Poe's Law

From RationalWiki

(Redirected from Poe's law)
Jump to: navigation, search
Cover Story: This article is randomly featured on the Main Page.
Please keep this in mind and be sure your edits are of the quality level that implies.

Poe's Law states:[1]

“ 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. ”

Poe's Law points out that it is hard to tell parodies of fundamentalism (or, more generally, any crackpot theory) from the real thing, since they both seem equally insane. Conversely, real fundamentalism can easily be mistaken for a parody of fundamentalism. For example, some conservatives consider noted homophobe Fred Phelps to be so over-the-top that they argue he's a "deep cover liberal" trying to discredit more mainstream homophobes.

Contents

[edit] History

Poe's Law was originally formulated by Nathan Poe in August 2005.[2] The law emerged at the creationism versus evolution forum on the website Christianforums.com. Like most such places, it had seen a large number of creationist parody postings and these parody posts were usually followed by at least one user starting a flame war (a series of angry and offensive personal attacks) thinking it was a real post. Nathan Poe summarized this pattern in his original formulation of the law:

Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterly impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won't mistake for the genuine article.

The law caught on and has since slowly leaked out as an internet meme. Over time it has been reformulated to include more than just creationist parody but rather any parody of fundamentalism, whether religious, secular, or totally bonkers.

[edit] Expansion of the concept

Originally the law only made the claim that someone will mistake a parody of fundamentalism for the real thing - that if someone made a sarcastic comment stating that evolution was a hoax because "birds don't give birth to monkeys" then there would be a high probability that someone, later in the discussion, would miss the joke and explain (in all seriousness) how the poster was an idiot. However, the usage of the law has grown to include three similar but different concepts:

  1. The original idea that at least one person will mistake parody postings for sincere beliefs.
  2. That nobody will be able to distinguish many instances of parody posts from the real thing.
  3. That anybody, not already in the grip of fundamentalist ideas, will mistake sincere expressions of fundamentalism for parody.

The most likely reason for this expansion is the tendency for people to "call Poe's Law" (see below under "Reception and usage") on any fundamentalist rant even before someone has responded negatively. After a while, when many sincere posts were called "Poe's Law", or when every parody got labeled "Poe's law", the concept naturally expanded. However the actual canonical definition has not changed to encompass the expanded usage, and a true Poe's Law fundamentalist could object to its usage beyond the original concept. (On the other hand, the objection itself could be parody.)

[edit] Poe paradox

The "Poe paradox" is a corollary to Poe's Law. It states that:

“ In any fundamentalist group where Poe's Law applies, a paradox exists where any new person (or idea) sufficiently fundamentalist to be accepted by the group, is likely to be so ridiculous that they risk being rejected as a parodist (or parody). ”

History: The term was first used by RationalWiki editor The Lay Scientist to describe an apparent paradox in the management of editing rights at Conservapedia:

"Any new member of the CP project who's not as Conservative as them is liable to be chucked out. However, any new member who is as Conservative as them is in serious danger of being called a parodist, and chucked out. Is this the first living example of a Poe Paradox?"[3]

[edit] Poe's Law limit

The "Poe's Law limit" is a corollary to Poe's Law. It is defined as:

“ The point in an e-mail exchange when it becomes apparent that the fundamentalist involved is utterly oblivious to the fact that he[4] is a walking incarnation of Poe's Law, incapable of behaving otherwise, and that any further interaction with him would serve only as sport (affording him more opportunities to produce humorous self-caricatures), since the conversation no longer has any prospect of increasing net global knowledge or changing anyone's mind. ”

History: The phrase dates back to no later than March 2010, during an interchange with abortion opponent Karl Jenkins, who introduced the term "women in the womb" in an apparent effort to persuade feminists in the discussion that abortion involved mass murder of women. Several other participants pointed out that, while every womb has a woman on the outside, none of them has a woman (by definition, an adult human female) on the inside. It gradually became apparent that Jenkins thought he was making a serious point which deserved to be taken seriously. He evidently believed that "women in the womb" would be the decisive argument which turned other participants in the discussion against abortion, and he failed to even acknowledge the prospect that it was bombastic hyperbole. Among the other participants were:

  • Margaret Downey of the Freethought Society
  • Marie Alena Castle of Atheists for Human Rights
  • Edd Doerr of Americans for Religious Liberty
  • Annie Laurie Gaylor and Dan Barker of the Freedom From Religion Foundation

Different participants in the discussion reached their own personal Poe's Law limits at different times, giving rise to speculation that it might be a quantum (IE, observer-dependent) phenomenon.

[edit] Formalizations of Poe's Law

Visual representation of one possible arrangement of state space for Poe's Law

Several attempts have been made at RationalWiki to formalize the various concepts that Poe's Law has been used for, and to explore its implications. Every formalization quickly highlights the need to define several parameters which alter when the observer or potential parody material changes. These parameters are:

  1. The basic likelihood for parody within the topic being written about and the location of its publication. Some topics are more likely to attract parodists, and some publication routes are more prone to parody than others.
  2. How extremist the material being analyzed is in comparison to the normal continuum of material published on that topic.
  3. The inherent bias of the observer, some people are more apt to see parody (or less likely to believe something can be real) than others.

One approach to formalization has been to use a Cartesian graph to visually represent the state space of when something which is perceived as either parody or real fundamentalism. The y-axis represents the bias of the observer, while the x-axis represents the intentions of the poster. One such example is illustrated to the right. In this case it is assumed that a more rational observer is more likely to see parody in fundamentalist positions than a fundamentalist observer is. The actual area taken up by perceived parody or fundamentalism will change depending on the background to the issue and the location of its publication.

The term has also been represented mathematically:[5]

\lim_{\text{Fundamentalism} \rightarrow \infty} \text{Religion }= \text{ Parody}

[edit] Experimental demonstrations

Investigators at The Ohio State University School of Communication found evidence supporting Poe's Law in a study published in 2009.[6] They measured the relative political conservatism and liberalism of 332 individuals. The study participants then viewed clips from The Colbert Report, a television show that is a parody of conservative news commentary shows such as The O'Reilly Factor and broadcast on the Comedy Central cable network. The researchers found that the relatively conservative people in their study reported that the star of the show, Stephen Colbert, was actually showing disregard for liberals and his true conservative attitude about the matter at hand. Liberals viewing the show tended to recognize the parody and not view Mr. Colbert as presenting his true political views. Curiously, the liberal and conservative viewers in the study found Mr. Colbert similarly humorous (a non-statistically significant difference). While not a direct or intentional test of Poe's Law, the results fit well with the predictions it makes.

[edit] Reception and usage

The use of the term is most common in the skeptical and science-based communities on Web 2.0. Many blogs, forums and wikis will often refer to the law when dealing with cranks of any stripe. It is most commonly used after a fundamentalist rant has been posted on a topic and people will rush to be the first to respond with "I call Poe's Law." Superior bragging rights can be earned by calling it first. It is also commonly used when linking to highly questionable rants by prefacing them with "Poe's Law strikes again" or just simply "Poe's Law."

Outside of Web 2.0 the law is far less known and probably rarely used. Wikipedia's article on Poe's Law has been deleted twice,[7] but it is listed on the page List of eponymous laws.

[edit] Test yourself!

Three of the seven following sites are parodies, while the others really mean what they say. Good luck choosing which are which!

[edit] Answers

ROT-13 encrypted answer: Encgher Ernql, gur sbhe fgrc cebbs, gur Ynfg Trarengvba genpg, naq Gvzr Phor ner frevbhf, gubhtu gur ynfg vf fb ovmneer gung bar jbhyq guvax vg vf n cnebql bs fbzr vaqvfpreavoyr oryvrs. Gur erfg ner cnebqvrf.[8]

[edit] Real-life examples

  • Stephen Colbert's character on The Colbert Report is often thought to be sincere.[9]
  • News headlines from the official North Korean press. Note this website is in Japan, a country with which North Korea's relations are, shall we say, extremely hostile, while at the same time being the home of several hundred thousand expat Koreans affiliated with the DPRK, further confusing the "real or spoof" question. It is, in fact, genuine.
  • AntiSpore was a recent example of Poe's Law, setting fire to the entire blogosphere which couldn't decide whether it was fake or not.
  • Conservapedia was, and still is, rife with such examples. For example this entry which remained for some time, and explained how exploding volcanoes in the Mt Ararat region were responsible for distributing animals after the flood.
  • Blogs 4 Brownback [10] seemed to really be an ultra-conservative Christian website - it even took us in.
  • Meanwhile, Answers in Genesis is, to the best of anyone's knowledge, serious business.
  • Now that you've had some practice, here's another test - is this a parody or not? (Warning: sometimes NSFW)
  • Various letters written in to newpapers: For example this gem regarding global warming.
  • From a woman who can't quite grasp how to talk to her son about homosexuality to someone who says gravity is a myth because people don't orbit mountains, many of the Fundies Say the Darndest Things Top 100 certainly suffer from Poe's Law.
  • Science and Math Defeated - was taken as being real in RationalWiki:What is going on in the clogosphere? but StumbleUpon lists it as satire.[11]
  • Christwire.org, this level of racism, paranoia and Bush fellation cannot possibly be real... can it?
  • There are some very subtle clues Paliban Daily really is a parody, but once you recognise them, it is obviously a spoof.
  • After a link to this spoof article about kangaroos originating in the Middle East was added to Conservapedia's kangaroo article, at least one RationalWiki editor was sufficiently taken in to write a refutation.
  • Rationalwiki's article on political correctness. Spoof or serious?
  • Universe people are quite lunatic, yet they are absolutely serious about it.
  • Is this really from PETA, or somebody spoofing them? How about this? (Even funnier, somebody put up a mirror of PETA's Sea Kittens site with a steak ad, just for lulz.)
  • The International Congress of Churches and Ministries' intro page defies description. However it is an actual organization helping non-profits connected to religious groups avoid federal taxes.
  • In this Q & A column Roger Ebert expressed strong support for absurd creationist views. After a firestorm of blogospheric shock, Ebert revealed that his column was intended as satire.
  • Grand Funk Railroad's lyrics. On the early albums, are they parodying left-wing hippie slogans or are they serious? On later albums, same thing but invert the politics to right-wing populism. In between, weird mixtures of the two.
  • This group almost certainly contains both dead seriousness and insane parody - and a definite share of people who can't tell. The line between the two, however, is extremely blurry.
  • The Mrs. Whitford Witnesses YouTube channel: Hint #1: "(Favourite) Movies: Anything with Kirk Cameron".
  • YouLoveMolly's video converting an indian to christianity. This one fooled many atheists, Christians and anti-racist activists, as evidenced in people's blogs and video responses. Hint #1: see "poes" and "law" in the tags of the video.

[edit] Known parodies

We out them here!

[edit] Almost certainly parodies

  • Sex in Christ looks like a parody, but it makes interesting cases for a Biblical basis for anal sex, masturbation, pubic shaving, and fisting, among others. Such content, humorous though it most certainly is, gives it a rather high parody rating.

[edit] Still unknown

  • We are still puzzling over whether this site is a a parody or not. This one too. And what about this one?

[edit] See also

[edit] Footnotes

  1. ↑ "Poe's Law" in the Urban Dictionary
  2. ↑ Nathan Poe's original post is here.
  3. ↑ http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Conservapedia_Talk%3AWhat_is_going_on_at_CP%3F&diff=191625&oldid=191609
  4. ↑ Grammatically speaking, this term should be "he or she", but empirically the "she" part appears to be the null set, so we're going with "he" until a "she" is observed in the wild.
  5. ↑ Fun With Poe’s Law: Placing Blame in the Economic Crisis - Submitted to a Candid World
  6. ↑ (LaMarre, Landreville & Bream, 2009)
  7. ↑ 2nd AFD discussion for Poe's Law
  8. ↑ Translated text: "Rapture Ready, the four step proof, the Last Generation tract, and Time Cube are serious, though the last is so bizarre that one would think it is a parody of some indiscernible belief. The rest are parodies."
  9. ↑ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/27/colbert-study-conservativ_n_191899.html and the study it is based on, http://hij.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/2/212
  10. ↑ Blogs for Brownback
  11. ↑ Science and Math Defeated's listing at StumbleUpon
Articles in RationalWiki related to Internet Laws
Cohen's Law - Conservapedia's Law - Danth's Law - DeMyer's Laws - Godwin's Law - Grey's Law - Jinx's Law - Law of exclamation - Poe's Law - Pommer's Law - Schlafly's Law - Scopie's Law - Skarka's Law - Skitt’s Law - Timecube Law - Zeigler's Law
Retrieved from "http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe%27s_Law"
Personal tools