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

DickTrickle_sl said:

Didn't read all that but isn't the issue here that Tanoomba is saying those who fell for it are stupid but Poe's law says that someone falling for it is not stupid. In other words, you can never cite being an example of Poe's law as a case for someone's stupidity. So saying someone is stupid or gullible for falling for it would be a wrong thing to say.

Click to expand...

No, that's not what I'm saying. That makes no sense. Have you readthis article?It starts off ridiculous, but how far did you get before it became blazingly obvious it was satire?

For me it was right here:

Stupid Article_sl said:

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.

Click to expand...

There is no ambiguity there. It is not subject to misinterpretation as someone's actual stance. It's Garfield-level, in-your-face humor that could not be more obvious without a literal pie in the face. After reading that sentence everything else jumped out as the obvious joke it was.

I'm not saying Poe's Law exists to highlight stupid people. I'm saying, in this very specific case, the people calling "Poe's Law" were stupid. It was obvious humor. They didn't get it because they're stupid. However, Poe's Law states that as long assomebodymistakes it for the real thing (regardless of stupidity), then it's Poe's Law.

DickTrickle_sl said:

So, for example, if you knew nothing about person X except that they fell for an example of Poe's law, you would no reason to say they were stupid.

Click to expand...

Of course not. But if someone read that article and thought it was legit, they're stupid.

DickTrickle_sl said:

So are you saying the people who fell for it also happened to be stupid and gullible? Because it sounds like you're saying they're stupid and gullible for falling for it.

Click to expand...

I don't think they "fell for it". It wasn't a trick. It was Onion-level satire written for a laugh. It was never supposed to be taken seriously. That's what makes the people who believed it stupid.

But I'm being too harsh. It's not necessarily just stupidity. It could be that, obsessed with finding examples of egregious SJW behavior to mock, some people's confirmation bias overpowered their critical thinking ability. You know, the same way Sarkeesian finds examples of "sexism" everywhere.

hodj_sl said:

All that excuse making.

No part of falling for a Poe, no matter how obvious it may be, implies the people who fell for it were stupid or dumb, or so concerned with confirming their biases that you're just the pinnacle of rationalism and skepticism in comparison, which is the crux of your (terrible) argument.

Click to expand...

That has never been any part of my argument, let alone the crux. I never said that "falling for a Poe" implied any of that. In this particular case, anyone who thought that article was legit is stupid. That's not a statement about Poe's Law. It's a statement about the obvious nature of the satire in that article.

DickTrickle_sl said:

I didn't read the article at all and it's not really relevant here. I just think if you admit it's an example of Poe's law, then by definition, you can't say they're stupid (or whatever else) for thinking it's real.

Click to expand...

Of course you can. Poe's Law just says that that if somebody interprets satire as someone's legitimate stance, it's Poe's Law. Period. The definition says nothing about whether that person just interpreted it that way because they're an idiot. That was Jhodi's entire argument. That's why I was wrong when I said people thinking that article was legit wasn't an example of Poe's Law: Because Poe's Law doesn't make exceptions for idiots. Again, that was Jhodi's explicit argument.

DickTrickle_sl said:

Basically what I'm getting at is you can think they're stupid for believing it, but then it's by definition not an example of Poe's law.

Click to expand...

This was exactly my stance. This is what I was wrong about. Because, you see, THE definition of Poe's Law doesn't disqualify stupid people who can't recognize obvious satire. Again, that wasJhodi's entire argument.

hodj_sl said:

The reality: A poe must be indistinguishablefor somefrom the real thing to be a true Poe.

Click to expand...

hodj_sl said:

My definition does not include the necessity that someone who falls for a Poebeing stupid, dumb, gullible, or ignorant. These are options among a realm of possibilitiesfor why someone would fall for a Poe.

Click to expand...

hodj_sl said:

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, whilesome of them may be, others will not be.

Click to expand...

You see? Jhodi is EXPLICITLY saying that if someone is simply too stupid to recognize obvious satire, it's still Poe's Law. According to the definition, he's right. That's why I was wrong in claiming that people being too stupid to recognize the obvious satire in that article wasn't Poe's Law.

hodj_sl said:

Tanoomba I already straight out said I was mistaken and not the authority on what the definition of Poe's law is in the face of the recognized definition that is widely available on the internet.

Trying to beat other people over the head with my error from 10 months ago when you have the actual definition in front of you and it directly contradicts you, is just more dishonesty from you.

Click to expand...

Wait a minute wait a minute stop the execution.

I admitted I was wrong and you were right, according to the very logic you used to show me that the actual definition of Poe's Law doesn't make exceptions for stupidity on the reader's part. I had to admit you were right, and that the case in question (where only people too stupid to recognize the obvious satire in that article thought it might be legit) does in fact count as Poe's Law.

NOW you're trying to tell me that your argument was wrong? That YOU were WRONG? Is this the fucking Twilight Zone or something? If you're now telling me that Poe's Law DOESN'T include cases where idiots can't identify obvious humor, then you're basically telling me that I was right about the thing I already admitted being wrong about. This is a baffling turn of events.

You also seem to be attempting to shift goal posts by saying the actual problem is with me calling people stupid for not identifying obvious satire? Do I have this right here? So even though you seem to agree that the humor in that article is obvious, which would, according to your change of heart, mean it DOESN'T count as Poe's Law, you still have a problem because I called out stupidity?