Talk:Poe's Law

Time Cube

Time cube is pretty weird, but is it fundamentalism?--Bob^{bing up} 15:59, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Within his own belief in ONENESS EVIL, he is. Much more than Liberal Reform Time Cubists. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

Obviously I have not studied it sufficiently. I rather think that I might need a bit of consciousness adjustment before tackling it though.--Bob^{bing up} 17:17, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Never fear. Open your mind to the 4 corner simultaneous 24 hour Days that occur within a single 4 quadrant rotation of Earth. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

I was thinking more of some chemical adjustment.--Bob^{bing up} 17:28, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Time wisest bastard!

Seems to me the reverse is also true - it's easy sometimes to mistake genuine fundamentalism for parody 70.43.43.38 15:02, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

I agree, and thought it said that, but I was remembering a Clarke quote on a different topic ("...indistinguishable from magic"). I'll try to figure out a way to add that in after the quote of the Law as Written, "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", which could read "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, a parody of Fundamentalism is often indistinguishable from the real thing". Hmmm. human 15:14, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

Shlafly

I think the same is true of Andy. (Poe's Law, I mean). Seriously. I tried, and someone did mistake it for the real thing. Lyra (semper) 15:20, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes, it's usually an early comment when CP gets blogged about. human 15:44, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

Is it really all that notable...

...that self-proclaimed "rational free-thinkers" are too stupid to tell parody from the real thing? I'm an "irrational" fundamentalist and I had no problem discerning which of the listed websites were parodies. They are so poorly done that they are obvious to anyone with a functional brain. People who try to parody fundamentalism try too hard and end up failing miserably at their task. They don't even succeed at being funny. ^{— Unsigned, by: 67.135.49.116 / talk / contribs}

I doubt your true faith if you say that the Word is irrational. Lyra § talk 23:59, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Actually, the success of the proof of the Law is that parodists are easily capable of getting their work accepted by the fundies as "real" - how many editors on CP, for example, right now, are sneak-vandals, accepted as true believers, who are adding random small errors to articles the CP sysops don't understand? Probably more than there are sysops. ħuman 00:05, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, that's the biggest load of b.s. I've ever heard. Prove it. Or don't. I'm sure you expect me to believe it without proof. 67.135.49.116 14:57, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

That's what I thought. 67.135.49.116 16:44, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

...what, that we don't care what an anonymous fundamentalist troll has to say about an article illustrating the inherent humour of their position? I guess you thought correctly. Uchiha^KATON! 16:57, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

That you can't back up your b.s. claims of "sneak-vandalizing" "fundies'" websites. This is supposedly "RationalWiki." Rational people don't believe anything without evidence. Your claims are without evidence, yet you expect people to believe them. How unsurprisingly irrational and typically hypocritical. 67.135.49.116 15:03, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Ah great. You're back. Could you have a go at my couple of questions below? Thanks a lot.--Bob^{bing up} 15:07, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Are you sure it is an anonymous fundamentalist troll? Or is it just a parody of one? Is this an instance of Poe's Law? (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 16:59, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Invoking Poe's Law in a discussion about Poe's Law? Meta! --AKjeldsen^{Potential fundamentalist!} 17:27, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Bunchanumbers: see our articles on MexMax and Samwell. There clearly are parodists (or agents provocateur, rather) amongst the CP camp, and, what's more, they are mostly undetectable. Sorry. _{↳ ↑ ⇨ ↕ <blink>▽</blink> <blink>←</blink>} 17:47, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Anyone more recent? No? Didn't think so. Claim without evidence = false claim = rational thinking. 67.135.49.116 00:36, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

So your theory is that a magical barrier now prevents those things from happening in the future despite the fact that CP hasn't changed a bit since then? I'm impressed. _{↳ ↑ ⇨ ↕ <blink>▽</blink> <blink>←</blink>} 00:53, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

What the hell are you babbling about? You haven't backed up the claims made here with any evidence. All you are going is talking out of your ass in a lame attempt to appear intellectually superior. The fact that all your claimed past parodies and parodists are gone proves that CP has, in fact, changed. 67.135.49.116 01:13, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

No, at most it suggests that, and I'm inclined to disagree with you, even so. I suggest we continue our conversation below, as it is pointless to split one conversation in this way. _{↳ ↑ ⇨ ↕ <blink>▽</blink> <blink>←</blink>} 01:27, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Actually I've got a question for our unsigned editor. Could you tell me what is the the difference between the parody and the non-parody sites? It may be easier for you because you are "In the loop" so-to-speak. I know you say they "try too hard", but could you expand on this? Perhaps give a few concrete examples of both "legitimate fundamentalist" and and "parody fundamentalist". I don't mean the sites but actual statements. I mean this question in all seriousness and I'm interested in the answer.--Bob^{bing up} 18:09, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Ps. Could you also tell us if this one is a parody, 'cause we don't know. Thanks.--Bob^{bing up} 08:07, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Why don't you know? Shouldn't it be obvious for supposedly rational, intelligent people to tell what it is? Aren't only we drooling "fundie" morons supposed to not be able to tell? 67.135.49.116 00:17, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Ahem. NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article.} 15:17, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, and? Past examples are not proof of the claim of current "sneak-vandals" currently inserting false information on CP which will never be discovered by us ignorant "fundies." Hrm... One of those says it was there for three months. A phony quote by one of you rational evolutionists was added to at least three articles on Wikipedia and remained there for over three years until I got it fixed recently. 67.135.49.116 00:15, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Way to redefine the claim, Jinxy. Strangely enough, I don't feel inclined to reveal what parody-inspired material might currently be present on CP. If we did that, soon enough human beings might think your little wiki was a reliable source of information! No, that won't do at all. _{↳ ↑ ⇨ ↕ <blink>▽</blink> <blink>←</blink>} 00:19, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

I didn't redefine anything. Put it in my own words, yes, but it's exactly the same as what is claimed above. See especially the third post. And of course you won't provide any evidence to back up your claims because there is none and you know it. All you can provide is long ago corrected material, which proves nothing except that you're a bunch of a-holes. It's no different from the oh-so-trusted Wikipedia, which other a-holes add false material to all the time which often doesn't get caught for months or even years. 67.135.49.116 00:29, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

You redefined the inspecific claim that parodists find easy acceptance at CP to "parodists are currently accepted at CP". Evidence for this new claim will never be given to you, Jinx, because your approval just isn't important enough to sacrifice valuable misinformation for -- you would only purge CP of the parody we love and mysteriously disappear from RW. As ever, the truth is whatever you want it to be -- even if I were to furnish you with the examples you so crave, I very much doubt it would sway your opinion, as it just isn't in you to admit you're mistaken. _{↳ ↑ ⇨ ↕ <blink>▽</blink> <blink>←</blink>} 00:53, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Of course. I never expected anything more. If any of the claims made here by you clowns were true, you'd proudly sacrifice even just one of them to prove your claims are true. But you do not do so because we all know you cannot do so since your claims are false. And Sidhartha H. Buddha, how pathetic it is that you place so much value on alleged misinformation on a website! Get a frickin' life already, for Muhammed's sake! 67.135.49.116 01:13, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

(Edit conflict) "If any of the claims made here by you clowns were true, you'd proudly sacrifice even just one of them to prove your claims are true." No, of course we wouldn't. You don't matter, Jinx.

"Sidhartha H. Buddha, how pathetic it is that you place so much value on alleged misinformation on a website! Get a frickin' life already, for Muhammed's sake!" We are both arguing about the same thing. If it is not important, why have you already lost your temper over it? _{↳ ↑ ⇨ ↕ <blink>▽</blink> <blink>←</blink>} 01:27, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

67, etc, I note you haven't answered Bob's direct question to you. It seems legitimate enough, considering your initial accusations in starting this thread. Please answer, since we are too small-brained to figure it out for ourselves.

(or else, just fuck off, moron, your arguments make no sense about anything!) <<<<---- Ooh, I didn't really say that!!!!

ħuman 01:24, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Note that 67.135.49.116 purposefully altered Chaos' entry. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:26, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Nah, I'm reasonably certain he did that by accident. We all make mistakes. _{↳ ↑ ⇨ ↕ <blink>▽</blink> <blink>←</blink>} 01:29, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Assholes like Jinxmchue don't deserve the benefit of a doubt. Would you do the same with TK?

...Wait, nevermind. You were never here for the Trials of TK. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:31, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

I know all about TK. And yes, I would assume error over subterfuge in his case. _{↳ ↑ ⇨ ↕ <blink>▽</blink> <blink>←</blink>} 01:33, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Will you people quit pretending you know who some jerk with an IP address is? ħuman 01:40, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

He has admitted to being Jinx now, Human. _{↳ ↑ ⇨ ↕ <blink>▽</blink> <blink>←</blink>} 01:43, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

As it did here. CЯacke® 01:48, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

(Edit conflict) I don't need to look at his IP. I can tell just by analyzing (i.e. reading it) that it and Jinxmchue are the same. May I question how you all knew NightTrain was TK, or was that a

Για αυτό το λήμμα υπάχει και διαθέσιμο άρθρο στα Ελληνικά, με τίτλο [[1]].
? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:49, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

He was painfully transparent, and behaved as though he had nursed a grudge against various people for a long time, even though he was such a new user. _{↳ ↑ ⇨ ↕ <blink>▽</blink> <blink>←</blink>} 01:54, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Funny. 67.135.49.116 is also "painfully transparent". Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:03, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

I knew that NightTrain was TK with this discussion and NighTK's response to me that I don't understand IP ranges. On a tangent, I saw a program that did forensic authorship based on word frequency (not Shakespeare authorship - this was on History Detectives as to the author of an 1800s anti-mormon book). It would be intresting to run against some trolls, though I suspect that you'd have to do quite a bit of editing with Ken's works because so little is original. --Shagie 02:11, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Another fun thing to do with IPs, go see the Wikipedia contributions. --Shagie 02:15, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Ah, I see that whoever this troll is, she doesn't get WP:POINT... (thanks for the schooling) ħuman 03:03, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

I'd just like to point out that the reason it is difficult for us "rational free-thinkers" to spot the parody on some of those sites is because they are all ridiculous. Why should a rationalist be required to discriminate between different strains of bullshit? It is only necessary for them to discriminate between the rational and the irrational. Of course if you specialise in a particular variety of bullshit then it is probably quite easy to spot another variety. That's been the foundation for schisms in Christian doctrine for centuries. Genghis^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 03:41, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Well, Jinx is pretty much a nobody (I only know that he's a whining, wikistalking attention whore) so it is still pretty hard to realize whether their attittudes match or not. NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article.} 08:55, 2 July 2008 (EDT) And just for feeding the troll a bit more, less than a month ago you could find this in the trusworthy encyclopedia, also check the date it was added in. NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article.} 09:06, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Thank you all for providing me with many laughs, confirmation of my arguments and bragging rights over on CP. None are so irrational as those who arrogantly proclaim themselves to be the most rational. Not one shred of evidence of your claims of current undetectable parodists on CP, yet people are supposed to just accept the claims to be 100% true. Typical and hypocritical. 67.135.49.116 17:43, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

No, thank you, Jinx, for unequivocally demonstrating that you just can't grasp the fact that your opinion doesn't matter to anyone here. Also, I feel compelled to point out that the noise made by hyenas like you is not really laughter. _{↳ ↑ ⇨ ↕ <blink>▽</blink> <blink>←</blink>} 18:58, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

I never claimed to be "rational". :' ( Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:46, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Indeed. I, too, am commonly regarded as thoroughly irrational. Just consider this for further evidence. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 18:32, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

...That was pretty low, AK. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:41, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

What? You can't deny that was evidence for my utter irrationality, on a certain level. ^_^ --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 18:56, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

If you want irrational, there are much better examples. The cognitive dissonance that sets up is painful. --Shagie 20:00, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

BoN, just because you go fishing doesn't mean you're going to catch anything. CЯacke® 17:48, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

I dunno, guys, he makes some pretty persuasive points! And every time we mentionned previous examples, he totally dismissed them for being in the past. Hmm... I guess the only solution is to fess up with the master list of current CP parodists and socks run by RW! This is vital to proving ourselves to BoN, good thing we can trust him. Uchiha^KATON! 18:56, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

I agree. So that would be, what...? Their entire user list, less four or five people? I think we should let him figure our for himself who they are, just so he can show us again how smart he is. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 18:58, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

At this point I think our BoN can be considered a troll...feed at your own risk. tmtoulouse ^vex 18:59, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Ahhh, for a while I feared CP's latest sysop candidate wasn't an utter idiot, but now my fears are gone. NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article.} 19:15, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Jizzonmeshoe, I suggest you read the Ronald Reagan article and see if you can spot the parody. It's obvious to me. Genghis^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 19:30, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Article Prominence

Not to pull a Ken here, but - #2 on Google for "Poe's Law" I believe. That is not bad at all, especially considering that there are people unfamiliar with the term, and they are likely to either come to Urban Dictionary or to here. Is there anything we can do to this article to make it more "newcomer friendly"? (Or should we, for that matter?) I don't think it's bad, I just think it's surprisingly prominant and we could take advantage of that, plus I know RW is capable of some very professional articles so this could likely be improved. Anyway, just a thought; either way, I'm happy for our success. Uchiha^KATON! 02:03, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

Oh - I just saw the recent "entry point" category added, that was a good idea as well. Uchiha^KATON! 02:05, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

Bias in the article

The entry "Meanwhile, Answers in Genesis [5] is, as far as is presently known, serious business." is rife with the writer's bias.

The entry should be changed to read "Meanwhile, Answers in Genesis [5] is serious." ^{— Unsigned, by: Cybrsage / talk / contribs}

No!!! I don't believe it!   ^Contribs_Talk 08:47, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Funny how no-one spotted that before. Genghis^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 08:49, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Ain't it just!   ^Contribs_Talk 08:51, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Actually, it's an interesting question. Could somebody be adding parody in AIG? Poe's law says we could never tell.--Bob^{bing up} 17:53, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Yerranos

I am pretty sure this is a parody but I'm not sure. What do you guys think? Damo2353 20:47, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Don't think so, actually. He's too over the top to be trying to spoof anyone.   ^Contribs_Talk 20:53, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Maybe out IP who was so active above could tell us? He says it's easy to tell.--Bob^{bing up} 02:17, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Should Evolutionists Be Allowed to Vote?

Should we add this one? It dares to ask the question "Should Evolutionists Be Allowed to Vote?" I think its straight, but it could be a parody.--Bob^{bing up} 07:07, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm pretty sure its straight, amazingly and scaringly. Hard to describe why. It lacks the vitriole and ranting of parody websites. Plus if you look at the books for sale, they all seem reasonable (and reasonable is a very relative word here) and genine. Nope, I'm pretty sure its real.Damo2353 07:22, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

I guess so, but the conclusion:

• The facts warrent [sic] the violent expulsion of all evolutionists from civilized society. I am quite serious that their danger to society is so great that, in a sane society, they would be, at a minimum, denied a vote in the administration of the society, as well as any job where they might influence immature humans, e.g., scout, or youth, leader, teacher and, obviously,professor.

Well, words fail me.--Bob^{bing up} 07:29, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, a while ago I did put forward the idea that godbotherers shouldn't be allowed to vote and was promptly stamped on. (not surprisingly!) So I suppose I'm only getting my own back, LOL.   ^Contribs_Talk 07:48, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Hard to believe that you said something quite that radical Susan.--Bob^{bing up} 16:21, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Disbelieve no more, Bob! She said it, and, as reported, got stamped on. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:31, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

That's... a bit too much. NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article.} 09:20, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Common ground

I love this part near the end: "Oh, by the way... What is the chance evolutionists will vote or teach in the Kingdom of God?" The implied answer is that there is no chance. On this I agree 100%. However, I doubt that the reason I believe that there is no chance is far different from why the author believes that there is not chance. We have found common ground. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?} 08:09, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Common ground between you and the fundamentalists Edge. Impressive indeed.--Bob^{bing up} 16:08, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

I kinda like the ad further down the newsletter questioning why the minerals we obtain by mining are "so conveniently located." Uhm, yeah. I'm sure mineworkers would agree that their jobs are convenient and effort-free. --Phentari 16:15, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Apart from those oil-fields in Texas, Oklohoma etc. most oil is not conveninetly located. Either it is trapped in rocks covered either by several kilometres of water, particularly rough seas, or it is located in political unstable regions often with unpleasant climates burning heat or freezing cold. Genghis^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 03:19, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

The Questions

In an honest effort to find out if it actually is possible to tell which are honest fundie sites and non-fundie parody sites, I have been chasing out IP for some responses. It is all in the talk page above but I'm afraid that it is being lost in the static, so I've copied the relevant parts below. --Bob^{bing up} 04:16, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Is it really all that notable that self-proclaimed "rational free-thinkers" are too stupid to tell parody from the real thing? I'm an "irrational" fundamentalist and I had no problem discerning which of the listed websites were parodies. They are so poorly done that they are obvious to anyone with a functional brain. People who try to parody fundamentalism try too hard and end up failing miserably at their task. They don't even succeed at being funny. ^{— Unsigned, by: 67.135.49.116 / talk / contribs}

Actually I've got a question for our unsigned editor. Could you tell me what is the the difference between the parody and the non-parody sites? It may be easier for you because you are "In the loop" so-to-speak. I know you say they "try too hard", but could you expand on this? Perhaps give a few concrete examples of both "legitimate fundamentalist" and and "parody fundamentalist". I don't mean the sites but actual statements. I mean this question in all seriousness and I'm interested in the answer.--Bob^{bing up} 18:09, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Ps. Could you also tell us if this one is a parody, 'cause we don't know. Thanks.--Bob^{bing up} 08:07, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Why don't you know? Shouldn't it be obvious for supposedly rational, intelligent people to tell what it is? Aren't only we drooling "fundie" morons supposed to not be able to tell? 67.135.49.116 00:17, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Well, that's the whole point of Poe's Law isn't it? We can't tell the difference - you told us you could - and I asked for a few pointers and examples. I really would like to see them. (By the way when I say "fundamentalist" viewpoints I mean viewpoints which would be shared by fundamentalists and not shared by mainstream churches.) Thanks. :-) --Bob^{bing up} 04:16, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Technical

Do we haz access to "mouse-over" technology so's that the ROT-13 becomes plaintext upon mousing over said text? I think I seed something like the thing at IMDB.com CЯacke® 08:58, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

On trolling

Long ago, back in college, I trolled on usenet some. Not much, and I was not as proficient as some of the other trolls that I was familiar with. But I understood the basic mechanics of trolling without resorting to cross posting to conflicting newsgroups. The goal of a troll is to leave flaming wreckage behind them. As one person has difficulty flaming themselves the goal is then to bring two groups that are going to smash heads into contact with each other and then let them flame out while you quietly slip away to the next thread. One example of this could be to hit one of the forum holy wars in sideways -- find a newsgroup on processor design and make a naive (but educated!) post making a case that the 6502 processor was RISC, but misstate the argumet so that the '6502 is risc' crowd comes in and corrects you while the '6502 is cisc' group points out how the 6502 isn't a cisc design... and you've got the two groups in contact and flaming each other. If you don't believe me - this is a real holy war.

A parody website has a bit more difficulty in this (realize I stopped trolling in the days of NCSA Mosaic). You can't bring the two sides together easily - the best you can do is to get the other side to start foaming at the mouth and then you publish the responses. PETA is a good example of this - that is People Eating Tasty Animals. Another classic is Bonsai Kitten (browse the guestbook).

Another ranting religious crank on the web is nothing new[2] (I'm surprised I can't find Conservapedia there).

Without looking - http://www.re-discovery.org/ - is it parody or real?

The goal of a troll is to get someone to go "no you're wrong wrong wrong wrong" while a true believer is trying to get their message out. --Shagie 04:53, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

While I agree with your premise, and don't argue with your credentials, your first link is "dead". So fuck off. Opps; !!! (five points.) But anyway, reality check: you're first link does not exist. You're nickname as a lot like "Shagggy" which is a lot like "Shag", which means "fuck" in Britlish I rest my (fragile, let it rest delicately!) case. ħuman 05:21, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Crank.net's a fun site, but last I checked, the webmaster had quit updating it. A shame...CP would fit right in there. --Gulik 14:17, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Regarding the 4 step proof

Has anyone tested whether or not they'll make good on the promised cash for refuting their proof? Because, you know, it's a ridiculous proof and pretty easily falsifiable.WilhelmJunker 10:51, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

From what I can remember, whenever somebody attempts to refute a part of the proof he simply repeats the proof, states how nobody has ever refuted it and if the discussion in question happens at his forum (bibliocality or something) he deletes and bans the person in question. He also has a tendency to spam crap wherever he's in, come to think of it, the guy is a lot like Conservative. NightFlare^{i haz a talk page.} 14:09, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Definition creep

I think we need to expand on the different ways Poe's Law is starting to be used. It started with the idea that someone will always mistake parody for the real thing, even 99 percent of the people realize it is parody. But I have seen it used a little differently now:

• That any parody becomes indistinguishable from the real thing
• That the real thing seems like parody to less crazy people

All three of these view have subtle and not so subtle differences in meaning. Anyone else have any thoughts on this? tmtoulouse ^vex 14:04, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Who the heck is "Poe?" The law should be: Parody is indistinguishable from sincerity. No need to fussy it up! 14:42, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Poe est "Nathon Poe", a long time contributor as a defender of science on the internet. Christianforums.com was his home turf, not sure if he is still there, I don't go there anymore. He made the law at that forum, where the evolution v. creation topic saw much random parody that was always getting flamed as if it was real. It has leaked out since that time. Name gives credit where credit is due, just like Godwin's Law. Still I think the three "versions" of the law above are different and need discussion in this article. tmtoulouse ^vex 01:55, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

RationalWiki's Corollary Law

Anyone want to help formulate a corollary law that encompasses all three possible perturbations? tmtoulouse ^vex 13:09, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

"Poeversion": Poe's Law and its corollaries

I admit that it wasn't easy to come up with a way of unifying the three statements, but I think this image sums it up. Or at least it helps to explain the full WTF. --Sid 16:01, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Hehe, "RW, we do graphical representations even a Jinx _{hi Jinx!} could understand!" ħuman 17:16, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

I think there's still something wrong here. According to this graph, anything posted by a normal poster who is neither a parodist or a fundie (neutral position on the X axis) would always be perceived as parody. I have no idea how to fix it, though. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 17:22, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

It needs a third color: "neutral", which I think would form a diamond in the center? ħuman 17:31, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

I have no idea what this image represents. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{Holy Roman empire} 17:38, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

It's actually a recipe for cooking exo-skeleton-lacking invertebrates. ħuman 17:49, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

I just considered that myself before checking back here, but then I reminded myself that Poe's Law (at least from what I understand) doesn't cover "normal" people - it is about people who claim to argue from a fundamentalist POV.

The sense of the X axis is to chart relative levels of parody and fundamentalism. So the middle of the X axis isn't "John Doe Uncontroversial Poster". In fact, you could argue that the perfect middle is practically undefined - it would be someone who doesn't go far enough in either direction and creates a weak parody.

However, I'm of course not saying that this graph is perfect or based on years of research. It was just my effort (after much head scratching) to map out the three conditions against the observer attitude, combined with my own observation: The more rational you are, the faster you assume/hope that someone is a parodist, even when it's not true.

You could make a similar graph about liberal/neutral/conservative views, though. --Sid 17:56, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Ok, yes. I understand it now. That makes sense. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 18:22, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

I'm a gonna ponder on the layout a bit. This chart implies that any extreme fundyism will be seen by all as such, when the meat of Poe's Law is that those are the ones the Rationals are most likely to mistake for parody (doesn't it? kinda?). Anyway, the "green" should intersect the vertical axis on both edges, or at least the right, right? ħuman 18:32, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Ohhhhhh am I getting ideas or am I getting ideas. Be right back. tmtoulouse ^vex 18:42, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

There is a problem with the current graph (and I was just fixing it when I saw your post): The two red areas should touch at the top - "it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing".

About the lower corners... hrm. I guess (without using gradients or other weird stuff) that the red/green border should go through the lower corners then? That would be the border case where not even the most rational guy isn't sure anymore. I don't really agree with that, but then again, this is Poe's Law, not Sid's Wishful Thinking :P

I'll throw up a new version in a minute. --Sid 19:00, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

New version uploaded as per comments above. Old version still available (for now?) in the image history. If you don't see the changes mentioned above, do a refresh of the image - it's possible that the cache needs a while to realize the update. --Sid 19:13, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

See my comment below re:gradients, great minds think alike, or some such. The "gradient" is the "perceived likelihood" of something being parody or real. Also grok the awesome chart I linked to. ħuman 19:22, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

The Poe Value

Thinking in terms of graphical representation it seems that we are basically dealing with a venn diagram of parody, versus real where the degree of overlap is a function of the extremism of the position being advocated like so:

So any representation has to take into account this fluctuating value. A position needs a "Poe value" which signifies the degree to which sincerity and parody overlap in perception. So say something like Wikipedia might have a low "Poe value" where parody is easily detectable where as Conservapedia is a larger one, with time cube being through the roof.

This also gets into classic signal detection theory where one could "measure" the Poe value based on the the hits and misses of detecting parody. High false positives or high false negatives would signal a high Poe value. tmtoulouse ^vex 18:54, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Addendum as Sid pointed out we also have to take into account the background of the observer. In signal detection theory, once more, we have a term called the "threshold" value in which something seems detectable to the person. The threshold value in which someone was able to correctly separate parody from reality compared to the threshold for other people would give an observer effect. So if you are threshold value is several standard deviations from the mean threshold value that means your own application of Poe's Law will differ from the norm. tmtoulouse ^vex 19:00, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Also to take into account is the "environment"? Like, a lot of CP would be instant parody elsewhere, but there, we expect it (that also relates to observer background, I guess). ħuman 19:24, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

That's where the "poe value" comes in, a sight with a high low Poe value will trigger the assumption of parody much sooner. tmtoulouse ^vex 21:10, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

That's why I suggested the "3 axis" format - poster mindset, observer mindset, and environment (perhaps on scale of Nature to Answers in Genesis or some such? (time cube is "off-scale")) ħuman 21:14, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps also, the colors above should be a gradient rather than discrete sections. As far as really makin' it kewl, go look up soil types at wikipedia and check out the three axis "chart" that is used to define them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SoilTextureTriangle.jpg (just trying to help ;)) ħuman 19:18, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

$P(real)=Q(e^{-x/k})+(1-Q)(1-e^{-x/k})$

$P(parody)=1-(Q(e^{-x/k})+(1-Q)(1-e^{-x/k}))$

Where P(real) is the intrinsic probability that a post is real, P(parody) the intrinsic probability it is parody, Q is the "Poe Value" for the site (the chance that any given statement of average extremism is parody), x is a value for how extreme an idea is within the paradigm it is operating in (0 is average up to infinity), and k is normalizing constant that controls how fast the probability changes in relation to the rate that X increases.

A non-biased person will assign a label of "parody" at 50/50 at the point of intersection between these curves, if the point where the person assigns at a 50/50 rate is greater than or less than the intersection of the curves the observer has an inherent bias.

I can graph some examples. And no cracks about too much time damn it. tmtoulouse ^vex 00:45, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Where's our customizable sidebar then, if you have too much free time? ħuman 00:55, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

I told you no cracks about free time. This is more important anyway...or something. Besides it has been like a week since I have derived an equation. I wanted to play. tmtoulouse ^vex 00:57, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

That wasn't a "crack", it was a gaping chasm! Equations, schmequations. ħuman 01:09, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Graphs of the equation above:

For all of these graphs, y is axis is the probability, x axis is the "extremism" with 0 being "average" up to whatever. Blue represents probability that something is not parody while red is the probability it is parody.

This is an idealized state where Poe's Value is 1, meaning that at the normal end and extreme end of the spectrum parody and non-parody are perfectly distinguishable. The black line represents the mark where a non-biased observer would split 50/50 on parody/non-parody, the green and purple lines represents observes whose 50/50 mark shows an inherent bias.

This graph is similar but with a more realistic Poe Value of 0.75.

This is an extreme version where Poe's Value is 0.5 meaning parody and non-parody are completely indistinguishable. Bias lines make no difference here.

Finally an example of a Poe's Value less than 0.5 which can be conceptualized as a paradigm where normal statements are more likely parody than not. Probably pretty rare or non-existent. But it is possible to map it.

tmtoulouse ^vex 01:20, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

"too much time damn it"

PS I can hear crickets tonight, anyone want a quick .mpg for similar usage? ħuman 01:26, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Yea, yea yea, but this site is pulling in several 1000 views from google alone, plus another 1,000 or more from blog/forum links. This is are most active "entry point" that is non-cp related. No where else on the internet is this discussed in depth, and there is a "demand" for information about it since it is becoming more and more popular. Something inherent in the idea resonates with people. And it is just this sort of ultra-overboard analysis of an internet meme that rationalwiki is a perfect niche for :). Where else are you going to see a discussion like this? This is a microcosm of our Raison D'etre, so godspeed to your tumble weeds. tmtoulouse ^vex 14:22, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

I have reformulated the above equations, the equations now return the likelihood that a given observer will "call Poe's Law" by enfolding a Bias term:

Case of Bias towards not perceiving parody: $P(real)=B*(Q(e^{-(xB)/k})+(1-Q)(1-e^{-x/k}))+(1-B)$

Case of Bias towards perceiving parody: $P(real)=B*(Q(e^{-(xB)/k})+(1-Q)(1-e^{-x/k}))$

$P(parody)=1-P(real)$

Bias goes from 1 to 0 with 1 being "totally unbiased" to 0 being "completely biased." tmtoulouse ^vex 15:09, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

At this point I think I am talking to myself, but anyway, before I forget, this equation creates an interesting point of analysis for trolling. There is essentially a "troll zone" around the intersection point of the P(real) P(parody). The zone around that intersection is ideal trolling zone and possible to create the most havoc. But the intersection point moves in response to the bias of the observer. So the "troll zone" for an observer inclined to see fundamentalism as parody is much closer to the y axis than with someone inclined not to see parody. For example, RW is probably more inclined to see parody than Andrew Schlafly, the difference in the intersection point likely explains why someone seems obvious parody to us, but not to Schlafly or why someone that seems sincere to us seems parody to Schlafly. tmtoulouse ^vex 16:07, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Why fundamentalism?

I like the recent expansions to the article, but I was recently thinking why this only applies to fundamentalism, specifically creationist and very right wing groups. Take the expression "As a Liberal, I think everyone should be forced to have an abortion", it's obviously parody and doesn't fall under Poe's law because no one appart from maniacs thinks that everyone should be forced to have an abortion. And anything that could be mistaken for a genuine liberal/libertarian (which I use mostly in opposition to ultra-neo-conservative) view isn't much of a parody. Even Liberapedia has trouble getting Poe'd. But the phrase "I think all atheists should be shot and their family's deported" does fall under Poe's law (Chuck Norris has essentially said something close to it and he's for real that people can tell). I suppose the answer is to do with how people judge rationality, i.e., by their own standards. To the real hardcore religious right, the view that "homosexuals are people too" or "the earth is billions of years old" is just simply far too outlandish to be considered serious, so in effect, to them it could be a parody (although this relativism isn't that convincing to me...). Any thoughts on this? Armondikov 07:10, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Hmmm. Your example of "As a Liberal, I think everyone should be forced to have an abortion" might get Poed - by someone so far "right" that they imagine people on the far left really think that? In fact, many of the political phrases put into use by the right do the same strawmannish kind of thing - create Poe-like parodies of the opposition's position and promote them as what they actually stand for. Another example is a copy of the NH Free Press I picked up the other day - the opening paragraph on page one reads like a parody of what RumbleBee wanted our libertarian article to say. As do quite a few other parts of it. Of course, I can tell it's not parody (can I?) because of the context. However, could they tell if something was parody - say, if I tried to Sokal them with a letter? ħuman 18:31, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Having read some of the entries at the CAM wiki I'd say that complementary medicine could be included as well.--Bob^{bing up} 07:46, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Wet von Poe

International coverage!. I just got a kick out of that one. tmtoulouse ^vex 11:09, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

Poe paradox

Should we merge Poe paradox into this? it's only a couple of paragraphs, and is basically just a twist on poe's law. Totnesmartin 05:30, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

I agree.--Bob^{bing up} 07:22, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Visual representation

I'm looking at the graphic - would it be better to put "perceived fundamentalism" and "perceived parody"?--Bob^{bing up} 07:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Stephen Colbert

Isn't Stephen Colbert the greatest example of Poe's Law?

In what way? Totnesmartin 08:38, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

An ultra-conservative woman who goes to the North Carolina School for the Arts once admitted that she likes Stephen Colbert more than John Stewart because Colbert is "Less biased." Colbert often uses fundamentalism in his arguments with his guests, and in his reports in general, like referring to the army's "Don't ask, go to hell" policy, saying "God used the holocaust to send the Jews a message," among others. Colbert was interveiwed Bill O'Reilly here [3], and that could be an extension of Poe's Law. I can't quickly find the source of the quotes, but the character of Stephen Colbert is a highly fundamentalist conservative (the actor, conversely, is very calm and rational), and he makes his money by taking everything to an extreme to parody it. I agree that Colbert, if he is not given his own section in this article, should at least be mentioned in the "Real Life Examples" section. 01:55, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Exact wording

The "original" post linked to says "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is uttrerly impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won't mistake for the genuine article." Which, when corrected, would read:

"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 [it] for the genuine article."

Should we use this version in our main quote of it? Or is the version we use the "ultimate" improoved formulation? ħuman 18:19, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Hey! I was about to post exactly the same question. I think we should go with the original (creationist) and mention that it rapidly morphed into fundamentalism in general.--Bob^{bing up} 03:03, 14 September 2008 (EDT)