Difference between revisions of "Danth's Law"

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Examples)
m (Reverted edits by Π (Talk) to last version by Sprocket J Cogswell)
Line 8: Line 8:
  
 
==Examples==
 
==Examples==
 +
 
*[[The Lenski Affair]] - Despite the thorough and scathing reply that indicated beyond all doubt that the research was correct, [[Andrew Schlafly]] decreed that his untenable position was, in fact vindicated by the response and that [[Richard Lenski]] has a poor attitude.
 
*[[The Lenski Affair]] - Despite the thorough and scathing reply that indicated beyond all doubt that the research was correct, [[Andrew Schlafly]] decreed that his untenable position was, in fact vindicated by the response and that [[Richard Lenski]] has a poor attitude.
*[[wp:George Aiken|George Aiken]] - US senator. Suggested that the US should declare victory in the Vietnam War and leave having "won".
 
 
*[[HowTheWorldWorks]] - Published a video entitled "My Annihilation of [[Thunderf00t]]", which of course, contained no such "annihilation" outside the title.
 
*[[HowTheWorldWorks]] - Published a video entitled "My Annihilation of [[Thunderf00t]]", which of course, contained no such "annihilation" outside the title.
 
*[[Fox News]] - Declaring themselves "Fair and Balanced" does not, in fact, make them ''fair and balanced''. Indeed, it draws attention to the fact that they are [[conservative bias|no such thing]].
 
*[[Fox News]] - Declaring themselves "Fair and Balanced" does not, in fact, make them ''fair and balanced''. Indeed, it draws attention to the fact that they are [[conservative bias|no such thing]].

Revision as of 08:28, 15 December 2009

Danth's Law (also known as Parker's Law) states:

If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly.

It was formulated on the popular Roleplaying Game forum, RPG.net and named after the now-banned user who inspired it. As an internet discussion grows and grows, it's often tempting to declare victory and move on, especially if you've rammed the point home too many times and your opponent just ignores everything you say. In this case, declaring victory and moving on may be legitimate and excusable.

Unfortunately, the majority of the time, declaring victory is just spin; a last desperate attempt to trick people into believing you came out on top (providing that they don't actually go and read the discussion, of course). Sometimes, the individuals declaring victory may well be convinced that they're right, often they'll have gone into the discussion knowing that they're right and with no possible option that they might be wrong.

Examples

  • The Lenski Affair - Despite the thorough and scathing reply that indicated beyond all doubt that the research was correct, Andrew Schlafly decreed that his untenable position was, in fact vindicated by the response and that Richard Lenski has a poor attitude.
  • HowTheWorldWorks - Published a video entitled "My Annihilation of Thunderf00t", which of course, contained no such "annihilation" outside the title.
  • Fox News - Declaring themselves "Fair and Balanced" does not, in fact, make them fair and balanced. Indeed, it draws attention to the fact that they are no such thing.
  • The BNP - Although this is a slight perversion to "declaring victory", following harsh criticisms and protests due to their increased exposure in recent years, the BNP have essentially "declared persecution".

Template:Internet laws