me you can't type while on your head. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 17:53, December 21, 2014 (UTC)
Headstand
Actually, come to think of it, I will excuse your handwriting, if you allow me to judge your article while performing a headstand. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 17:56, December 21, 2014 (UTC)
That's fine by me. Sir ScottPat (converse) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 09:30, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

edit Slut shaming

My word, this is turgid.

  • The title. I have never heard of "slut shaming," probably because "slut" itself is a vague term of shaming — and by the way, Uncyclopedia has a gaping hole at Slut (currently a redirect), where some of these points could be made. The subtle redundancy in this title doesn't suggest a laugh riot; it strikes me like Trying hard (Olympic sport) or perhaps War of the Foolish Generals.
  • The structure. This doesn't seem to be an encyclopedia article. It could be an oral dissertation, as it refers to its own text and to the readers repeatedly. It seems to be an exposition of an opinion.
  • The Intro does not promise the reader mirth, but perhaps the chance to find some humor if he studies it long enough. Unless the joke about the first sentence is its own ponderous language, it doesn't do the job. "Turtle to all morality"? I will have to think about this and get back to you. But putting the relative importance of aspects of slut shaming into priority (sigh!) is something you might do at the end but ought not do at the start. "It should not be forgotten, however, that it is also perceived by many as..."? Click!
  • The humor. I guess the strategies are that: (1) "Slut" is subjective; (2) use of the term slimes the user as much as the object; and (3) no one is slutty if she puts out with me. But there is a lot between the reader and the humor.
  • The source. UnNewses get to use them, as we don't all read the same news; the encyclopedia ought not to, especially because the humor should leap off the page and not be on some other page. I followed the footnote to The Independent and found a news article that ought not even be the source for an UnNews, as it is Weird News that provides very much of the humor, whereas the Uncyclopedia article makes a well-encoded side point about it.

I'll try simplifying the Intro without changing the essence (except for, perhaps, "turtle to all morality"). But, as I said repeatedly to Irritable of contents, "write jokes, not riddles." Spıke ¬ 21:02 27-Dec-14

Thanks for the comments! Slut shaming is a pretty new concept, but something many people are familiar with nowadays. If you are interested, Wikipedia has an article about it. The idea of shaming a woman who behaves indecently is not new, however, and that's what I was investigating
I get your point about the intro, but the "turtle" is there for a purpose: if you hear about slut shaming nowadays, it will be used in the same way people use the words "racism" or "sexism". It's become a label, not always applicable where it's used but always being extremely pejorative. The turtle is a joke, saying that our society stands on such things. Of course, there is a grain of truth there, and a large one, but every joke has a truthful part to it, and I'm trying to show both sides. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 13:22, December 28, 2014 (UTC)
By the way, concerning your humour point(s), the first two are accurate, but for the third one, what I said was not that "a woman is not a slut if she puts out with me", or with the reader, but that for the person shaming the 'slut', she probably becomes such the moment she refuses to put out with him. What I am really trying to find out is why anyone would take part in slut shaming. This is what I found. The joke is in the false reasoning used to deny that.

That kind of reasoning, actually:

  1. A cheap horse is rare to find.
  2. Rare things are always expensive.
  3. Therefore, a cheap horse is expensive.

Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 13:32, December 28, 2014 (UTC)

"Turtle" may be there for a purpose; this reader simply cannot discern it. Yes; I did not mean "a woman is not a slut if she puts out with me" (the supposed writer of the article) but me (the person doing the shaming). I have looked at the Wikipedia article ("part of a series on Discrimination," yikes!), still cannot find Turtle, and think that an Uncyclopedia article that mostly tries to call attention to the illogic of other people (at Wikipedia: to induce them to make decisions that strike us as nicer) is advocacy, unless it also offers a lot more. Spıke ¬ 13:37 28-Dec-14

But, Spike, you are asking for impossible things! Of course, I do have an opinion, and the only things I can see myself doing with it is either distancing myself from it and making fun of it, or making fun of the opposite opinion. I chose the latter, by showing all the absurdity of our society hand by hand with real examples (a Cambridge professor called a 'slut' or many teenage girls killing themselves after being 'shamed' by the Internet for posting indiscreet material). At the same time, I am not giving my opinion openly in the article. If I said that all our society relies on racism (which is not entirely true, but has a grain of truth to it, considering the role of racism in various cultures), it would just seem absurd. The fun thing would be if the reader was really convinced by my (absurd) arguments, and would fall in the trap laid out to him. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 13:49, December 28, 2014 (UTC)

We are here to make fun of things, and I do suggest (at CoW#Extremists) that you avail yourself of making fun of all sides, or at least lighten it up with entertaining choice of words, as I am trying to do to it, as opposed to the serious business of corralling your reader into his own inconsistency; this "fun" is self-amusement, not reader amusement. Spıke ¬ 13:54 28-Dec-14

But there are different types of fun. Thanks for your edits, by the way! They are funny, but if you permit, I think my version also has an amusing choice of words. For instance, "men never shame the 'sluts' they are in bed with, for as long as they are in bed with them" is pretty successful, in my opinion. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 14:21, December 28, 2014 (UTC)
I think I looked through all of your additions and cuts! Thanks again! You did not necessarily preserve the style in some places, but your choice of words is amusing and entertaining, all the same. Some of my phrases are not very encyclopedic, I am well aware, but I think a bit of it won't harm the article too much, and will just liven it up, when juxtaposed to yours. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 14:25, December 28, 2014 (UTC)

If the "different types of fun" were a justification, we would still enshrine pages that celebrate the fun of making an unwilling reader view photos of feces. Now, I keep stumbling on phrases you have inserted into the article to demonstrate that you don't hold the opinions you are writing about. This hurts readability, and ultimately, we don't care whether you do or don't; proclaim your innocence on the talk page! I had no problem in the article Genevieve Gorder (Won't. You. Bend. Over. A. Little. Further.) if the reader thought that I were the lecher. You become the actor playing the murderer who needs to come to the front of the stage and explain to the crowd that you don't really approve of what is happening. Spıke ¬ 14:58 28-Dec-14

"Uncyclopedia has a gaping hole at Slut" Double meaning? Sir ScottPat (converse) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 16:01, December 28, 2014 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects