Archives for this talk page:
Another example: "War of the Worlds" radio broadcast
When WotW was broadcast on radio on Oct 30 1938, many listeners thought a real alien invasion was happening, despite many details of the script being changed "to tone down the realism".
- Actually, it seems a few credulous listeners got overly excited, and the news media played it up. This sorta thing happens all the time. [MrG / Greg Goebel] — Unsigned, by: 184.108.40.206 / talk / contribs
The Delicious Irony of Poe's Law
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... --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 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)."
Occam's Razor as applied to Poe's Law?
I have made an observation - unfortunately because I glanced at the comments section at the bottom of a news article and promptly started smashing my head against my desk.
The observation is that there are a lot of stupid comments which are so stupid that Poe's Law applies. It was then noted that the poster behind these comments was the same person - and they had a habit of prolific Poe's Law-ing - leading me to conclude their belief was sincere (which made it all the funnier)
This led me to wonder: does it make fewer assumptions to suggest that genuine parodists of any sort of ingenuity are fairly rare, especially when compared to the number of ignorant people. There hence, Occam's Razor comes into play - suggesting that many (most?) candidates for Poe's Law are in fact sincere?
NB: This is a depressing thought
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. — Unsigned, by: IP / talk / contribs
- "Homophobia" refers to the aversion of homosexuality. It does not necessarily mean they're scared of it. БaбyЛuigiOнФire(T|C) 03:59, 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.
Parody and extremism
"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."
Usually laws belong to some branch of knowledge. I suppose this one might be more a rule of thumb than a law. I do wonder if Poe's Law is self referential. The quote leads one to suppose things that make us laugh are likely to be extreme. I hate when that happens.Ariel31459 (talk) 03:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)