Butthurt white guys, an Asian virgin and an angry lesbian walk into a bar...

hodj · Sep 15, 2015

YouinterpretedWikipedia's definition and in the process completely massacred it, because despite being an ESL teacher, you cannot read and comprehend basic English.

My definition remains the same as it was on the last page.

Poe's law is an Internet adage which states that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, parodies of extreme views will, to some readers, be indistinguishable from sincere expressions of the parodied views.

The ball has always been in my court, because for you to ever have the ball in your court, you would have to be competent enough to take it, which you have failed to do since first asserting we must all live with a black family to understand Trayvon's struggles.

You should not interpret anything. You are clearly not capable of doing so competently. You should read the definition until you grasp that the people who are not able to distinguish the parody of extremism from the true expression of extremism are not, by any version of the definition, by necessity stupid, ignorant, dumb, gullible, etc.

That is purely your subjective, false, irrational, necessary revision of the definition you made up to try and make yourself feel better about how stupid and wrong you are.

Tanoomba · Sep 15, 2015

hodj_sl said:
My definition remains the same as it was on the last page.

Poe's law is an Internet adage which states that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, parodies of extreme views will, to some readers, be indistinguishable from sincere expressions of the parodied views.

Click to expand...

Stop being a sarcastic cunt for two fucking seconds and let's have a conversation here.

The definition you just quoted, can we consider that the official definition of Poe's Law?

Assuming we can, how do we decide what a "clear indicator of the author's intent" is? When I readonly the title"HOW CAN I CONVINCE MY 3-YEAR-OLD THEY?RE TRANSGENDER?" my skeptic flag went right up. IMMEDIATELY, I thought "this sounds like some trolling bullshit". But I gave it the benefit of the doubt. I understand and acknowledge that there are crazy fucking nutjobs out there. So I continued reading...

The first paragraph started pretty silly, but it wasn't necessarily unfeasible that somebody might have said that sincerely. The whole pronoun tomfoolery is proof enough that what I consider silly, others might take very seriously. But then I reached this line:

My husband identifies as gender neutral, and whenever ?Xe? (my husbands current pronoun) witnesses our child playing with toy trucks and trains, it triggers ?Xer? so hard that ?Xe? crumbles into a quivering pile of inconsolable PTSD jitters.

And all bets were off. This was a joke. There was no question about it. The author's intent was SUPER-CLEAR at this point.

But hey, this was an advice column, right? Maybe the advice-giver was going to play devil's advocate and treat the obvious troll job as though it was worthy of response. It seemed entirely likely that the response would include "You can not force an infant to conform to a pre-decided gender identity" or any equivalent ridiculously obvious way to respond to such nonsense. Instead, what did we get?

No one wants a white, CIS male child, and the people who pretend they do are merely deluding themselves.

For Christ's sake, if the author's intent (as obviously, the author wrote both the question and answer) wasn't clear before (and it WAS to any reasonable person capable of critical thought), then any doubt has been obliterated at this point. Do you not see this? Do you disagree that this is super-obvious satire? Where do we draw the line between someone believing this bullshit and someone believing a Garfield comic is real life?

So, by the very definition you linked, that stupid fucking article is NOT an example of Poe's Law since it is readily apparent that the author's intent is VERY CLEARLY INDICATED to anyone with half a brain. Unless, of course, your point is that even people who are ignorant as fuck still count towards proving something is Poe's Law, in which case the very concept becomes completely irrelevant since there will ALWAYS be people stupid enough to believe ANYTHING.

Stop being such a fucking coward and clarify your position, for Christ's sake.

hodj · Sep 15, 2015

You realize no one, including myself, is going to read all that bullshit you just wrote trying to justify your retarded shit opinion, right?

khalid · Sep 15, 2015

Tanoomba_sl said:
Stop being such a fucking coward and clarify your position, for Christ's sake.

Okay, if you are going to say stuff like this, at least have the courtesy to put a trigger warning at the top of your post.

hodj · Sep 15, 2015

khalid_sl said:
Okay, if you are going to say stuff like this, at least have the courtesy to put a trigger warning at the top of your post.

I like couldn't have clarified my position more, and he still demands a clarification.

At some point everyone, himself included, must realize he's just not very good at reading comprehension, imo.

Phazael · Sep 15, 2015

hodj_sl said:
Youre a fucking idiot.

Could have stopped there and not wasted the effort (and be twitter friendly!) on Moonbat. There is a reason he is the only person on my ignore list.

zombiewizardhawk · Sep 15, 2015

Tanoomba_sl said:
What part of "clarify" don't you understand? I was making sure everyone understood I was going by YOUR definition of Poe's Law when I admitted YOU WERE RIGHT.

Awww, good guy Tardnoomba just looking out for all us pea-brains on rerolled who don't understands things.

VariaVespasa_sl · Sep 16, 2015

hodj_sl said:
YouinterpretedWikipedia's definition and in the process completely massacred it,

Without forming an opinion on any other part of your mutual arguement, no, no he didnt. Its a reasonably close rephrasing. You have your head up your ass on that point. Shut up and find something that has substance if you want to harangue him.

Tanoomba · Sep 16, 2015

hodj_sl said:
You realize no one, including myself, is going to read all that bullshit you just wrote trying to justify your retarded shit opinion, right?

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize someone who regularly writes 3000 word posts was too lazy to read something that made him look like an idiot.

TLDR: Since there will ALWAYS be people stupid enough to believe ANYTHING, the very concept of Poe's Law as you present it is completely meaningless.

If you have a counter-argument feel free to share it. If you choose to continue to stay in the hole you've dug yourself, I will happily accept this victory, too.

hodj · Sep 16, 2015

Tanoomba_sl said:
blah blah blah

This guy needs serious help.

Since there will ALWAYS be people stupid enough to believe ANYTHING, the very concept of Poe's Law as you present it is completely meaningless.

Poe's law is just an observation that parodies of extremism will often be confused with actual extremism if the intent on the part of the author is not make explicitly clear. I would ask if you're fucking dense, but we know you are.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe's_Law

It is an observation that it's difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish between parodies of fundamentalism or other extreme views and their genuine proponents, since they both seem equally insane.

There is no other point or purpose to it, and the definition explicitly does not put the onus on the part of the people reading the parody to discern its parodic intent, it does not imply the people falling for the parody are stupid, ignorant, dumb, or gullible. Because, while some of them may be, others will not be.

That's why the law explicitly states

Without a clear indication of the author's intent, it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference between an expression of sincere extremism and a parody of extremism

We can take it a step further, and look at Nathan Poe's original formulation of the statement, which reads

Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterly impossible to parody a creationist in such a way that someone won't mistake it for the genuine article.

Nathan Poe clearly places the burden on the author to indicate they are engaging in parody, otherwise, as he states "it isutterly impossibleto parody a creationist in such a way that someone won't mistake it for the genuine article."

The same is clearly true of the SJW set, whose insanity is such that they actually appear to be religious fundamentalists today.

The onus is on the author of the parody piece to indicate that they are engaging in parody. Your redefinition attempts to shift the burden to the readers, and you have to do that because you want to redefine the term to claim that anyone who can't tell a parody on first glance are stupid, and you have to do that to try and slander this community that hates you because you are fucking anally devastated that they mock and ridicule you for being the complete mouth breathing dick shitting retard that you have worked so hard for two years to prove yourself to be.

VariaVespasa_sl said:
Without forming an opinion on any other part of your mutual arguement, no, no he didnt. Its a reasonably close rephrasing. You have your head up your ass on that point. Shut up and find something that has substance if you want to harangue him.

Actually, yes, he did. Redefining words to fit his narrow definitions is all he's got.

Everyone else realizes it. You should probably get with the program.

Tanoomba · Sep 16, 2015

Complains about long posts. Writes long posts. #justhodjthings

Anyways, I understand all that. Always have. Here's what you're missing:

Withouta clear indication of the author's intent, it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference between an expression of sincere extremism and a parody of extremism

Without a winking smiley or otherblatant display of humor, it is utterly impossible to parody a creationist in such a way that someone won't mistake it for the genuine article.

Now, when we see this quote again:

My husband identifies as gender neutral, and whenever ?Xe? (my husbands current pronoun) witnesses our child playing with toy trucks and trains, it triggers ?Xer? so hard that?Xe? crumbles into a quivering pile of inconsolable PTSD jitters.

See what I'm getting at? the author's intent is SUPER-CLEAR. That line is the verydefinitionof a "blatant display of humor". it is IN NO WAY indistinguishable from actual extremism,unless you're an idiot.

So every time Rerolled posters use "Poe's Law" when confronted with super-obvious satire, what they're basically saying is "We're too stupid to understand this is blatant humor and in no way reflects actual SJW ideology or beliefs." Before you repeat yourself, YES, I understand that stupidity is not a requirement for Poe's Law, but it certainly has been the defining factor in most references to Poe's Law I've seen here, especially in relation to SJWs. I get it, it's usuallymeantto imply "Look how extreme they are! We don't even know if this is a joke!", but that doesn't work when you HAVE to be a moron to not see an obvious joke as a joke.

Denaut · Sep 16, 2015

I witnessed the creation of Poe's Law in real time and was an active participant in the thread in which it was coined. Tanoomba is, unsurprisingly, wrong as usual.

The law was created as a reference to Creationists on a board that was specifically about debating creationism. In that thread a long-standing member of said community made a satirical comment mimicking a dumb thing a creationist might say.

A new member of the board who was unfamiliar with the poster assumed that they were a creationist and gave a heartfelt counter-reply to the mimic. They had to be informed that said person was not a creationist and was just making a joke. The new poster apologized and said they were embarrassed. The rest of the posters assured the new person that it was ok because it was so easy to mistake someone satirizing creationism for creationism itself.

It was at this point Nathan coined his now internet famous law. It was posted to reassure the new poster that they were not stupid, but that creationists are the stupid ones because they sincerely say such ridiculous things so much that it was essentially impossible to insincerely satirize them without still sounding enough like a creationist that someonewho is not stupidwill mistake the satire for non-satire.

I expect Tanoomba to argue with me about this, but he's a moron that is always wrong anyway so who cares.

hodj · Sep 16, 2015

Explicit indication of the author's intent, as demonstrated by Poe's Law, is outright stating the post is satire in some form or fashion.

This author did not do that. And clearly, their intent was not perfectly clear, since far more people than just Rerolled members fell for it. The comments section of that post is full of people taking the author 100% completely seriously. There is no blatant display of humor in the post. What you have cited is a part of the post hidden within it, which would require someone to read the entire post to discover. That is not a blatant display of humor. In b4 you now try to argue for 20 pages what the definition of blatant is. I'll cut you off right there

bla?tant
'blatnt/Submit
adjective
(of bad behavior) done openly and unashamedly.
"blatant lies"
synonyms: flagrant, glaring, obvious, undisguised, unconcealed, open; More
completely lacking in subtlety; very obvious.
"forcing herself to resist his blatant charm"

Hiding the display of humor in the content of the post is not blatantly displaying it.

Congratulations on being wrong again.

I didn't complain about long posts in general, I complained about you needing to make long posts on this topic due to the convolutedness of your position.

added:

Now that Denault has chimed in as well, and the evidence for Tanoomba's stupidity is overwhelming, will he be able to admit he was wrong on this, and that once again, his dipshitness is confirmed and verified for all to see?

iannis · Sep 16, 2015

Argument invalid. It did not read with a slurring anti-semetic Australian accent.

hodj · Sep 16, 2015

Iannis_sl said:
Argument invalid. It did not read with a slurring anti-semetic Australian accent.

New avatar, would require a slurring Latino accent, possibly with anti white or african american undertones.

iannis · Sep 16, 2015

I'm choosing more of a Narco's style of tone than a cheech marin type.

Hmm. Yeah. Gives it some gravitas.

Ridas · Sep 16, 2015

Why are you calling Mist an idiot all the time, Tanoomba? She has a very hard time right now and you are being an asshole again for no reason.

Lithose · Sep 16, 2015

Tanoomba_sl said:
See what I'm getting at? the author's intent is SUPER-CLEAR. That line is the verydefinitionof a "blatant display of humor". it is IN NO WAY indistinguishable from actual extremism,unless you're an idiot.

So every time Rerolled posters use "Poe's Law" when confronted with super-obvious satire, what they're basically saying is "We're too stupid to understand this is blatant humor and in no way reflects actual SJW ideology or beliefs." Before you repeat yourself, YES, I understand that stupidity is not a requirement for Poe's Law, but it certainly has been the defining factor in most references to Poe's Law I've seen here, especially in relation to SJWs. I get it, it's usuallymeantto imply "Look how extreme they are! We don't even know if this is a joke!", but that doesn't work when you HAVE to be a moron to not see an obvious joke as a joke.

Tan, you were wrong; just stop being a dumbass for a moment and finally admit it. The whole meaning of the law is to denote that when the other side has become so stupid that satire which embellish extreme stupidity, even in a manner that seems extremely humorous or unbelievable, become something a majority of any group (IE a reasonable standard) can not dismiss outright (EVEN if they suspect it is satirical). That is the fucking whole concept of the law, that humorous or extreme statements within the text can no longer stand out because the thing they are satirizing is already so over-the-top.

Considering we have seen animal kin posting about how they hate their parents because they don't understand their fox spirit, it is pretty easy to see why Poe's law is in effect with this crowd. They could literally say anything, and we would believe they are capable of that stupidity because they have made it that evident that they are, indeed, that stupid. You do not get Poe's law, but you should at this point. You are clearly wrong here, like 100%--not due to some objective thing, but because there were a bunch of posters who had to ASK if that was satire. When you have to ask still, it is Poe's law. When you can't recognize it without researching the author or the publication, because you are so used to bat shit crazy ignorance from a particular group? You have crossed into Poe's territory.

Even ifYOUgot it, it doesn't matter--if a bunch of people have doubts, it is Poe. This is one law where a reasonable standard, which means based on the average of all the people in a group, would be used. And almosteveryonehere needed confirmation it was satire, even if we suspected it was. Needing that confirmation is fucking Poe's law at work.

Cad · Sep 16, 2015

This whole derail centers around Tanoomba thinking he was being clever by insinuating he didn't realize we were so stupid that we couldn't tell satire from reality. You aspies letting him bait you into debating how ridiculously extreme these points of view are (and therefore Poe's is valid, hur hur!) aren't doing anybody any good. Christ.

hodj · Sep 16, 2015

There is never a bad time to make Tanoomba look like a retard and berate him verbally.

He hasn't baited anyone into shit except himself into looking like a dipshit again.

Butthurt white guys, an Asian virgin and an angry lesbian walk into a bar...

Vox Populi Jihadi

ジョーディーすれいやー

Vox Populi Jihadi

Unelected Mod

Vox Populi Jihadi

Confirmed Beta Shitlord, Fat Bastard

Potato del Grande

shitlord

ジョーディーすれいやー

Vox Populi Jihadi

ジョーディーすれいやー

Trump's Staff

Vox Populi Jihadi

Musty Nester

Vox Populi Jihadi

Musty Nester

Pay to play forum

Buzzfeed Editor

scientia potentia est

Vox Populi Jihadi