The Tanoubliette: Pussy Hurt and Delusions or TTPHAD for short.

hodj · Jul 27, 2016

Denaut_sl said:
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.

Bolded part directly contradicts you, btw.

You claim he did not.

He called it 10 months ago that you would try to argue with him about it.

He's right.

You're wrong.

Deal with it.

hodj · Jul 27, 2016

As well, every definition here disagrees with you

Now, here are the top 5 Google Search results for "Poe's Law Define", and the definitions included therein. You tell us, Tanoomba, which one of these somehow magically morphs your stupidity into a factual reality (hint: None of them)

The very first link, hilariously, pops up Conservapedia. Here's the sad part. Even they disagree with Tanoomba.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Poe's_law

Poe's Law is an attempt at effective liberal internet satire and declares: "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humour, it is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing." The General Case of Poe's Law is "It is impossible to tell for certain the difference between genuine stupidity and a parody of stupidity." Poe's law was created by Nathan Poe in August of 2005 at the website christianforums.com website in the the section of their forum which focuses on creation vs. evolution debating. [3]

Second link is Urban Dictionary

http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...=Poe%27s%20Law

Poe's Law
Similar to Murphy's Law, Poe's Law concerns internet debates, particularly regarding religion or politics.

"Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing."

In other words, No matter how bizzare, outrageous, or just plain idiotic a parody of a Fundamentalist may seem, there will always be someone who cannot tell that it is a parody, having seen similar REAL ideas from real religious/political Fundamentalists.

Third link is Wikipedia

Poe's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Poe's law
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Poe's law is an Internet adage which states that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, parodies of extreme views will be mistaken by some readers or viewers for sincere expressions of the parodied views.[1][2][3]
History[edit]

"Poe's law" was originally written by Nathan Poe in 2005, in a post on christianforums.com, an Internet forum about Christianity. The post was written in the context of a debate about creationism, where a previous poster had remarked to another user "Good thing you included the winky. Otherwise people might think you are serious."[4] Poe then replied, "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is uttrerly [sic] impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won't mistake for the genuine article."[1] The original statement of Poe's law referred specifically to creationism, but it has since been generalized to apply to any kind of fundamentalism or extremism.[3]
In part, Poe's post reiterated advice often posted on Internet forums, about the need to clearly mark sarcasm and parody (e.g. with a smiling emoticon) to avoid confusion. As early as 1983, Jerry Schwarz, in a post on Usenet, wrote:
Avoid sarcasm and facetious remarks.

Without the voice inflection and body language of personal communication these are easily misinterpreted. A sideways smile, , has become widely accepted on the net as an indication that "I'm only kidding". If you submit a satiric item without this symbol, no matter how obvious the satire is to you, do not be surprised if people take it seriously.[5]

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

Poe's Law states:[1]

""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.
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. For example, some conservatives consider noted homophobe Fred Phelps to have been so over-the-top that they argue he was a "deep cover liberal" trying to discredit more mainstream homophobes. Support for this conspiracy theory of sorts is either supported or refuted, depending on your point of view, by the fact that he ran for office in five Kansas Democratic primary elections. He never won.[2]

It is important to note that: someone linking something to Poe's Law is not the same as the person suggesting that said thing is in fact any type of parody; on the contrary, linking to Poe's Law just means that you could not tell if said thing was parody or indeed sincere crankyness (assuming the author didn't decide to also supply a clear indication of intent). When one is presented with a viewpoint so over-the-top as to either be a brilliant parody or a genuinely banal extremist view, Poe's Law has been invoked.

That last paragraph on this one directly refutes Tanoomba's case in that discussion, by the way.

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/poes-law

About
Poe's Law is an Internet axiom which states that it is difficult to distinguish extremism from satire of extremism on the Internet unless the author clearly indicates his/her intent. This notion is most frequently observed with highly polarized discussion topics, such as gender equality, religious or political fundamentalism and other social justice-related issues.

Tanoomba, can you please direct us toany definition of Poe's Law recognized by anyone else on planet Earth besides yourself, that contradicts these definitions and confirms your extremely narrow and self serving definition, yes or no?

Here, for reference, was Tanoomba's definition of Poe's Law

Tanoomba_sl said:
Correction: You were right, Hodj, youarea moron.

Let me clarify:

Poe's Law, revised for the official Rerolled dictionary:
"No matter how obvious or ridiculous satire may be, somebody somewhere will be dumb enough to believe it's for real."

See? Let it not be said that I don't learn from my mistakes. Take your win gracefully, Hodj. I am readily admitting that you were right in your assertion that as long as some people are stupid enough to not recognize blatantly overt satire as such, they are illustrating Poe's law at work.

(Oh, and that last post was actually only 311 words. I guess your skill at word counting is equivalent to your skill at recognizing satire.)

And, by the way, my rebuttal to that post:

hodj_sl said:
Remember when I said Tanoomba needs to write his own dictionary to support his arguments?

And then three posts later he revises the definition of Poes law to try and make himself correct?

Good times.

you are a fucking retard because Poes law explicitly states that without explicit acknowledgement that the claim is facetious, some people are going to not get the joke. There are many reasons for this, from gullibility, to skimming the material or simply not engaging with it intellectually.

You are so stuck on trying to defend your shit position that you have to redefine the term to mean that anyone who happens to fall for the parody is by definition stupid or lacking in intellect, and no such thing is necessary or required.

And my post from previously that talks about how he needs to write his own dictionary to salvage every argument he makes

hodj_sl said:
Tanoomba needs to write his own dictionary so he can redefine every word around the extremely narrow and self serving definitions he needs to continue to perpetuate his shit position on the gamergate subject in this community.

He should name it A Moon Bat's Safe Space Dictionary for The Mentally Handicapped

And then there was this glittering gem of his stupidity on display

Tanoomba_sl said:
Yes, Hodj, I understand what Poe's law is.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOL

hodj · Jul 27, 2016

Tanoomba_sl said:
I was wrong, your definition of Poe's law is not arbitrary, it is the only available definition.

The people who fell for that article (of which there were only one or two) were absolutely stupid and gullible, but the definition of Poe's Law still allows for that.

No, they weren't, and no, it doesn't.

And the evidence is overwhelming.

Apologize.

Now.

hodj · Jul 27, 2016

Otherwise, you need to cite us where in any definition of Poe's Law, it states that the people falling for the Poe are implied to be stupid or gullible.

Put up or shut up time, retard.

hodj · Jul 27, 2016

See, here's the game you played.

You tried to claim because you recognized a Poe (which, you only recognized because you were already looking for ways to defend that outrageous position in the first place), and two or three other people didn't, they were stupid or gullible, and therefore this whole community is credulous.

But not you. Oh no.

Tanoomba, the well known rational skeptic who totally didn't fall for things like Moon Landing hoaxes, why you were just Carl Sagan and Christopher Hitchens and Matt Dillahunty up in this bitch.

And that is why you continue to equivocate on the point.

You are attempting to slander this community as stupid for two or three people falling for a Poe.

You're wrong on the facts, you're logical fallacy in this case is painting with a broad brush, or guilt by association, and your attempts to "have it both ways" by pretending to cede the point while still speaking out of the other side of your mouth and declaring that, even though you were wrong, everyone else was stupid so you're not really wrong, just surrounded by idiots speak, once again, volumes in regards to your dishonesty.

Now cite us a definition of Poe's law wherein the people who fell for the potential Poe are presumed stupid or gullible as a result.

It doesn't exist. You are wrong in every way. You're not half wrong. You're not "wrong but still really right because you're all dumber than my brilliance you just can't appreciate it".

You're just plain old fashioned 100% wrong.

Tanoomba · Jul 27, 2016

hodj_sl said:
The actual definition of Poe's law, as already provided to you in multiple citations, does not imply the people falling for the Poe are stupid.

No, it simplyallowsfor it. nobody ever said it implied it.

hodj_sl said:
Regardless what I said 10 months ago.

I do not define Poe's law.

I am not an authority.

The citations provided, and Denuat's historical retelling, demonstrate this clearly.

So you are still wrong, and still trying to imply people in this community are stupid, and you're brilliant, because like 2 people fell for a Poe, and you didn't.

I'm waiting for that apology.

There is no strawman.

If you think there is a strawman, then you need toprovide the syllogistic proof that such a fallacy has been made

You cannot, and will not, do so.

You never can.

The straw man was you saying that I claimed the definition was arbitrary. I objectively never said that, as I haveproven with my own words.

Now, let me get this straight: Your current problem, after I admitted I was wrong and that Poe's Law includes cases of reader stupidity (as you yourself have clarified repeatedly), your problem now is just that I pointed out stupidity in other board members? You can't possibly be serious here.

Also, no, the bolded part of Denaut's post still doesn't contradict anything I've said.

Tanoomba · Jul 27, 2016

hodj_sl said:
You tried to claim because you recognized a Poe (which, you only recognized because you were already looking for ways to defend that outrageous position in the first place), and two or three other people didn't, they were stupid or gullible, and therefore this whole community is credulous.

Your fallacy is straw man.

hodj_sl said:
You are attempting to slander this community as stupid for two or three people falling for a Poe.

Your fallacy is straw man.

hodj_sl said:
You're wrong on the facts, you're logical fallacy in this case is painting with a broad brush, or guilt by association, and your attempts to "have it both ways" by pretending to cede the point while still speaking out of the other side of your mouth and declaring that, even though you were wrong, everyone else was stupid so you're not really wrong, just surrounded by idiots speak, once again, volumes in regards to your dishonesty.

Your fallacy is straw man.

hodj_sl said:
Now cite us a definition of Poe's law wherein the people who fell for the potential Poe are presumed stupid or gullible as a result.

Your fallacy is straw man.

hodj · Jul 27, 2016

Tanoomba_sl said:
No, it simplyallowsfor it. nobody ever said it implied it.

Citation required.

The straw man was you saying that I claimed the definition was arbitrary.

Already disproven.

hodj · Jul 27, 2016

Also, no, the bolded part of Denaut's post still doesn't contradict anything I've said.

And the Moon Landing was a hoax.

You're a goddamn ESL teacher and you don't know what the words contradiction, arbitrary and consistent mean.

Just let that roll over in your mind for a while.

Tanoomba · Jul 27, 2016

hodj_sl said:
Citation required.

You're asking for proof of a negative. The onus is on you to show where I said the definition of "Pe's Law" implied stupidity on the part of the reader. You won't be able to, because I never said it.

NEXT!

hodj_sl said:
Already disproven.

Yes, your claim that I called the definition of Poe's Law "arbitrary" has been disproven, when I clearly showed my words to be a direct response toDoc's criticism of how I admitted I was wrong.

NEXT!

hodj · Jul 27, 2016

Tanoomba_sl said:
You're asking for proof of a negative. The onus is on you to show where I said the definition of "Pe's Law" implied stupidity on the part of the reader.

Ah, no, and here you go

Tanoomba_sl said:
Correction: You were right, Hodj, youarea moron.

Let me clarify:

Poe's Law, revised for the official Rerolled dictionary:
"No matter how obvious or ridiculous satire may be, somebody somewhere will be dumb enough to believe it's for real."

Yes, your claim that I called the definition of Poe's Law "arbitrary" has been disproven

Back to just bald faced lying I see.

Tanoomba · Jul 27, 2016

In fact, for fuck's sake, here:

Tanoomba_sl said:
I apologize for not admitting I was wrong according to your arbitrary standards that one time.

Now, is there a problem with any of the other times I admitted I was wrong? What are we comparing these to again?

This is, I swear to Christ, NO EXAGGERATION, what Jhodi believes is me claiming the definition of Poe's Law is "arbitrary'. THIS! Despite neither the post itself nor the post it's directly responding to mentioning anything about Poe's Law or its definition. Despite the fact that we are both explicitly talking about HOW I ADMIT I AM WRONG.

In the Jhodiverse,anything means anything.

You literally can't make this up.

hodj · Jul 27, 2016

This is a very simple concept to grasp.

If the definition he is using to determine whether you are correct or incorrect only has 1 possible correct solution, and your solution does not match that correct solution, how is his standard for determining you were wrong arbitrary?

hodj · Jul 27, 2016

If 2 + 2 = 4 and you answer 5 and we determine your answer is incorrect because your answer does not match the correct answer for this question, how is our standard for determining you were wrong arbitrary?

If the answer to "how many balls did Tanoomba juggle in his mouth simultaneously?" is 12, and you answer 13, how is our standard for determining you were wrong arbitrary?

Tanoomba · Jul 27, 2016

Tanoomba_sl said:
Correction: You were right, Hodj, youarea moron.

Let me clarify:

Poe's Law, revised for the official Rerolled dictionary:
"No matter how obvious or ridiculous satire may be, somebody somewhere will be dumb enough to believe it's for real."

See? Let it not be said that I don't learn from my mistakes. Take your win gracefully, Hodj. I am readily admitting that you were right in your assertion that as long as some people are stupid enough to not recognize blatantly overt satire as such, they are illustrating Poe's law at work.

(Oh, and that last post was actually only 311 words. I guess your skill at word counting is equivalent to your skill at recognizing satire.)

Claims I said Poe's Law's implies stupidity on the part of the reader. Posts my satirical response to how Jhodi chose to invoke Poe's Law, highlighting his repeatedly-stressed point that the definition of Poe's Law allows for stupidity on the part of the reader.

You know how you can tell it's satire?

Starts with "official Rerolled Dictionary", as in "Here, I'll give you a version of the definition that more clearly makes the exact point you're making now".

You know how else you can tell it's satire?

It directly contradicts the very problem I had with how "Poe's Law" was being invoked in that case. It's literally the opposite of my argument.

You know how else?

I explicitly reiterate that the provided definition is suited to YOUR ARGUMENT.

You know howelse?

I end on a joke about your terrible ability to recognize satire! The irony is staggering.

hodj_sl said:
Back to just bald faced lying I see.

I make a claim and back it up with proof: I'm a liar.
Jhodi makes a claim and backs it up with nothing: A-OK!

hodj · Jul 27, 2016

Congratulations.

You've just sunk to the deepest levels of intellectual dishonesty you have ever sunk to.

Notice how you cannot, and will not, address how our standards are arbitrary.

And you statement was not satirical.

That's ex post facto revisionism.

Tanoomba · Jul 27, 2016

hodj_sl said:
This is a very simple concept to grasp.

If the definition he is using to determine whether you are correct or incorrect only has 1 possible correct solution, and your solution does not match that correct solution, how is his standard for determining you were wrong arbitrary?

His standard wasn't determining I was wrong. There's your problem.

His standard was objecting to how I admitted I was wrong. Since, you know, that's explicitly what he's talking about. It's also explicitly what I am responding to. You are adding meaning that isn't there. Doesn't matter how "simple" the concept is if its wrong.

hodj · Jul 27, 2016

Tanoomba_sl said:
His standard wasn't determining I was wrong. There's your problem.

His standard was objecting to how I admitted I was wrong. Since, you know, that's explicitly what he's talking about. It's also explicitly what I am responding to. You are adding meaning that isn't there. Doesn't matter how "simple" the concept is if its wrong.

This is just more historical revisionism and more attempts to semantize the debate.

You've got a big thing for semen.

Tanoomba · Jul 27, 2016

hodj_sl said:
Congratulations.

You've just sunk to the deepest levels of intellectual dishonesty you have ever sunk to.

Notice how you cannot, and will not, address how our standards are arbitrary.

And you statement was not satirical.

That's ex post facto revisionism.

All right, Jhodes, we've reached the fun part of the cycle again.

You're just going to hang your hat on your straw man and copy-paste it for the next whatever days. I'll go back to ignoring them while I post about whatever the fuck else I want in here, you can giggle to yourself about how angry you think I'm getting, eventually you'll blow your top about another time I embarrassed you, you'll try to challenge me all over again, you'll make a few half-assed attempts at easily debunked arguments, you'll ignore any and all information that doesn't suit your narrative, then you'll commit whole hog to whatever straw man goes best with that day's medication, and it begins again, and so on, and so on.

Enjoy your copy-pasta. I'll be ready the next time you wanna dig up old shit you're still angry about.

hodj · Jul 27, 2016

Is there any argument you've ever made that someone else did not "strawman" in your eyes, Tanoomba?

The Tanoubliette: Pussy Hurt and Delusions or TTPHAD for short.

Vox Populi Jihadi

Vox Populi Jihadi

Vox Populi Jihadi

Vox Populi Jihadi

Vox Populi Jihadi

ジョーディーすれいやー

ジョーディーすれいやー

Vox Populi Jihadi

Vox Populi Jihadi

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

Vox Populi Jihadi

Vox Populi Jihadi

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

Vox Populi Jihadi

ジョーディーすれいやー

Vox Populi Jihadi