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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
hodj_sl said:
Yeah, you did, and Dick showed you exactly, word for word how.
Click to expand...
He really didn't. I acknowledged what he had to say. turns out he just agrees with the initial stance I had admitted to being wrong about. Since you're now telling me that you were actually in the wrong there, Trickle and I are on the same page.



hodj_sl said:
Just more historical revisionism and denialism.
Click to expand...
It's not "historical revisionism and denialism" to mention my actual stance. Do you even logic?
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
More reality denialism

And yes it is, because it's not your stance then, and its only just now become your stance now.

Because you're pathetic and desperately looking for some way out that will allow you to vacuously and masturbatorily declare a faux victory.

How often do you just lie awake at night and cry to yourself?
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
But you're free to dig back through the Butthurt White Guys thread and provide us any instance of you claiming "This is how Poe's law SHOULD be"

"Should be" is the key phrase here.

Such a citation does not exist, because that was not your case then, and it has only just now become your case now.

Your logical fallacy is goal post shifting.
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
10 months ago...

Somebody posts a stupid joke article.

Some idiot: "How terrible SJWs are!"
Jhodi: "Poe's Law!"
Me: "That's not Poe's Law. It's very, very obviously satire. You'd have to be an idiot to think that was real."
Jhodi: "Doesn't matter! The definition just says someone has to believe it. Whether they are brain-dead troglodytes incapable of recognizing obvious humor doesn't matter... BY DEFINITION!"
Me: "Well, what do you know? The definition actually doesn't exclude cases of reader stupidity. Looks like I was wrong and that article actually is a case of Poe's Law, despite only the very gullible and ignorant believing there was a possibility it was legit."

10 months later...
Jhodi: "Actually, my previous argument was wrong. Poe's Law doesn't apply when someone's too stupid to recognize blatant humor."
Me: "Seriously? So I was right, then?"
Jhodi: "No! God no! You're... still... wrong... somehow..."
Me: "What? How?"
Jhodi: "..."
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
hodj_sl said:
But you're free to dig back through the Butthurt White Guys thread and provide us any instance of you claiming "This is how Poe's law SHOULD be"
Click to expand...
What, you mean like I did right here?
Tanoomba_sl said:
This is not Poe's law. This is people actively making themselves dumber by assuming other people are even dumber. "OMG, do people reallybelievethat? How absolutelyawful!!" FFS, guys, it's called critical thinking. Stop feeding the fucking trolls.
Click to expand...
Do you see how I'm explicitly saying this isn't Poe's Law BECAUSE it's very obviously satire? What's actually the matter with you?

Here's my follow-up:

Tanoomba_sl said:
Yes, Hodj, I understand what Poe's law is. The whole point is thatthe article in question is BLATANT and OBVIOUS "satire". It isin no way"indistinguishable from sincere expressions of the parodied views." ...Unless you're either a gullible moron or youwantto believe people are like that (so you can get on a high horse and judge them). The fact that people are so quick to believe bullshit like that (or, at the very least, have doubts) is not a reflection on SJWs, it's a sign of our apparently dwindling ability to analyze information critically. Every angry commenter under that article should be sterilized for the good of mankind.
Click to expand...
There's no ambiguity here. My entire issue with calling that article a case of Poe's Law comes from it being very obvious satire. Now you're telling me that my stance is correct, but that it wasn't my stance, despite my exact words at the time being extremely clear that that is EXACTLY my stance.

...Can't make this up.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Normally, when you're at odds with someone for this long, you grow to respect them in some way, shape or form.

But it is just impossible with you.

I'm so embarassed by this argument you're making this time. Its just so....fucking demeaning, even for as wretched and pitiable and pathetic as you are normally.

That last post, that one you just made?

It was so bad I think I may be done.

You may have just pushed me from disgust to just outright pity.

And I can't beat up on someone I pity.

I just can't do it.

Even I have my limits and standards.

I can only punch down so far, so many times, before I start feeling awful about who I am as a person.

And you've sunk so low between the Emma thing, and now this, that I just....

You make me feel like I'm donkey punching a retarded child.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Tanoomba_sl said:
Do you see how I'm explicitly saying this isn't Poe's Law BECAUSE it's very obviously satire?
Click to expand...
You....you realize this is why you're wrong.

Correct?

This is why I said the phrase "Should be" was the critical passage you cannot find to cite.

It doesn't exist.

And this quote is exactly why you're wrong.

And with that, I'm done.

No more donkey punching the retarded child.
 
DickTrickle

DickTrickle

Definitely NOT Furor Planedefiler
12,988
14,891
Tanoomba_sl said:
He really didn't. I acknowledged what he had to say. turns out he just agrees with the initial stance I had admitted to being wrong about. Since you're now telling me that you were actually in the wrong there, Trickle and I are on the same page.
Click to expand...
I think the argument here is pretty much unresolvable. In Poe's original formulation it is taken as fact that Creationists, by actual examples, developed explanations that were so absurd no amount of parody or satire could go so far beyond it that it could be said it was ever *certain* that it wasn't real.

Now, instead of Creationism, it's SJW ideas (for lack of a better encompassing description). Whether it's an SJW Poe's Law depends on whether you accept this as fact: the SJW field has developed explanations (actual real word examples) that are so absurd no amount of parody or satire could go so far beyond it that one could ever be *certain* that it wasn't real (again, back to the "utterly impossible" phrasing of the original Poe's law). I would say Tanoomba does not accept that as fact while hodj does. If you do not accept this as fact, then there is an area where parody or satire would be completely obvious that it wasn't real. If you accept it as fact, then there's no parody or satire that doesn't at least have the smallest chance of being real (again, all it takes is the tiniest chance because of "utterly impossible").

Again, I haven't read the article, but just using the original definition of Poe's law, you really don't have to, largely because the "utterly impossible" word choice makes it very absolute. It all depends on whether you think a particular topic has reached Poe's Law status or not (such as he felt about Creationism).

And that's about all I have on this topic. I must tap out and admit my watch has ended. I do not have the level of perseverance this requires. Good travels!
 
pharmakos

pharmakos

soʞɐɯɹɐɥd
<Bronze Donator>
16,306
-2,236
hodj_sl said:
Oh, also your argument is an appeal to false authority fallacy.

I am not an authority on the definition of Poe's law.

You're also trying to drive a truck through a tiny error in my diction because, well, desperate faggot basically.

As you are so often wont to do, you grasp the thinnest straw of semantics you can to salvage yourself from drowning in a storm of your own stupidity.
Click to expand...
Didnt read.
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
DickTrickle_sl said:
I think the argument here is pretty much unresolvable. In Poe's original formulation it is taken as fact that Creationists, by actual examples, developed explanations that were so absurd no amount of parody or satire could go so far beyond it that it could be said it was ever *certain* that it wasn't real.
Click to expand...
It goes two ways. Either:

A) Poe's Law is intentionally exaggerating how extreme some Creationist views are. It was conceived after there was already some overlap between what Creationists actually believe and what satire of Creationism has described. The main idea is: Creationist views are so extreme, it is possible for satire to be indistinguishable from actual Creationist beliefs. This makes sense. We all know this to be true. This is the actual intention behind Poe's Law, ie: To highlight how extreme Creationist views are (and, by extension, SJWs and whatever).

B) Poe's Law is meant to be taken literally. There is no exaggeration. No matter how ridiculous, blatantly obvious, or over-the-top some Creationist satire might be, someone somewhere will still think it's an actual Creationist belief. The only way, literally THE ONLY WAY this could be true is if we allow for cases where complete idiots who have no idea how satire works and consider blatantly obvious satire legit, to be cases of Poe's Law.

That's it. I was in camp A when somebody tried to play off an obvious satire article as Poe's Law. Jhodi made a case for camp B. Now, ten months later, he's putting himself in camp A but somehow trying to claim that I was still wrong. He is currently having a mental meltdown trying to twist himself into pretzels to make me look like the irrational one. You can't make this up.
 
Void

Void

Experiencer
<Gold Donor>
9,469
11,161
Baby Jesus in your Christmas outfit, please let Hodj mean it when he says he is done arguing with Tanoomba. Please!
 
Void

Void

Experiencer
<Gold Donor>
9,469
11,161
fanaskin_sl said:
Who is forcing you to read this thread, give me names i'll make them pay.
Click to expand...
The same thing that makes me look at car accidents. I'm sick, and I need help
frown.png


Also, "read" is a pretty loose term. More like "scroll past until I see someone else posting."
 
Soygen

Soygen

The Dirty Dozen For the Price of One
<Nazi Janitors>
28,326
43,170
fanaskin_sl said:
Who is forcing you to read this thread, give me names i'll make them pay.
Click to expand...
It's constantly showing at the top of "new posts", so I feel compelled to check it once a while. At this point, I just scroll past all the hodj and Tanoomba posts and only read the posts talking about how whack this thread is.
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Sebudai_sl said:
Start enforcing those laws, start judging the beliefs and behavior of other people, andstart shaming them until they change. Or, baby steps here, stop labeling anyone who's willing to do these things an islamaphobic bigot.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Hoss_sl said:
You don't seem to understand what happened with the Coz. He was getting uppity telling black people to pull their pants up and take responsibility for themselves. So they had to take him down with those allegations.
Click to expand...
062716_tinfoil_med_q1w5xf7p.gif
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Still waiting on that example of you admitting you were wrong, Lith.

Criticizing me on how I admit to being wrong when you yourself have never done so (despite having many opportunities) is pretty... HYPOCRITICAL.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Lithose_sl said:
The irony that someone like Tan doesn't believe social shaming works to change behaviors can not be overlooked. Even a veteran of his hypocrisy, like myself, had to do a double take on that one.
Click to expand...
To be susceptible to public shaming, you have to be intellectually able to be ashamed in the first place.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.