User talk:Huscarl91

You could have let me finish writing it, as I do have some really good stuff here.

Corollaries and usage
Closely related to Godwin's Law, Shockey's Law is an illustration of a specific type of Ad Hominem logical fallacy, where, instead of debating the lack of validity of an opponents position, the party guilty of violating Shockey's Law attacks the opponent directly, seeking to specifically invalidate every position they might hold, on the basis of them holding those positions.

Examples of violations of Shockey's Law are to be found in the comments section of virtually every source on the internet where issues are discussed, and opinions expressed. Examples might include 2nd Amendment supporters dismissing any and all positions counter to their own as coming from "libtards"; any discussion of the failings of the State Department in the Benghazi "scandal" might be dismissed as "republican dog-whistle".

Unlike failing Godwin's Law, and the concomitant loss of credibility it brings, violations of Shockey's Law tend to reinforce the validity of the position, at least among the like-minded. This is clearly a result of Shockey's Law essentially having no Hitler, having no position tied to it so very repugnant to cause even fellow supporters of a position to back away from standing with the debater who launched the ad hominem attack. In the communities of trolls on the internet, the use of insults without consequences is seen as a valid form of debate. If a person can be threatened, insulted, or otherwise intimidated into surrendering their position, one need never resort to factual conversation, think critically about an issue, or change any position when the evidence does not support their position.

Huscarl91 (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)