Also knowns as the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle
As another commentator says, pointing that a statement is bullshit is sufficient. The burden the burden of the proof is on the shitter, for having contrary opinion
In a fact based discussion sure, but bullshitting has other purposes: muddying the waters, creating distrust of media, simply drowning out non-bullshit.
Kamala did this the during the debate and it worked much better than I expected. She was basically like “yeah everything this guy just said is bullshit. Anyway, here’s what I’m going to do.”
Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
-Wayne Gretzky
I won’t waste energy on refuting this bullshit.
-Michael Scott
“A lie will fly around the whole world while the truth is getting its boots on.”
--Mark Twain
If AI ever gets to the point where it can fact check in real time (with actual sources), it will completely change society. Unfortunately, it’s currently on the other side of the problem.
If anything, it demonstrates that the law has mathematical validity. Fact-checking simply requires more work than making shit up. Even when AI gets to the point where it can do research and fact-check things effectively (which is bound to happen eventually), it’ll still be able to produce bullshit in a fraction of that time, and use that research ability to create more convincing bullshit.
Fact-checking requires rigor. Bullshit does not. There’s no magic way to close that gap.
However, most social media sites already implement rate limits on user submissions, so it might actually be possible to fact-check people’s posts faster than they are allowed to make them.
by just how AI works it’ll never solve the problem. what we really need is big brother to tell us what’s right and what’s wrong
Brandolini’s Law is great to keep in mind when discussing online - because as you’re busy refuting a piece of bullshit, the bullshitter is pumping out nine other bullshits in its place, so discussing with obvious bullshitters is a lost cause.
On a lighter side pointing the bullshit out is considerably easier/faster than to refute it, but still useful - as whoever is reading the discussion will notice it. As such, when you see clear signs of bullshit*, a good strategy is to point it out and then explicitly disengage.
*such as distorting what others say, assuming, using certain obvious fallacies/stupidities, screeching when someone points out a fallacy, etc.
It can be very useful to pick just one element of a multi-part bullshit firework and refute the shit out of it, and then completely tune out the rest.
Sometimes even just the quality of thinking comes across and does some work.
We use words seriously, to convey facts and and truths.
They use words as toys to infuriate and offend, all the while taking amusement from the collective effort to stop their disinformation and lies.
See also: the Gish gallop. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
“The sky is green!” - Bullshit
“Nu-uh!” - Energyless refutation
What bullshit is this?
Vance sure does love fucking couches!
There’s also the closely related Gish gallop
The favorite weapon of several politicians and creationists
And C-Suites across the globe.
I have a few things in my reading backlog about bullshit. I think that it tends to be trivialized in social discurse. It honestly feels like the patterns of bullshit exploit built in biases we have.
This is my future starting point for when I leave some room to this topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit
Wrong. That’s Brannigan’s law.
I don’t pretend to understand Brannigan’s Law. I merely enforce it.
- Zapp Brannigan
Ahh every far-righter ever
