Moff's Law
This submission is currently being researched & evaluated!
You can help confirm this entry by contributing facts, media, and other evidence of notability and mutation.
About
Moff's Law is an internet axiom asserting that, at some point during a discussion about a work of pop culture, there will always be a commenter asking a variation of the question "Why can't you just enjoy it for what it is?" in order to deflect criticism of it. In similar vein as Godwin's Law, Lewis' Law and the like, Moff's Law demonstrates predictable human behavior and reactions, especially silencing methods, in online interactions.
Origin
On December 18th 2009, Gawker's science and futurist blog io9 writer Annalee Newitz wrote a lengthy article about racial issues and white privilege surrounding the 2009 blockbuster hit Avatar[1]. As discussion grew in the comment section of the article, one user who goes by the handle Moff (a.k.a Josh Wimmer) posted a reply that would be deleted later on. It read as follows:
Of all the varieties of irritating comment out there, the absolute most annoying has to be “Why can’t you just watch the movie for what it is? Why can’t you just enjoy it? Why do you have to analyze it?”
If you have posted such a comment, or if you are about to post such a comment, here or anywhere else, let me just advise you: Shut up. Shut the fuck up. Shut your goddamn fucking mouth. SHUT. UP.
First of all, when we analyze art, when we look for deeper meaning in it, we are enjoying it for what it is. Because that is one of the things about art, be it highbrow, lowbrow, mainstream, or avant-garde: Some sort of thought went into its making -- even if the thought was, “I’m going to do this as thoughtlessly as possible”! -- and as a result, some sort of thought can be gotten from its reception. That is why, among other things, artists (including, for instance, James Cameron) really like to talk about their work.Now, that doesn’t mean you have to think about a work of art. I don’t know anyone who thinks every work they encounter ought to only be enjoyed through conscious, active analysis -- or if I do, they’re pretty annoying themselves. And I know many people who prefer not to think about much of what they consume, and with them I have no argument. I also have no argument with people who disagree with another person’s thoughts about a work of art. That should go without saying. Finally, this should also go without saying, but since it apparently doesn’t: Believe me, the person who is annoying you so much by thinking about the art? They have already considered your revolutionary “just enjoy it” strategy, because it is not actually revolutionary at all. It is the default state for most of humanity.
So when you go out of your way to suggest that people should be thinking less -- that not using one’s capacity for reason is an admirable position to take, and one that should be actively advocated -- you are not saying anything particularly intelligent. And unless you live on a parallel version of Earth where too many people are thinking too deeply and critically about the world around them and what’s going on in their own heads, you’re not helping anything; on the contrary, you’re acting as an advocate for entropy.
And most annoyingly of all, you’re contributing to the fucking conversation yourselves when you make your stupid, stupid comments. You are basically saying, “I think people shouldn’t think so much and share their thoughts, that’s my thought that I have to share.” If you really think people should just enjoy the movie without thinking about it, then why the fuck did you (1) click on the post in the first place, and (2) bother to leave a comment? If it bugs you so much, GO WATCH A GODDAMN FUNNY CAT VIDEO.
On December 21st, Racialicious writer Latoya Peterson quoted Moff's rant in its entirety, dubbing it "Moff's Law"[2] as a principle in defense of the very nature of media criticism.
Spread
In the comment section of Peterson's article, shortly after its release, Racialicious user karinova suggested a set of rules regarding the law, stated as follows:
Moff's Law:
1) As a discussion of a creative work grows longer, the probability of some ass whining about "overanalyzing" approaches 1.
2) In any discussion of creative work, anyone who says "OMG, why can't you just enjoooy it??" automatically loses. Hard.
This version of "Moff's Law" was then posted to Urban Dictionary in January 2010[4]. The law was also submitted to The Geek Feminism Wiki on December 30th 2009[3] which describes its relation to Feminism in how it condemns silencing tactics. It was again rephrased in a way similar to Godwin's, which reads as follows:
As comments continue in a feminist [social justice] discussion of pop culture, the probability of someone saying "why do you have to analyze it? it's just a movie/cartoon/book!" approaches 1.
It then found its way to Rational Wiki's list of Feminist Internet Laws in 2013[5] and TVTropes in 2014[6] Since its inception as an internet axiom, several op-ed articles and blog posts have praised the growing need for such a law, especially concerning critical analysis of pop culture and forging one's own opinion on a piece of media, including a 2010 Floccinaucical's blog post[7], a Tumblr post on Fuck Yeah Character Development[8] and a 2015 Pop Primer article by Amy Leigh Strickland[9]
External References
[1] io9.com – When Will White People Stop Making Movies Like Avatar?
[2] Racialicious – And we shall call this “Moff’s Law”
[3] Geek Feminism Wiki – Moff's law
[4] Urban Dictionary – Moff's Law
[5] Rational Wiki – Feminist internet laws
[6] TVTropes – Moff’s Law
[7] Floccinaucical – Moff's Law
[8] Tumblr – Moff’s Law or Why We Will Read Critically, and Have Opinions
[9] Pop Primer – On Moff’s Law OR, I Can’t Believe I Really Have to Say This
Recent Videos
There are no videos currently available.
Recent Images
There are no images currently available.
Top Comments
NotJim99
Jul 20, 2015 at 01:29PM EDT
Island Sun
Jul 20, 2015 at 01:10PM EDT