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

hodj · Jul 26, 2016

hodj_sl said:
All dat typing.

All that desperate pleading to restart a debate you already lost.

All that hoping someone, anyone, will give you the time of day.

All for nothing.

Your attempt to restart a debate you already lost yesterday has failed.

Please try again tomorrow.

^

Tanoomba · Jul 26, 2016

hodj_sl said:
You know how I can tell my trolling Tanoomba in his thread is working?

I'll let you guys guess.

Nobody cares about your obsession over me, Jhodi. Please keep your Tanoomba-related shitposts to this thread, thanks.

hodj · Jul 26, 2016

hodj_sl said:
All dat typing.

All that desperate pleading to restart a debate you already lost.

All that hoping someone, anyone, will give you the time of day.

All for nothing.

Your attempt to restart a debate you already lost yesterday has failed.

Please try again tomorrow.

This right here.

1000 times 1000 times.

Ridas · Jul 26, 2016

radditsu_sl said:
I am not restarting a semantic debate you have already lost. You continue to lose, you are a loser. I wish you were better, but you are not. It makes me so sad, because I am ostensibly the same progressive mindset you are, but you argue the WORST parts of things dude. You can never just concede the point and try to formulate a different, better argument. You do not have to try to "win" every argument against someone who is/was/has a conservative viewpoint on things. Because nobody "wins". You just get hodj all assburgered up where he spams a forum until it crashes. I mean, hodj is a child with nothing better to do, but I still like him. I like using this forum, I would not like it to crash so much.

Ridas · Jul 26, 2016

Well, that didnt work. Bye.

hodj · Jul 26, 2016

looooooooooooooooool

the new image limit sizes are shit and Im way too fucking lazy to link that shit up from imgur.

Its atrocious.

Tanoomba · Jul 26, 2016

Ridas_sl said:
Well, that didnt work. Bye.

Bye.

hodj · Jul 26, 2016

hodj_sl said:
All dat typing.

All that desperate pleading to restart a debate you already lost.

All that hoping someone, anyone, will give you the time of day.

All for nothing.

Your attempt to restart a debate you already lost yesterday has failed.

Please try again tomorrow.

^

Tanoomba · Jul 26, 2016

hodj_sl said:
Sorry guys, I've kept him busy responding to copy and pastes for most of the summer, but apparently the retard has figured out how to break the lock on his cage and start spreading his shit all over the zoo again.

Heh. He legit doesn't realize I haven't been responding to those posts at all. How sad.

hodj · Jul 26, 2016

hodj_sl said:
All dat typing.

All that desperate pleading to restart a debate you already lost.

All that hoping someone, anyone, will give you the time of day.

All for nothing.

Your attempt to restart a debate you already lost yesterday has failed.

Please try again tomorrow.

^

Tanoomba · Jul 26, 2016

Abefroman_sl said:
He's far from perfect but fuck it's the best I can find for a liberal commentator willing to take a critical eye to his own party. The funny thing is,I truly believe if they would have just attacked Trump on the issues from the start instead of this racist, bigot shaming tactic, Trump would have way less support.It's the main reason why I would even consider voting for Trump. To counter this shame tactic by Liberals.

Hmmm... Where have I seen that scenario before?

Tanoomba · Jul 26, 2016

I was gonna post this in the GB thread, but that would be pushing my luck, right?

LadyVex_sl said:
I missed why this thread is so bad; because Ghostbusters was proven to be a flop even without taking into account the supposed misogyny?

Pretty much. The movie didn't warrant any of the supposed controversy. Some shitty journalists were able to get shitloads of clicks because busybodies love looking for things to complain about.

Astr0Chuk_sl said:
and you know what, those same feminists will never set foot into a wonder woman movie. because this wonder woman is a (reasonably)beautiful girl with (passably)big tittees who wears sexy outfits and loves men. they rather see some hambeasts in garbage bags with stripes running around screaming at each other.

Or, you know, because they figured GB was a fun, light-hearted comedy based on a franchise they already have fond memories of, and will likely see WW as yet another superhero action movie based on a property they know fuck all about?

hodj · Jul 26, 2016

hodj_sl said:
All dat typing.

All that desperate pleading to restart a debate you already lost.

All that hoping someone, anyone, will give you the time of day.

All for nothing.

Your attempt to restart a debate you already lost yesterday has failed.

Please try again tomorrow.

^

Tanoomba · Jul 26, 2016

Hmmm... Better play it safe.

Dr. Mario Speedwagon_sl said:
The problem is you wrote a huge post of equivocating faggotry about how you were "wrong" (but not really lol) instead of just saying "Oops you're right, my bad".

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?

Tanoomba · Jul 26, 2016

hodj_sl said:
Poe's Law was coined on the internet, for a specific purpose, which is what we were using it in at the time.

This is wrong. The intended purpose is to highlight how some extreme views are so ridiculous they are indistinguishable from satire. What was actually happening was that some people were too stupid to recognize obvious satire. The reason I was wrong, at least according to YOU, was specifically because I said Poe's Law applied to the former only, and you showed me the definition which DIDN'T DISQUALIFY READER STUPIDITY. That was YOUR actual argument! You don't even pay attention to what YOU say! And you have the nerve to post this shit outside the rickshaw? Fucking shame on you.

hodj · Jul 27, 2016

Youre wrong, and further, you were proven wrong in that thread by a person who was actually involved in the actual debate in which that coin was termed.

This is the arrogance of your stupidity on display once again and you responded here because you are a coward and you know it.

hodj · Jul 27, 2016

Tanoomba_sl said:
Hmmm... Better play it safe.

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

You were proven wrong by the dictionary definition of the term.

The meaning of the word arbitrary escapes you.

Our standard was the dictionary definition of consistent. Yours is the arbitrary definition based on your ignorance.

Now man the fuck up and respond in the thread where this discussion was taking place, you fucking joke.

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

Youd have to actually do this, ever, first. You fucking moron

hodj · Jul 27, 2016

Found it.

Get fucked retard

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.

hodj · Jul 27, 2016

Your claim: A poe must be indistinguishable for everybody from the real thing to be a "true Poe" (its funny that, at the core, your logical fallacy is no true scotsman, by the way)

The reality: A poe must be indistinguishable for some from the real thing to be a true Poe.

That isn't some arbitrary definition. That isthe only definition. Denault proved it. I've proved it, here and in the Gamergate thread, and you, sir, are fucking done.

hodj · Jul 27, 2016

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

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

Vox Populi Jihadi

ジョーディーすれいやー

Vox Populi Jihadi

Pay to play forum

Pay to play forum

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

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

ジョーディーすれいやー

Vox Populi Jihadi

Vox Populi Jihadi

Vox Populi Jihadi

Vox Populi Jihadi

Vox Populi Jihadi