Interwebs Rules and Laws

cloudy

Alabama Slammer
Joined
Mar 23, 2004
Posts
37,997
I've seen several folks that aren't familiar with Godwin's Law, so its explained here, along with some lesser known rules/laws:

1. Godwin’s Law: The most famous of all the internet laws, formed by Mike Godwin in 1990. As originally stated, it said: "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." It has now been expanded to include all web discussions.

Common Godwin's Law appearances include describing women's rights campaigners as “feminazis”, comparing the former US President George W Bush to Hitler, or saying Barack Obama's proposed healthcare reforms are the new Holocaust.

If any poster does mention the Nazis in a discussion thread, Godwin’s Law can be invoked, they instantly lose the argument and the thread can be ended.

2. Poe’s Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing.

Poe’s Law also has an inverse meaning, stating that non-fundamentalists will often mistake sincere expressions of fundamentalist beliefs for parody.

3. Rule 34: Surely we all know this one by now, right?

4. Skitt’s Law: any post correcting an error in another post will contain at least one error itself or the likelihood of an error in a post is directly proportional to the embarrassment it will cause the poster.

5. Scopie’s Law: In any discussion involving science or medicine, citing Whale.to as a credible source loses the argument immediately, and gets you laughed out of the room. First formulated by Rich Scopie on the badscience.net forum.

This law makes little sense without a background knowledge of Whale.to, a conspiracy theory site which includes such items as the complete text of the anti-Semitic hoax Protocols of the Elders of Zion, as well as claims that Aids is caused by vaccination programmes, and that Auschwitz never happened.

It has been expanded by posters on rationalwiki.com to include any use of Answers in Genesis in an argument about creationism and evolution.

6. Danth’s Law (also known as Parker’s Law): Also known as the Amicus rule on this forum. If you have to insist that you've won an internet argument, you've probably lost badly.

7. Pommer’s Law: A person's mind can be changed by reading information on the internet. The nature of this change will be from having no opinion to having a wrong opinion.

8. DeMyer's Laws: Anyone who posts an argument on the internet which is largely quotations can be very safely ignored, and is deemed to have lost the argument before it has begun. (Also locally known here as the "Trysail Law.")

9. Cohen’s Law: Whoever resorts to the argument that ‘whoever resorts to the argument that... …has automatically lost the debate’ has automatically lost the debate.

10. The Law of Exclamation: The more exclamation points used in a post, the more likely it is a complete lie. This is also true for excessive capital letters.

According to Terry Pratchett, five exclamation marks is an indicator of "someone who wears their underwear on the outside"

****************​

So, now y'all know. :)
 
Last edited:
Can we please preface every political thread with these laws? I would greatly appreciate that.
 
I've seen several folks that aren't familiar with Godwin's Law, so its explained here, along with some lesser known rules/laws:

1. Godwin’s Law: The most famous of all the internet laws, formed by Mike Godwin in 1990. As originally stated, it said: "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." It has now been expanded to include all web discussions.

Common Godwin's Law appearances include describing women's rights campaigners as “feminazis”, comparing the former US President George W Bush to Hitler, or saying Barack Obama's proposed healthcare reforms are the new Holocaust.

If any poster does mention the Nazis in a discussion thread, Godwin’s Law can be invoked, they instantly lose the argument and the thread can be ended.

2. Poe’s Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing.

Poe’s Law also has an inverse meaning, stating that non-fundamentalists will often mistake sincere expressions of fundamentalist beliefs for parody.

3. Rule 34: Surely we all know this one by now, right?

4. Skitt’s Law: any post correcting an error in another post will contain at least one error itself or the likelihood of an error in a post is directly proportional to the embarrassment it will cause the poster.

5. Scopie’s Law: In any discussion involving science or medicine, citing Whale.to as a credible source loses the argument immediately, and gets you laughed out of the room. First formulated by Rich Scopie on the badscience.net forum.

This law makes little sense without a background knowledge of Whale.to, a conspiracy theory site which includes such items as the complete text of the anti-Semitic hoax Protocols of the Elders of Zion, as well as claims that Aids is caused by vaccination programmes, and that Auschwitz never happened.

It has been expanded by posters on rationalwiki.com to include any use of Answers in Genesis in an argument about creationism and evolution.

6. Danth’s Law (also known as Parker’s Law): Also known as the Amicus rule on this forum. If you have to insist that you've won an internet argument, you've probably lost badly.

7. Pommer’s Law: A person's mind can be changed by reading information on the internet. The nature of this change will be from having no opinion to having a wrong opinion.

8. DeMyer's Laws: Anyone who posts an argument on the internet which is largely quotations can be very safely ignored, and is deemed to have lost the argument before it has begun.

9. Cohen’s Law: Whoever resorts to the argument that ‘whoever resorts to the argument that... …has automatically lost the debate’ has automatically lost the debate.

10. The Law of Exclamation: The more exclamation points used in a post, the more likely it is a complete lie. This is also true for excessive capital letters.

According to Terry Pratchett, five exclamation marks is an indicator of "someone who wears their underwear on the outside"

****************​

So, know y'all know. :)

My Law:
Anyone passionate about a controversial subject within constitutional rights (such as censorship of artistic freedom like virtual kiddie porn), is likely to be accused of doing something illegal or immoral, or supporting immoral acts, and the more it's defended the more "evidence" the attacker has (in the poster's mind) for his or her flames.
 
My Law:
Anyone passionate about a controversial subject within constitutional rights (such as censorship of artistic freedom like virtual kiddie porn), is likely to be accused of doing something illegal or immoral, or supporting immoral acts, and the more it's defended the more "evidence" the attacker has (in the poster's mind) for his or her flames.

Unless, of course, the accuser can find evidence of the fucking kiddie pervert in about three fucking seconds flat.

Fucking piece of shit.
 
Thanks Cloudy, I was sadly ignorant until now.
Having trawled through many heated internet discussions I've seen Godwin's Law in action many times. Fabulous to have a 'name' for it.

The sun is shining, it's a beautiful morning here in Perth :)
 
:eek: !?!

Is that 5 exclamation points thing cumulative? If so, I might as well begin some wardrobe modifications right away.
 
Rob's Law: You can say more in one cryptic sentence than in a thousand words of blather, or C&P'd blather with charts and graphs.

The Charts and Graphs Law: Charts and graphs must be in color. If they're in black and white, they automatically disprove your point.

The NPR Law: Anyone sourcing an argument with something they heard on NPR cannot be ridiculed until they're offline. These people are sensitive. Please respect their fragility, lest you cause some sort of personal tragedy involving wine, grass, Xanax, and a lethal yoga pose. In a hot tub.
 
My Law:
Anyone passionate about a controversial subject within constitutional rights (such as censorship of artistic freedom like virtual kiddie porn), is likely to be accused of doing something illegal or immoral, or supporting immoral acts, and the more it's defended the more "evidence" the attacker has (in the poster's mind) for his or her flames.

Didn't I see you get beat down on the GB for your kiddie porn interest?
 
Ugol's Law: If anyone ever asks, "Am I the only person with this particular kink or fetish?", the answer is always No.

This may in fact be a re-formulation of Rule 34.
 
Ugol's Law: If anyone ever asks, "Am I the only person with this particular kink or fetish?", the answer is always No.

This may in fact be a re-formulation of Rule 34.

No. That is a restatement of rule 36 - If it exists, someone has a fetish for it. No exceptions.

Og
 
Unless, of course, the accuser can find evidence of the fucking kiddie pervert in about three fucking seconds flat.

Fucking piece of shit.
The posts referenced had no evidence of anything except the truth.*
Didn't I see you get beat down on the GB for your kiddie porn interest?
*I have no kiddie porn interest.
As explained time and time again, I am against censorship and for free speech.
Free speech in art and literature is the most sacred of are of our rights.
This principle is supposable what this site was built upon.
While I agree obscenities (such as bestiality) are not constitutionally protected, there is a difference between obscenity and indecency.
Indecency is also part of child porn, or rather virtual kiddie porn (lolicon and shotacon).
 
Last edited:
Back
Top