this post was submitted on 16 Dec 2023
409 points (97.4% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2526 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 16 points 11 months ago (5 children)

That poster was being sarcastic, and based on the downvote count a lot of people didn't get it.

[–] Tedesche@lemmy.world 25 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Given the prevalence of trolls and truly unhinged assholes on the internet these days, I think a /s tag is probably in order.

[–] EatYouWell@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

They were too well spoken to be a real trump supporter.

[–] ouRKaoS@lemmy.today 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Body language and inflections are nuances that are lost in text but contribute heavily to sarcasm.

Also, it's been really difficult these last few years to determine the difference between a blatant joke and someone's perceived reality, which is downright terrifying if you think about it too long.

[–] 4am@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago

You’ve basically summarized 4chan

[–] wrath_of_grunge@kbin.social 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] tegs_terry@feddit.uk 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It's not psuedoscience, it's simply the observation that, as this thread shows, it can often be difficult to tell the difference between satire and honestly held opinions. I question your understanding of the word "psuedoscience," if you think it applies to Poe's Law.

[–] tegs_terry@feddit.uk 1 points 11 months ago

That's not what it means firstly, and secondly sociology is science, semiotics is science, and this waffle is masquerading as similar. Calling it a 'law' and wheeling it out as evidence contributes to that, convincing impressionable nerds that they need to backhand their jokes to avoid the dreaded downvote

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

The idea that someone would genuinely believe that isn't very far fetched at all. If they're being sarcastic, they're not very good at it.

[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

The comparison to Abraham Lincoln didn't do it for you?

Anyway, I checked that poster's comment history briefly and he doesn't seem like a Trumper to me.

[–] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 1 points 11 months ago

It's Poe's Law in action. In this age of unreality it can be almost impossible to tell the difference between satire and honestly held opinions.

[–] Synthead@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Ain't Lemmy great?