Difference between revisions of "Internet parodist"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (sp)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
An '''internet parodist''' is a person who impersonates and caricatures an opposing point of view on internet forums such as [[blog]]s, [[wiki]]s, and [[newsgroups]].
 
An '''internet parodist''' is a person who impersonates and caricatures an opposing point of view on internet forums such as [[blog]]s, [[wiki]]s, and [[newsgroups]].
  
There are two identifiable purposes in being an internet parodist.  One is juvenile; the other is a [[logical fallacy]].
+
There are three identifiable purposes in being an internet parodist.  One is juvenile; the other two are [[logical fallacy]].
 
* Some parodists find it entertaining to espouse a caricatured viewpoint with which they disagree -- particularly if they can find someone on the opposing side who mistakes them for the real thing; they can then emotionally and intellectually manipulate that person, proving to themselves that they are smart and the other person is stupid.  This behavior is analogous to the common schoolyard behavior of lying to a fellow student about something potentially believable (like "I went bowling last night,") and then laughing at them when they believe you.  The response of any adult to such behavior is, "Why shouldn't they believe you meant what you said?"  Yes, the child has proven that the other child was naive enough to take them at their word when they are in a fact a liar.  So what?
 
* Some parodists find it entertaining to espouse a caricatured viewpoint with which they disagree -- particularly if they can find someone on the opposing side who mistakes them for the real thing; they can then emotionally and intellectually manipulate that person, proving to themselves that they are smart and the other person is stupid.  This behavior is analogous to the common schoolyard behavior of lying to a fellow student about something potentially believable (like "I went bowling last night,") and then laughing at them when they believe you.  The response of any adult to such behavior is, "Why shouldn't they believe you meant what you said?"  Yes, the child has proven that the other child was naive enough to take them at their word when they are in a fact a liar.  So what?
 
* Some internet parodists seek to prove [[Poe's law]].  Poe's law (in one of its formulations) states that it is impossible to parody certain points of view without somebody mistaking the parody for the real thing.  The law as proven, however, is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the point of view itself.  The fact that some people are unable to distinguish between a genuine believer and a parodist does ''not'' prove there is no difference between the two, or that the point of view in question is somehow invalid.  On the contrary, it simply proves the well-known fact that some people will erroneously interpret the facts in any ambiguous situation.  Thus, Poe's law is not a reflection on the point of view being parodied so much as on the individuals who lack the critical thinking skills to distinguish fact from fiction.
 
* Some internet parodists seek to prove [[Poe's law]].  Poe's law (in one of its formulations) states that it is impossible to parody certain points of view without somebody mistaking the parody for the real thing.  The law as proven, however, is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the point of view itself.  The fact that some people are unable to distinguish between a genuine believer and a parodist does ''not'' prove there is no difference between the two, or that the point of view in question is somehow invalid.  On the contrary, it simply proves the well-known fact that some people will erroneously interpret the facts in any ambiguous situation.  Thus, Poe's law is not a reflection on the point of view being parodied so much as on the individuals who lack the critical thinking skills to distinguish fact from fiction.
 
+
* Some internet parodists seek to demonstrate the existence of a [[double standard]] among conservatives.  For example, a parodist might go onto a conservative forum and behave inappropriately, insulting other users while spouting traditionally conservative ideas, in an effort to prove that conservatives hold a double standard -- allowing "conservatives" to do things they would never permit liberals to do.  While such a demonstration might show that particular ''people'' hold a double standard, it would be overgeneralization to conclude that ''conservatives in general'' are hypocritical.  For that reason, parodying to prove conservatives hold a double standard is a logical fallacy.
 
One wonders who these parodists are, and how sad and lonely their lives must be that they invest countless hours either behaving like children or proving a meaningless law.  It is telling, however, that with only a few exceptions (such as the YouTube promotion of the film Expelled, which proved that Poe's Law applies to fundamentalist evolutionists as well), the vast majority of parodists are of the liberal and atheistic perspective.  One simply does not find conservative parodists on liberal forums, and one wonders if perhaps ''that'' fact may reflect on the psychological underpinnings of the liberal point of view.
 
One wonders who these parodists are, and how sad and lonely their lives must be that they invest countless hours either behaving like children or proving a meaningless law.  It is telling, however, that with only a few exceptions (such as the YouTube promotion of the film Expelled, which proved that Poe's Law applies to fundamentalist evolutionists as well), the vast majority of parodists are of the liberal and atheistic perspective.  One simply does not find conservative parodists on liberal forums, and one wonders if perhaps ''that'' fact may reflect on the psychological underpinnings of the liberal point of view.

Revision as of 07:28, 24 October 2008

An internet parodist is a person who impersonates and caricatures an opposing point of view on internet forums such as blogs, wikis, and newsgroups.

There are three identifiable purposes in being an internet parodist. One is juvenile; the other two are logical fallacy.

  • Some parodists find it entertaining to espouse a caricatured viewpoint with which they disagree -- particularly if they can find someone on the opposing side who mistakes them for the real thing; they can then emotionally and intellectually manipulate that person, proving to themselves that they are smart and the other person is stupid. This behavior is analogous to the common schoolyard behavior of lying to a fellow student about something potentially believable (like "I went bowling last night,") and then laughing at them when they believe you. The response of any adult to such behavior is, "Why shouldn't they believe you meant what you said?" Yes, the child has proven that the other child was naive enough to take them at their word when they are in a fact a liar. So what?
  • Some internet parodists seek to prove Poe's law. Poe's law (in one of its formulations) states that it is impossible to parody certain points of view without somebody mistaking the parody for the real thing. The law as proven, however, is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the point of view itself. The fact that some people are unable to distinguish between a genuine believer and a parodist does not prove there is no difference between the two, or that the point of view in question is somehow invalid. On the contrary, it simply proves the well-known fact that some people will erroneously interpret the facts in any ambiguous situation. Thus, Poe's law is not a reflection on the point of view being parodied so much as on the individuals who lack the critical thinking skills to distinguish fact from fiction.
  • Some internet parodists seek to demonstrate the existence of a double standard among conservatives. For example, a parodist might go onto a conservative forum and behave inappropriately, insulting other users while spouting traditionally conservative ideas, in an effort to prove that conservatives hold a double standard -- allowing "conservatives" to do things they would never permit liberals to do. While such a demonstration might show that particular people hold a double standard, it would be overgeneralization to conclude that conservatives in general are hypocritical. For that reason, parodying to prove conservatives hold a double standard is a logical fallacy.

One wonders who these parodists are, and how sad and lonely their lives must be that they invest countless hours either behaving like children or proving a meaningless law. It is telling, however, that with only a few exceptions (such as the YouTube promotion of the film Expelled, which proved that Poe's Law applies to fundamentalist evolutionists as well), the vast majority of parodists are of the liberal and atheistic perspective. One simply does not find conservative parodists on liberal forums, and one wonders if perhaps that fact may reflect on the psychological underpinnings of the liberal point of view.