1 - So are you worried about the reviewer that is misrepresenting and interpreting the game to fulfill a SJW agenda?
2- I really don't think there is more than one website for every 7 habitants on earth.
3 - So you are worried about the historian being correct, but not enough to care and check as you did OP?
You should follow more topics in this site, as there is a lot of pro-SJW stuff and distortions to support it in several posts and topics. But if you haven't seem ok, since you don't like both distortions I'm ok.
I got to it based on your answers and portrayal, so even though it was a hyperbole (exaggerating to show it doesn't make sense, I believe it is called reduction to ridiculum), but yes I stand corrected.
1. I'm not worried about the reviewer, but my lack of concern has nothing to do with the reviewer's agenda. If the review was on a website I actually used, I might care.
2. Don't think that was the relevant part of what I said, but you'd be surprised. http://www.internetlivestats.com/total-number-of-websites/
3. This was a pretty easy thing to check. The amount I cared was proportionate to the amount of effort it would take to investigate. To actually check the historian's accuracy, I would have to start sending emails, research 1600s Czech Republic, and so on.
In other words, I cared enough to click the review and read it. I don't care enough to engage in a research project. I'd say that's pretty typical human behavior.
4. Looking at the hot topics on the front page, there are 4 that are to one extent or another complaining about sjw stuff. Two of them I'd say are generally fair, one (this) is misleading, and one is absolutely batshit. I see no topics actually promoting any kind of social justice. That's not to say there's not stupid stuff on both sides within the topics, but on this site, it seems like the anti-sjw people are the ones really pressing the issue. Of course, that's just what I notice, and I'm not claiming to be perfectly unbiased. Could be certain things are flying under my radar.
5. It's reductio ad absurdum... but that's not the same thing as hyperbole.
In a valid reductio ad absurdum argument, the "exaggeration" has to actually be a logical and necessary extension of the original argument. For example, if I said "Nintendo games are always better than Sony games" and you said "Then you're saying Animal Crossing Amiibo festival is better than Uncharted 4?" Then that would be a valid reductio ad absurdum argument because the exaggeration would actually have to be true if my premise were true. If I said "Nintendo games are usually better than Sony's" and you said "Then you're saying Animal Crossing Amiibo festival is better than Uncharted 4?" then that would not be a valid reductio ad absurdum argument, because that exaggeration would not have to be true if my premise were true.
In this case, your hyperbole didn't necessarily follow from what I was saying. That's an appeal to the extremes fallacy. In general, reductio ad absurdum arguments only work when someone takes an extreme and rigid stance. Otherwise, it doesn't work.
But, if you stand corrected, then that's fine.