Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Just. Wow.
Like Ipointed out yesterday, Poe's Law is SUPPOSED to be about how certain views are SO extreme that it becomes difficult to tell them apart from satire of those very views. This is what everyone is now barking at me, even though that was my initial (correct) interpretation of Poe's Law.
If you want to put those two examples in the same category, feel free to do so. There is a clear distinction to me, though. The former could easily be confused as a legitimate representation of SJWism at work by any reasonable person, the latter can only be suspected of being "legit" by people with no critical thinking skills (a trait that'sobviouslynot uncommon among anti-SJWs, nor are they hesitant to share their ignorance in the form of angry comments under an obvious joke article). And no, Hodj, the humor wasn't "hidden" in the article (and you've reached a new low of stupidity for even suggesting something so asinine). It's as blatant as can be, as in-your-face and over-the-top as any humor can be without a literal pie in the face.
So we're back to what I said yesterday. I'll admit I was wrong (for the second time), that the article in question DOES count as Poe's Law at work, and that Poe's Law is not necessarily a reflection of how extreme some views are, but can also be indicative of how gullible and lacking in critical thinking skills some ideologues can be. This second case is pretty much exclusively how Poe's Law has been referenced by Rerolled in relation to SJWs.
TLDR: I was wrong. Poe's Law can certainly include cases where people are simply too stupid to see satire as satire.
Are you happy? Can we put this to bed now?
Like Ipointed out yesterday, Poe's Law is SUPPOSED to be about how certain views are SO extreme that it becomes difficult to tell them apart from satire of those very views. This is what everyone is now barking at me, even though that was my initial (correct) interpretation of Poe's Law.
Is it a joke? Is it for real? We don't know! It actually COULD be real, since we know that there are people who actually identify as animals and are vocal about how that affects their life. As ridiculous as it sounds, a reasonable person can't be certain of the nature of the statement without more information about the source or the context. THAT'S POE'S LAW.
Is it a joke? YES. FUCKING OBVIOUSLY. If you need to question this, YOU ARE A MORON. Now, to be fair, it still may count as Poe's Law, since Poe's Law does't specifically exclude people who are simply too fucking stupid to see blatant satire for what it is.
If you want to put those two examples in the same category, feel free to do so. There is a clear distinction to me, though. The former could easily be confused as a legitimate representation of SJWism at work by any reasonable person, the latter can only be suspected of being "legit" by people with no critical thinking skills (a trait that'sobviouslynot uncommon among anti-SJWs, nor are they hesitant to share their ignorance in the form of angry comments under an obvious joke article). And no, Hodj, the humor wasn't "hidden" in the article (and you've reached a new low of stupidity for even suggesting something so asinine). It's as blatant as can be, as in-your-face and over-the-top as any humor can be without a literal pie in the face.
So we're back to what I said yesterday. I'll admit I was wrong (for the second time), that the article in question DOES count as Poe's Law at work, and that Poe's Law is not necessarily a reflection of how extreme some views are, but can also be indicative of how gullible and lacking in critical thinking skills some ideologues can be. This second case is pretty much exclusively how Poe's Law has been referenced by Rerolled in relation to SJWs.
TLDR: I was wrong. Poe's Law can certainly include cases where people are simply too stupid to see satire as satire.
Are you happy? Can we put this to bed now?
