Morse's Laws of the Internet, Redux.
A few years ago, I posted this. A commenter elsewhere reminded me of it, and I decided to revisit things and update it somewhat. Besides, there's actually been some substantial turnover in the ol' FL since then anyway.
#1: Excepting trolls, the volume of information a person divulges about themselves online in the course of normal interaction is inversely proportional to the person's level of bugfuck insanity.
#2: Contrary to popular opinion, women seek out pseudo-sex (cyber or phone) via the internet more than do men.
#2a: Women, naturally, also complain about men trying to hit them up for pseudo-sex far more often than do men.
#3: Those who whine about being called names in the midst of arguments are in fact usually losing said argument. The opponent's margin of victory in the argument is directly proportional to the volume and indignation of the whining in question.
#4: There is no place in internet debate for reasoned and moderate argument. Those who refuse to attach themselves to either the extreme right or extreme left will be, paradoxically, called both a pinko commie and a neocon brownshirt. At the same time.
#5: Anyone who brings up the subject of meeting you, then starts making excuses not to, has been lying to you all along about pretty much everything.
#6: Nobody in the history of the internet has ever been stalked and tracked down merely as a result of giving out their first name and location. Anyone who claims this has happened has, in fact, given out far more information than just first name and location, and is too embarrassed to admit it.
#6a: The reason they're too embarrassed to admit almost certainly involves an unhappy or non-existent marriage/relationship, lonely nights typing with one hand, and phone sex.
#7: Drama follows people for a reason. That reason can almost always be located in one's mirror.
#8: When a person complains that someone will not leave them alone, and continues to mention them over and over, it's a better than fifty-percent chance that they're the one that simply won't let go.
#8a: Come to think of it, it's a better than seventy-percent chance.
#9: When an internet personality has met a large number of people in person, and all but a very few of them testify as to their sterling character, it's a safe assumption that anyone who does complain about them has serious mental issues.
#9a: If the person complaining hasn't actually met the personality in question, it's no longer just a safe assumption. It's a cold-stone fact.
#10: Anyone who is obviously spending 12 hours a day on the internet and then claims they have a great relationship is not only lying, but is trolling around for an upgrade. Or at least something on the side.
#11: Nobody is as nice as they act on the internet.
#11a: Hardly anyone is as much of an asshole as they act like on the internet either. The only exceptions are the people who are quite clearly in need of psychiatric care.
#12: When debating with an extremist of any political persuasion, a single allegation on a website is "someone finally uncovering the truth," while countless documents both on- and off-line which refute or outright disprove that allegation is "just the mainstream media covering things up."
#13: Obnoxious newcomers to a community will invariably presume they have a fresh perspective to offer, even though they don't.
#13a: They'll also claim that they know the rules better than do the community veterans.
#13b: When they get slapped down for their presumption, it will be labeled a conspiracy.
#14: The more often someone denies responsibility for an incident of internet drama, the more likely it is they're the one to blame for the entire fiasco.
#15: Meme-to-content ratio is a valid inverse indicator of a blogger's intelligence.
#16: If you refer to someone in vague terms, they'll assume you're talking about someone else.
#16a: If you refer to someone in vague terms, someone you're not talking about will assume you're talking about them.
#17: Unless you've already established a reputation as a provocateur, baiting people then claiming you were baiting them after they rip you to shreds will result in near-universal disbelief. This law was later superceded by the well-known "LOL SOSHUL EXPERIMENT" meme.
#18: Discussing anything you actually give a shit about on the internet will invariably result in someone tripping your fuse and making you look stupid, even if -- no, especially if you're right.
#19 (Morse's Corollary to Godwin's Law): As a LiveJournal discussion grows, any references to Nazis or Hitler will incrementally cause the probability of an appearance by godwin to approach one. Or, at least, it did until godwin got banhammered.
#20: Some percentage of the people who spent all summer opposing the eventual winner of an election will neglect to go vote themselves, and the day after the election will be violently combative over their candidate's loss.
#20a: Some percentage of those people will even claim that they did vote, despite actually having spent the day playing video games and bitching on the internet instead.
#21: Any internet community geared toward giving advice will invariably be full of bad advice.
#22: In any internet community geared toward sports, the people who actually know what they're talking about will invariably be drowned out and marginalized by the larger majority of people who know nothing at all.
#22a: Unless the community in question is devoted specifically to one team, that larger majority will consist of fans of teams which used to be good and aren't anymore. At least until people start jumping off the bandwagon.
#23: Any internet community whose membership tends to strongly believe in any particular subject will invariably be infested with people who can't logically explain why this belief should be universal, regardless of whether that belief is generally correct or not.
#24: Any internet community geared toward fandom of any kind is invariably infested with stupid, scary people, and if you're a fan of whatever they're fans of you're better off just enjoying it in solitude. Besides, you don't need validation. Right?
#25 (stupid_free Is No Longer Stupid-Free): Any internet community devoted to pointing out stupidity on the internet will inevitably degenerate to the point where the majority of its members are themselves too stupid to be allowed to breed, generally as a result of the community being invaded by the stupid people referenced in Laws 21-24.
#26: In social networking venues where people are allowed to upload multiple images to use as avatars, if an individual utilizes this benefit to the maximum allowable level yet not one of their avatars is actually a picture (even partial) of themselves, it's a certainty that you really don't ever want to look at them anyway.
#26a: This doesn't necessarily mean that you ever want to look at them even if they do use a picture of themselves as an avatar.
#27: The number of "look how bad the other candidate is" posts one encounters on the internet during an election cycle is inversely proportional to the number of "look how good my candidate is" posts one encounters.
#1: Excepting trolls, the volume of information a person divulges about themselves online in the course of normal interaction is inversely proportional to the person's level of bugfuck insanity.
#2: Contrary to popular opinion, women seek out pseudo-sex (cyber or phone) via the internet more than do men.
#2a: Women, naturally, also complain about men trying to hit them up for pseudo-sex far more often than do men.
#3: Those who whine about being called names in the midst of arguments are in fact usually losing said argument. The opponent's margin of victory in the argument is directly proportional to the volume and indignation of the whining in question.
#4: There is no place in internet debate for reasoned and moderate argument. Those who refuse to attach themselves to either the extreme right or extreme left will be, paradoxically, called both a pinko commie and a neocon brownshirt. At the same time.
#5: Anyone who brings up the subject of meeting you, then starts making excuses not to, has been lying to you all along about pretty much everything.
#6: Nobody in the history of the internet has ever been stalked and tracked down merely as a result of giving out their first name and location. Anyone who claims this has happened has, in fact, given out far more information than just first name and location, and is too embarrassed to admit it.
#6a: The reason they're too embarrassed to admit almost certainly involves an unhappy or non-existent marriage/relationship, lonely nights typing with one hand, and phone sex.
#7: Drama follows people for a reason. That reason can almost always be located in one's mirror.
#8: When a person complains that someone will not leave them alone, and continues to mention them over and over, it's a better than fifty-percent chance that they're the one that simply won't let go.
#8a: Come to think of it, it's a better than seventy-percent chance.
#9: When an internet personality has met a large number of people in person, and all but a very few of them testify as to their sterling character, it's a safe assumption that anyone who does complain about them has serious mental issues.
#9a: If the person complaining hasn't actually met the personality in question, it's no longer just a safe assumption. It's a cold-stone fact.
#10: Anyone who is obviously spending 12 hours a day on the internet and then claims they have a great relationship is not only lying, but is trolling around for an upgrade. Or at least something on the side.
#11: Nobody is as nice as they act on the internet.
#11a: Hardly anyone is as much of an asshole as they act like on the internet either. The only exceptions are the people who are quite clearly in need of psychiatric care.
#12: When debating with an extremist of any political persuasion, a single allegation on a website is "someone finally uncovering the truth," while countless documents both on- and off-line which refute or outright disprove that allegation is "just the mainstream media covering things up."
#13: Obnoxious newcomers to a community will invariably presume they have a fresh perspective to offer, even though they don't.
#13a: They'll also claim that they know the rules better than do the community veterans.
#13b: When they get slapped down for their presumption, it will be labeled a conspiracy.
#14: The more often someone denies responsibility for an incident of internet drama, the more likely it is they're the one to blame for the entire fiasco.
#15: Meme-to-content ratio is a valid inverse indicator of a blogger's intelligence.
#16: If you refer to someone in vague terms, they'll assume you're talking about someone else.
#16a: If you refer to someone in vague terms, someone you're not talking about will assume you're talking about them.
#17: Unless you've already established a reputation as a provocateur, baiting people then claiming you were baiting them after they rip you to shreds will result in near-universal disbelief. This law was later superceded by the well-known "LOL SOSHUL EXPERIMENT" meme.
#18: Discussing anything you actually give a shit about on the internet will invariably result in someone tripping your fuse and making you look stupid, even if -- no, especially if you're right.
#19 (Morse's Corollary to Godwin's Law): As a LiveJournal discussion grows, any references to Nazis or Hitler will incrementally cause the probability of an appearance by godwin to approach one. Or, at least, it did until godwin got banhammered.
#20: Some percentage of the people who spent all summer opposing the eventual winner of an election will neglect to go vote themselves, and the day after the election will be violently combative over their candidate's loss.
#20a: Some percentage of those people will even claim that they did vote, despite actually having spent the day playing video games and bitching on the internet instead.
#21: Any internet community geared toward giving advice will invariably be full of bad advice.
#22: In any internet community geared toward sports, the people who actually know what they're talking about will invariably be drowned out and marginalized by the larger majority of people who know nothing at all.
#22a: Unless the community in question is devoted specifically to one team, that larger majority will consist of fans of teams which used to be good and aren't anymore. At least until people start jumping off the bandwagon.
#23: Any internet community whose membership tends to strongly believe in any particular subject will invariably be infested with people who can't logically explain why this belief should be universal, regardless of whether that belief is generally correct or not.
#24: Any internet community geared toward fandom of any kind is invariably infested with stupid, scary people, and if you're a fan of whatever they're fans of you're better off just enjoying it in solitude. Besides, you don't need validation. Right?
#25 (stupid_free Is No Longer Stupid-Free): Any internet community devoted to pointing out stupidity on the internet will inevitably degenerate to the point where the majority of its members are themselves too stupid to be allowed to breed, generally as a result of the community being invaded by the stupid people referenced in Laws 21-24.
#26: In social networking venues where people are allowed to upload multiple images to use as avatars, if an individual utilizes this benefit to the maximum allowable level yet not one of their avatars is actually a picture (even partial) of themselves, it's a certainty that you really don't ever want to look at them anyway.
#26a: This doesn't necessarily mean that you ever want to look at them even if they do use a picture of themselves as an avatar.
#27: The number of "look how bad the other candidate is" posts one encounters on the internet during an election cycle is inversely proportional to the number of "look how good my candidate is" posts one encounters.