Legea Comentariilor

September 28, 2011 · Bagat la Blegisme 

Ori legea lui Poe, ăla… care este:

Poe’s Law
Someone is wrong on
The Internet

Log in:
A Storehouse of Knowledge
Age of Autism
Child predators on the Internet
Digital Millennium Copyright Act
FreeRice.com
Infowars
Internet kooks
JIDF
Landover Baptist Church
Michael T. Snyder
Mobocracy
Palaeos
v – t – e
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 is an axiom suggesting that it’s difficult to distinguish between parodies of religious fundamentalism (or, more generally, parodies of any crackpot or extremist belief) and its genuine proponents, since they both seem equally insane. 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 [hide]
1 History
2 Expansion of the concept
2.1 Poe’s Corollary
2.2 Poe Paradox
3 Experimental demonstrations
4 Reception and usage
5 See also
6 External links
7 Footnotes
[edit]History

Poe’s Law was originally formulated by Nathan Poe in August 2005.[2] The law emerged at the Creation & Evolution forum on the website Christianforums.com.[3] 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 it for the genuine article. ”
The law caught on and has since slowly leaked out as an internet meme. Over time it has been extended to include not just creationist parody but any parody of extreme ideology, 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 was a high probability that someone else would miss the joke and explain (in all seriousness) how the poster was an idiot. However, the usage of the law has grown, and now the term “Poe” is almost synonymous with any parody on the internet. Essentially, the concept has developed to include three similar but distinct concepts:
The original idea that at least one person will mistake parody postings for sincere beliefs.
That nobody will be able to distinguish many instances of parody posts from the real thing.
That anyone not already in the grip of fundamentalist ideas will mistake sincere expressions of fundamentalism for parody.
For example, not only can Poe’s law apply to extreme fundamentalism, but it can also apply to extreme liberalism, extreme charitableness, extreme fanboyism, extreme environmentalism, or even extreme love. 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’s Corollary
“ It is impossible for an act of Fundamentalism to be made that someone won’t mistake for a parody. ”
The main corollary of Poe’s Law refers to the opposite phenomenon, where a fundamentalist sounds so unbelievable that rational people will honestly think the fundamentalist is presenting a parody of his beliefs. Such a thing isn’t entirely unprecedented — Ray Comfort now uses his “banana argument” as a comedy routine that pokes fun at intelligent design (claiming that it had always been satirical). Poe’s Corollary was first submitted to the Urban Dictionary in July 2008.[4] This corollary comes into play especially when the rational person has already learned and experienced Poe’s Law, predisposing them to think that any extreme view is probably parody.
[edit]Poe Paradox
The Poe Paradox is a further corollary to Poe’s Law that results from an unhealthy level of paranoia. It states that:
“ In any fundamentalist group, 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). ”
The term was first used by RationalWiki editor and now respected blogger 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?”[5]
[edit]Experimental demonstrations

For those living in an alternate reality, Conservapedia has an “article” about Poe’s Law
LeMarre, Landreville, and Beam, 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 covertly expressing his true conservative attitude about the matter at hand. Liberals viewing the show tended to view the work as a sincere 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 (no 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 is listed on the list of eponymous laws following mention in an article in The Telegraph. As of January 2011, the article was recreated for a third time, this time without being deleted so far.
[edit]See also

List of Poe’s Law examples
The Onion
Rosenhan experiment
[edit]External links

The Irony of Satire – Political Ideology and the Motivation to See What You Want to See in The Colbert Report
TV Tropes page about Poe’s Law
[edit]Footnotes

↑ “Poe’s Law” in the Urban Dictionary
↑ Nathan Poe’s original post is here.
↑ Creation & Evolution
↑ http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Poe’s%20Corollary
↑ http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Conservapedia_Talk%3AWhat_is_going_on_at_CP%3F&diff=191625&oldid=191609
↑ (LaMarre, Landreville & Beam, 2009)
↑ 2nd AFD discussion for Poe’s Law
Articles on RationalWiki about Internet Laws
v – t – e
Cohen’s Law – Danth’s Law – Digital Millennium Copyright Act – Gall’s Law – Godwin’s Law – Gore’s Law – Grey’s Law – Haggard’s Law – Law of exclamation – List of Poe’s Law examples – List of eponymous laws – Peter Principle – Pommer’s Law – Rove’s Law – Scopie’s Law – Shaker’s Law – Skarka’s Law – Skitt’s Law – Timecube Law – Upton Sinclair’s Law – Zeigler’s Law
Conservapedia: Andy’s Law – Conservapedia’s Law – DeMyer’s Laws – Jinx’s Law – Schlafly’s Law
Categories: Cover story articles | Internet | Internet laws | Parody
Log in / create account
Page
Talk
Read
Edit
Fossil record

Navigation
Main page
Recent changes
Random page
Help
Best of RationalWiki
All logs
Community
Saloon bar
Forum
To do list
Technical support
Intercom
Toolbox
What links here
Related changes
Special pages
Printable version
Permanent link
Donate
This page was last modified on 14 September 2011, at 14:25.
This page has been accessed 758,532 times.
Unless explicitly noted otherwise, all content licensed as indicated by RationalWiki:Copyrights.
For concerns on copyright infringement please see: RationalWiki:Copyright violations

Mișto!(0)Fleoșc!(0)

Comentarii

1 Comentariu to “Legea Comentariilor”

  1. Rudolph Aspirant on September 29th, 2011 1:05 am

    Dupa parerea mea pe Internet este in general dificil sa distingi parodia, nu numai in cazurile astea de comunicare intre fundamentalisti, deoarece parodia este o forma destul de nuantata a folosirii simtului umorului, si are si determinante culturale, si pe internet este f. dificil sa intelegi asta intre persoane care nu se cunosc, nu isi cunosc deja stilurile reciproce, si nu fac nici macar parte din acelasi grup de preocupari/interese comune.

    Eu am patit asta in real life chiar aici in Norvegia, unde acum m-am invatat sa evit sa mai folosesc umorul la serviciu, intre colegi, deoarece am avut la inceput experienta unor situatii repetate in care efectiv nu s-a inteles ca glumeam, si invers, situatii in care radea toata lumea si eu efectiv nu vedeam ce era de ras, ba chiar ma intristasem auzind povestea respectiva ! (Si nu era legat de insuficienta cunoastere a limbii, deoarece intelesesem cuvintele, si nu era vorba de jocuri de cuvinte, ci doar de povesti simple.) Deoarece evitarea folosirii simtului umorului reprezinta pt. mine un efort personal deosebit de mare si uneori efectiv nu mai rezist sa nu spun si eu o gluma, sau sa spun ceva mai in gluma, acum efectiv m-am invatat ca, dupa ce zic ce aveam de zis, sa anunt in clar, "asta a fost o gluma", sau "glumeam cand am zis asta, bineinteles". Uneori, ma simt chiar nevoit sa ma stramb oarecum comic din fata cand fac clarificarea asta, astfel incat sa fie cat mai clar ca nu glumeam/nu minteam nici cand am zis ca glumisem !

    Daca ai rabdare poti sa citesti articolul asta mai vechi si mai lung despre diferentele de comunicare intre oamenii de origine araba si cei de origine americana: http://nw08.american.edu/~zaharna/arab-comm.htm

    Mișto!(0)Fleoșc!(0)