Talk:Irony poisoning

Linguistics Low‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article gives an inaccurate summation of Irony poisoning.

I don't think a lot of this is accurate, the whole idea of irony poisoning is that it's a detachment of ones self through discourse through irony and satire, usually with multiple layers. While it may lead to the normalization of extremist views in some circumstances i.e. gamers on twitter, that is not what irony poisoning is; and to describe it as such is inaccurate. It's like saying the effects are the cause. If you wanted to, you could say that irony poisoning is a process of eroding sincerity through the use of humor and that'd be incorrect as it's an effect of irony poisoning and not irony poisoning itself. Ezmrn (talk) 12:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding this. The fact that irony poisoning is often exploited by those with extreme views doesn't define the term. If anything irony poisoning more often than not leads to political inaction, since it tends to go hand in hand with a certain kind of nihilism. This article needs to be corrected to show what the term actually *means*. Azuefeldt (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thirding this. When did Urban Dictionary become a reliable source for definitions? Especially when their definitions of the term seem to contradict the article that cites them. The most voted-on definition as well as the second and third seem to agree with you guys. If nobody objects, I'm adding the neologism template. Special:Contributions/TheSands-12 17:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSands-12 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Plus that CTVNews source in the Use section is a clear case of WP:RSOPINION. I'll leave it while I look for an academic source. Special:Contributions/TheSands-12 10:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]