Poe’s Law

Thanks to Nick:   " Poe's law, named after its author Nathan Poe, is an Internet adage reflecting the idea that 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 (Wikipedia)"

Comments

Poe’s Law — 31 Comments

  1. As my late Father would say…” I’ve learned something today, I can go to bed tonight…”

  2. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    I still think we should evolve it (as happens to internet memes anyway) and call it Po’s Law after Kung Fu Panda.

    <—– This. And extra points to Nick who was able to work a Kung Fu Panda reference into the comments. 😉

  3. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    It’s not too difficult to work a Kung Fu Panda reference into a spoonerism of your online name, Po Nore Merfect!

    Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    That worked better in my head than it does written down, if I’m honest.

    LOL That actually made me laugh. Good start to a crazy busy day.

  4. @ will f:

    I did not know this. And now I’m glad that I do. I’m sure it wasn’t a mistake but an acknowledgement of those who went on before.

  5. I brought up the Poe thing on a few older threads because I could not tell if the commentators defending Furtick and Driscoll were straight up or doing parody.

  6. @ Daisy:

    No matter how crazy you can think of for parody, there’s going to be some True Believer out there twice as crazy and Dead Serious.

    And since True Believers are much more likely to Act Out on their craziness than parody artists, you have to assume they are True Believers until proven otherwise. 9/11 wasn’t done as a parody, no matter how off-the-wall the plot would have sounded before the fact.

  7. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:

    One of the things I just said on the last thread a moment ago that, IMO, if parody is done well, people who are paying attention will get that it’s parody (though a reader who is only just skimming may not get it at first glance).

    It helps if the person adds some well crafted hints that the parody is a parody. A bit of silliness helps, too.

    I’m not saying I’m the master at it, but on other blogs and forums where I did parody of the opposition, most people understood it was parody, or at least those on “my side.”

    Those who I was parodying took me to be one of their own for a good long while before it began dawning on them I was parodying them and/or their position. 🙂

  8. Regarding the link Deb and Dee placed on the top of the home page,

    So, things were hunky dory at Act Like Men? Here is a different take. link

    Someone left this post on the page, which I thought was very astute:

    boatrocker on October 26, 2013 at 5:49 pm said:

    Why are there no “Act Like Christians” conferences? “In Christ there is no male and female”, so “acting like men” has to come from the world, not the scriptures. Let’s ditch the gender-based conferences and just “act like Jesus”.

    It is strange and, IMO, anti- biblical, that some Christians obsessively focus on the whole “biblical manhood and womanhood” thing.

    You have this guy Julie Anne debates with at her blog, who has written books where he constantly wrings his hands in worry that Christian women are “not being feminine” or, are in ‘danger of giving away their femininity.’

    This guy has said that while he once supported women in “open air preaching,” he is now against it, or he’s against women “authoritatively” answering men in blogs, lest they ‘lose their femininity’ in the process.

    How does one ‘lose her femininity’? Even if you, a woman, answer a guy “authoritatively” (I’m not sure what that even really means), you still retain your female gender-ness; you do not turn into a man physically.

    I think these sorts of guys define “femininity” not by the Bible alone, but based upon their viewing of secular pop culture, 1950s TV sit com, American nuclear family, Brady Bunch / Leave It To Beaver scenario, where the woman is married, she wore pearls while mopping the floor, stayed at home all day, dad went to his 9 to 5 office job, and she had cookies waiting on the counter for her kids when they got home from school.

    Why is this guy bickering with Julie Anne (and those like him) so fixated on what I, or other women, do or do not do?

    What’s it to him if I blog, open air preach, practice karate, go kayaking, watch TV, collect stamps, or play tiddly winks or do whatever?

    Why does this guy think he, or any other man, gets to draw the line at what is or is not “feminine,” or if something I do or think is not “feminine enough.”

    Shouldn’t a woman be allowed to dictate what the parameters of what femininity are, (if there should be any)? Why do men get to define womanhood for women?

    Would these men enjoy women defining what constitutes manhood for Christian men, and also telling them not to step outside of those lines?

    How about if I state that it is not biblical manhood for a man to correct a woman on a blog or to debate her, ever, for any reason?

    Off the top of my head, about the only verse these types of guys can draw from is the one about women learning in meekness and quietness and having a gentle spirit, but what do they do with all the verses and stories of women in the Bible who were vocal, who were not gentle all the time, who stood up to men with God’s approval, who led men, who taught men?

    The Bible does not present a one dimensional, flat, portrayal of one, and only one, acceptable way of being a woman, so I’m more than tired of some religious guys trying to tell us, “it is wrong for a woman to do X, but she may do Z.”

    And they can’t even always agree on the rules.

    Some of the gender complementarians say,
    “I think it’s wrong for a woman to do ‘X,’ unless in situations 1, 2, 3,”
    while another guy will say,
    “No, it’s always wrong for women to do X,”
    while yet another male gender complementarian will say,
    “It’s okay for women to do X, but only under conditions a, c, and sometimes q, or q is okay if her husband permits her.”(*)
    *(single women need not apply)

    Anyway, there is something wrong with Christians (and it’s usually males, it seems) who are forever fixated on gender roles.

  9. Daisy wrote:

    It is strange and, IMO, anti- biblical, that some Christians obsessively focus on the whole “biblical manhood and womanhood” thing.

    Maybe because with some of these guys, what’s hangin’ between their legs is the ONLY thing they can brag about?

    Like that 1950s trailer-park Ku Kluxer who said “If I can’t be better than a N****r, who can I be better than?”, some guys can only push themselves up by smashing another down beneath them. Or focus on their white skin or Y chromosome because that’s all they got.

  10. Folks keep thinking Tim, Sharon. and my great-nephew Bill Rogers are real elevators! Next thing you know, SMS will think it’s really me, commenting from beyond he pearly gates! BTW– I’ve been up here several years now, and have yet to see a certain hero of the faith. His initials are JC and he’s NOT Jesus Christ. Oh… Hi, Jean! No… Just kidding!!! Put away the green wood and the torch!!! Just kidding!!

  11. Mr Rodgers!
    I do get a kick out of your comments. In fact, you have uncannily tapped into the Christianese reservoir. I have considered asking you if you might, at some point, do a post in which you do your thing while I discuss actual events in which people said something similar.

    Great satire is the ability to capture the underlying truth and cause people to go “ouch” as they see themselves. Think about it. I think it could be interesting.

  12. Dear Mr Fred Rogers – dare you to pull a Poe AND a Godwin’s AND an original Wartburger (to pull a Wartburger see Dee’s list of TWW insults). Sharon’s Wartburger did have me snogelling for a while there.

  13. @ Haitch:
    Once upon a midnight…while I pondered…forgotten lore…
    I found two genuine quotes from “The Leader” and substituted for a few of the negative nouns.
    “Today Christians … stand at the head of [this country]… I pledge that I never will tie myself to warthogs who want to destroy Christianity .. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit … We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments of Narcissistic Zeroes,  of Feminist Heretic Hatemongers,  and in the obscure gossip column of yellow journalism  – in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of Minions of Satan during the past … (few) years.”
    And
    “A Bored Housewife’s world is her husband, her family, her children and her home. We do not find it right when a Wartburg witch or glorious wench presses into the world of men.”

  14. @Mr Fred – love it ! To include the Godwin’s (though for it to be a real Godwin’s we’d need to be arguing first), I would add this to your phrase:

    “We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments of Narcissistic Zeroes, of Feminist Nazi Heretic Hatemongers”…

  15. oooh, and I’m being moderated, it doesn’t the rephrasing of adding that German WW2 name starting with N and ending with I…

  16. @Mr Fred – love it ! To include the Godwin’s (though for it to be a real Godwin’s we’d need to be arguing first), I would add this to your phrase:

    “We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments of Narcissistic Zeroes, of Feminist N**i Heretic Hatemongers”…

  17. @ dee:
    So ypu’d like to quote the setup lines and have the nicest, friendliest, neighborliest deceased person you know deliver the punch lines?
    BTW there’s no D in Rogers, but there is one in Fred!

  18. @ Haitch:
    So to properly Godwin, I should argue? But I won’t argue, since I’m the nicest, friendliest, neighborliest deceased person I know.

  19. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    In fact, on reflection, Poe’s Law is constantly biting the rear ends of people with a dry sense of humour. People just don’t realise we’re joking.

    Like the wee lassie who corrected my spoof pronunciation of “strategy” (“stra-tee-jee”, to fit with “strategic”).

  20. I thought it was the Aussies and not the Brits who were the ones’ to adulterate, and bastardize a word ad nauseum; I say that in a good kinda way:)

    Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    I still think we should evolve it (as happens to internet memes anyway) and call it Po’s Law after Kung Fu Panda.