TIL about Brandolini's Law, and it perfectly explains a certain dynamic that many of us have in dealing with a few certain posters.

I'm sure a fair few of us have encountered this dilemma and have simply given up while, others have clearly taken advantage of it. It's good that it's an actual thing with a name though.  Perhaps it should be Marti's new nick name.

Mmm, there you have it. Anyone prepared to take on the bullshit asymmetry principle on that one? I doubt it. Brandolini  wins again.

Please limit posts in this thread to a discussion of Brandolini's Law--we don't need more examples.

I think it's interesting that the person who posted this people who post other such laws and examples, never consider the possibility that they themselves may be those who are affected or are susceptible to the situations that such laws/rules/concepts discuss. Invariably it is someone else who holds a different opinion.

In the case of Brandolini's Law, there are some issues-
1) Often the amount of information required to disprove something or debunking something is in fact, not that great. I would submit that "The Capitol Rioters on 1/6 not bringing loads of guns, despite being gun nuts with loads of guns" is sufficient to at the very least, cast serious doubt on the insurrection claim. In fact, it is the people trying to claim that it WAS an insurrection that are doing the gish-gallop of throwing a lot of stuff that you then have to work to actively disprove. This was also symptomatic of many of the claims against Trump.

Of course, certain people think there is Zero, No Damn Way, any of that applies to them and the people that share their beliefs because.......? I guess they think their side is infallible or something.

2) The issue might not be amount of effort in disproving something, but rather in one's willingness to be disproven and ability to process information. For example, if one makes poor assumptions (e.g. "Because someone lied to police about speaking to someone allegedly involved in a criminal conspiracy, that therefore makes them part of the criminal conspiracy", a statement which is in fact NOT a logical conclusion AND is also a mistake that even a novice investigator would know not to make), then such a poor processor of information will have trouble being able to be reasonably dissuaded or analyzing information. Furthermore, if their personality is such that even after having fallacies explained to them (such as the example above) that they refuse to admit their error and instead respond with anger, then the issue is not so much the quantity of effort necessary, but in the resistance of the person in question.

Or to put it in simplistic faux-engineering terms, it's not the amount of force YOU need to exert, it's the resistance of the object. The issue may not be one of effort and force, but rather changing the malleability of the person/object in question.

3) The people involved in declaring something truthful and the person in opposition as a liar or misinformation, often conflate opinion, and best interpretation based on the available facts, and unassailable fact. They themselves almost always lack the ability to make such a decision of fact or not. Furthermore, the basis for their conclusion of something being a fact is often based simply on authority (at best) or more frequently just based on personal whim (i.e. "CNN/Newsmax is trusted by me." *CNN/Newsmax posts an article that goes against their view "CNN/Newsmax have been bought out"). Additionally, they often frequently fail to take into consideration or actively discount the potential for said source to be motivated by agenda/bias. Furthermore, they often lack the expertise to in fact, determine if something really is truthful (e.g. "250,000 rounds+Sea of Fire) and so that again, leads them to declaring something is fact based on authority rather than it in fact, being a fact. Finally, there is the issue of determining what is 50%+1 probable vs. likely probable vs. highly-probable vs. near-certain/certain and some people really can't distinguish that, much like a certain poster on here was unable to identify when to look at things based on ranking and when a tier-structure would be more appropriate.

Perhaps spend less time on articles that reinforce your world view and instead on practicing that kind of information interpretation. Maybe with topics that don't get you emotionally wound up.

Lastly, you can see the fail right here- Brandolini's Law is in fact, not a law. It is an idea. It is not authoritative nor infallible. It is not a law in the physical sciences sense of the word, but it is treated as such by those who are most susceptible to making the mistakes it surmises.

Mr. C, if you want a real exercise in critical thought an misinformation that would do you good, do the following-

Pick 5 issues you've debated with someone on this forum. Assign a percentage value to how likely you think you are right and how likely they are right. On top of that, try to come up with at least three good reasons they might be right. THAT is one of the best things you can do to improve yourself and your ability to critically analyze information.

NOT posting some internet law as a backdoor way to trash another poster and pick a bicker.

Teacher, will this be on the test?

Mr. C, if you want a real exercise in critical thought an misinformation that would do you good, do the following-

Literally the only thing you can teach me about is how to make a strawman.  I'll pass.

NOT posting some internet law as a backdoor way to trash another poster and pick a bicker.

What makes you think I was referring to you:  Full of yourself?  Or the ring of self-recognition?

Teacher, will this be on the test?

Long ago, back when I used to read more than Marti's topic sentences, there was something to be learned from him. He was the one who emphasised those 'emotional truths' from his hypnotherapist guru and now this. We have a living, breathing and ongoing case study in the bullshit asymmetry principle's of Brandolini. 

Oh, I like this. So, instead or refuting an argument I just say something like “Brandolini rules?”  Perfect.

Do you have much experience with our man Marti? It becomes an endless war of attrition as you need to parade through his legions of strawmen. It's his MO to a tee. However, if you'd like to try him out for yourself be my guest. You sound like one of his fanboys though.
Chester Jimbo and his flat earth arguments are in much the same vein.

1) If you genuinely think you know more than me on everything, could learn nothing, and are ALWAYS right, then you are exactly the kind if person these various rules/effects are citing as being a problem.

Also, drop the assive-aggressive BS and at least have the guts to admit you were talking about me. At least Adel is straight up about it.

Don't flatter yourself, kiddo.  Brandolini's Law is quite applicable to posts from about a half-dozen folks on here.

I know I can teach you sarcasm.  What'chu got for me?

If you think something is about you then you meet the tenets of the law. Congratulations!

Marty defended the actions of the Sewol captain back on Dave’s (when it was a thing). That’s all you need to know about the absurd positions he takes.