Loki
3rd March 2010, 05:29 PM
A definition of Poe's Law from rationalWiki
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe%27s_Law
Poe's Law was originally formulated by Nathan Poe.[2] (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe%27s_Law#cite_note-1) The law emerged at the creationism (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Creationism) versus evolution (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Evolution) forum on the website Christianforums.com (http://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 (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/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 (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/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.
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:
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 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.)
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)." ”
I'm wondering if we are seeing a possible extension of Poe's Paradox when new posters come here and ask a question. Without a previous posting history the posts of genuine atheists or posters who are questioning their beliefs can't be differentiated from posts from theists posing as atheists or otherwise genuinely asking questions.
The disingenuous ones come through regularly and posters quite rightly confront them immediately. Are we maybe biting ourselves on the foot by going hard before getting to know the poster a bit better.
If you really can't tell someones intention from the post would it be better to wait? Genuine posters get to settle in and trolls get some rope to hang themselves with later.
Not trying to lecture, just wondering if this is a real phenomenom
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe%27s_Law
Poe's Law was originally formulated by Nathan Poe.[2] (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe%27s_Law#cite_note-1) The law emerged at the creationism (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Creationism) versus evolution (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Evolution) forum on the website Christianforums.com (http://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 (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/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 (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/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.
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:
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 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.)
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)." ”
I'm wondering if we are seeing a possible extension of Poe's Paradox when new posters come here and ask a question. Without a previous posting history the posts of genuine atheists or posters who are questioning their beliefs can't be differentiated from posts from theists posing as atheists or otherwise genuinely asking questions.
The disingenuous ones come through regularly and posters quite rightly confront them immediately. Are we maybe biting ourselves on the foot by going hard before getting to know the poster a bit better.
If you really can't tell someones intention from the post would it be better to wait? Genuine posters get to settle in and trolls get some rope to hang themselves with later.
Not trying to lecture, just wondering if this is a real phenomenom