Talk:Poe's Law/Archive2

Poe's Sigularity?
I keep coming across people on forums referring to "Poe's Singularity", but google searching produces no results. Is "Poe's Singularity" functionally equivalent to "Poe's Law limit", or is it something else?

Here is an example.: Anid Maro wrote: I don't think there's much argument that Romney is ignorant of the poor. His quote shows that.

However that's different from claiming his quote shows him to viscerally enjoy feasting upon the dried carcasses or poor Americans, or some such.

Fallout2man wrote: He personally doesn't need to, but it showcases the emotional mood of the electorate that would chose Romney. He's considered the inevitable front-runner, his plus is supposed to be regarding his ability to fix the economy. Yes, the poor have "a safety net" and he's so not worried about them he wants to institute policies which gut it despite saying they'll be fine and alluding with his very same statement he wouldn't do such a thing. Personally if it weren't for his quite apparent history of policy and rhetoric changes I would wonder if he himself thought that way. At this point I'm pretty sure Romney's joined at the hip to opinion polls and supports whatever he thinks will be popular with the base.

Anid Maro wrote: Really, when people distort quotes to fit a pre-determined strawman* but then simultaneously complain about the political process... all that enters my mind is "garbage in, garbage out". It's like our politics are the monster we deserve. And I'm talking about both sides of the divide here; Every time someone who watches Fox News goes to complain about media distorting political discourse, I retch a little inside.

Fallout2man wrote: I really wonder what the solution is to the situation. I mean even when I try to be non-confrontational about it I've yet to find an issue thread where I was able to form a clear consensus with the conservatives here outside of copyright threads, and also on police militarization surprisingly. (Thanatos and Spool agreeing in the same thread is priceless) I'm not sure at this point if or how we can talk to each other rather than trying to talk past each other on certain issues. I think it's because in a lot of cases we've reached a point where no one just wants to change their positions because of a good argument since it's seen as a sign of personal weakness. It's sad. :-/

Anid Maro wrote: This strikes me as what SKFM is protesting, rather than any desire to shine up anyone's perception of Romney.

*Yes, my second line is a pre-determined strawman. A hyperbole even. Yes I'm aware of the irony. :)

Fallout2man wrote: So we've reached Poe's singularity finally? ;p

I asked and Fallout2Man said: Poe's Law states that any sufficiently funny parody of religious fundamentalism will become indistinguishable from the real thing. After seeing the current GOP primaries I joked they would take parody so far as to reach Poe's Singularity: Where as the parody slowly reaches the speed of light its mass will grow so heavy that it appears legitimate/insightful and actual fundamentalism will be considered a hilarious parody. In short, the day The Onion has a serious news article that touches on social issues and the mainstream political news reads like The Onion. Well, that's the more scientific way of saying it anyway! ;p
 * Kinda like a collapsed wave function? -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Could Poe's Law Apply To Racism?
I hate to use informal examples, but some friends and I recently encountered someone so racist is to be ridiculous. The group of us contained a few different races, so we spent the next couple hours talking about the different racial "facts" (read: stereotypes) which quickly became more unlikely, but we were still being taken seriously.

"Well obviously. We white people can't jump, so we have to compensate somewhere." "Oh hold on, I looked away from him. Let me see if I still have my wallet." "Oh, yeah me too."

I kind of feel like Poe's Law could be more generalized to apply to any particularly nonsensical opinions.

--76.122.5.96 (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, it can easily be applied to any extreme opinion that is so far outside a person's realm of common sense that they have to response "this can't be real!!" Scarlet A.pngpathetic 18:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. Racism, diet, whatever.  Our example in the first sentence is about homophobia. Another pretty obvious example is our current Debate:The Permissive Society. --Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 19:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Alternative rendering
'There is no cure for deliberate/malign stupidity.' 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Deliberate stupidity has an easy cure: stop being deliberately stupid. Anyway, what's that got to do with parody, or Poe's Law?  17:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Meta-Poe
Arguably, it's easy enough to spot parody. The real difficulty is spotting the difference between people falling for the joke and people getting in on the joke when it comes to discussing it. pathetic 15:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

New Conservapedia
If this is a joke, would it be worth adding here? Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 18:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No. 06:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Postmodernism and Poe
Can a Poe's Law version of be created? (The summaries do seem to describe 'real books' in that field) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

"Poe's Inversion"? (The "Just kidding"-defence)
I was wondering after my pointed comments on environmental classism regarding the "We were just joking"-explanation for the contents of the whether it's an inversion of Poe's Law when people called out on something use the "Just kidding"-escape hatch? Or is it some other fallacy/trope that covers such behaviour? ScepticWombat (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Variant?
There is a statement that anyone who 'deliberately and unnecessarily brings Hitler/Stalin/other snarl term person' into a discussion has automatically lost the argument ('the newt' and 'the bike' being recent examples). Is this a variant of Poe's Law or does it have another name? 31.49.51.47 (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You are probably looking for Godwin's Law. Category:Eponymous laws might also be of use.--JorisEnter (talk) 13:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I normally leave Poe/Godwin infractors well alone - the two groups probably overlap to some extent. 86.191.125.244 (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The Delicious Irony of Poe's Law
Google Poe's law and you'll find the definition google gives is from Conservapedia. 76.188.216.147 (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Alex Jones
Would it be worth mentioning A.J's claims of being a performance artist? I feel like it's related but I'm new here. Feel free to delete this.
 * Sounds like it's related, but it's not a confirmation... 22:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

why is Szilveszter Matuska here?
"Szilveszter Matuska was a 1930s-era terrorist who derailed trains. Historians believe he was possibly motivated by sexual gratification (symphorophilia), although the exact motive is not known for sure. Some analysts suggest similar dynamics may be at work today in some cases of Islamic terrorism (the 72-virgins thing being an obvious example)."

Interesting, but really has nothing to do with Poe's Law Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

homophobe gibe
The article insults someone as a "homophobe" but people who don't agree with the philosophy of anal sex are not "afraid". There is no science of homosexuality beyond anecdotal, which is non-science.
 * "Homophobia" refers to the aversion of homosexuality. It does not necessarily mean they're scared of it. 03:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * the op did not require a response. they are imbeciles or just pricks. dnft AMassiveGay (talk) 07:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Frauds verses True Believers
Perhaps an extension could be added concerning creationist leaders. It can be difficult to tell the difference between true believers in creationism and frauds who are only trying to sell books, tickets and whatever they can to the true believers. The end users are clearly true believers (or just want to see what's going on), but at least some preachers/authors/whatever would never be espousing any of this without the financial motive.

This is not limited to creationism or traditional religion. There are frauds looking to make money everywhere. --Vital Forces (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2019 (UTC)