posted
What does this do? Why does its use invalidate the thread? Does it give us a reason not to think about the issue?
quote:You could say that Goodwin's Law killed anything productive that could have been done with this thread before it even got started.
Why is it the case? It's not as if Newton's Law invalidates any discussion about objects falling. Or even Murphy's Law invalidating a discussion about everything that's going wrong in a situation. Or the a criminal law not call for more thought into the nature of a crime-- or is it the case that when you steal something, the law in envoked, the penalty is paid, and then we can forget about it.
It seems as if the use of all these laws actually call for more thinking about the issue that at hand, and instead, the Godwin's Law is used as a handy excuse to stop thinking.
posted
Godwin's Law: As any USENET conversation progresses, the likelihood of any mention of Hitler or Nazis approaches 100%.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The tradition is that, once you have compared someone to Hitler, or Nazis, you have automatically lost the battle.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So it has to be six million? It can't just be genocide?
quote: Many people have extended Godwin's Law to imply that the invoking of the Nazis as a debating tactic (in any argument not directly related to World War II or the Holocaust) automatically loses the argument, simply because these events were so horrible that any comparison to any event less serious than genocide or extinction is invalid and in poor taste.
from Wikipedia
This would imply that as long as you're talking about genocide or maybe even massive murder that Godwin does not apply. Yet many on this forum have invoked Godwin's law when the Holocaust was being used to compare genocide.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Yet many on this forum have invoked Godwin's law when the Holocaust was being used to compare genocide."
The key to Godwin's Law, of course, is that there ARE no exceptions. It can be invoked even when the comparisons are valid, precisely because that's when it's the most useful.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: The key to Godwin's Law, of course, is that there ARE no exceptions. It can be invoked even when the comparisons are valid, precisely because that's when it's the most useful.
Well that would simply prove that the law ought not be used. Otherwise when referring to genocide people could just revert to pre-Holocaust logic and maintain that such horrors could never happen and when the person seeking to prevent history from repeating itself says, "It did happen look at the Holocaust," they would lose the argument.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Godwin's law applies most appropriately when the original discussion topic had nothing to do with Hitler, or Nazis. That is what it designed to combat....the over-use of Hitler as a comparison for others, or other situations.
If you call someone a Nazi, and they really are one, that isn't a violation.
Also, Godwin's Law is a description, but the tradition that once Hitler is mentioned the mentioning party has lost the argument is merely a custom, not an actual part of the law.
The law simply means that as a heated discussion grows past the point where new info is no longer being offered/considered, the chances of someone on either side of mentioning Hitler increases....the longer the thread goes on, the closer the occurrence nears to one...or 100%, if you prefer.
posted
NFL: So, are you saying you'd let the arbitrary law that someone came up with tell you you had lost an argument? Would you stop posting, just because someone said "Godwin"?
posted
Not me personally, but let's face it - if I'm trying to discuss something with someone and come to a better understanding, odds are the person isn't going to resort to invoking Godwin's Law in order to claim victory or inflict defeat.
I think that's a little vague - if the other party in the discussion feels the need to invoke Godwin's Law, the argument was dead in the water and nothing would have been resolved anyway.
If you're discussing a topic with a relatively rational individual, odds are they won't feel the need to inappropriately invoke Godwin's Law.
Although I have to admit, it's fascinating to consider how often something like this will manifest.
posted
The person who invokes calling the other Nazi loses. A scenario I'm less certain of is "Are you calling me a Nazi?" Say you support Kerry, whose policies would support millions of abortions during his admin, or Bush whose policies are less agressive in finding a cure for AIDs, and so it could be argued your backing of someone will result in millions of deaths. Can you then say "Are you calling me a Nazi?"
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Godwin's Law just means that once someone starts talking about Nazis, the thread has gone on long enough that Nazis have come up.
Why this is a "Law" is beyond me. Why anyone thinks it is a useful tool for moderating discussions is also beyond me.
You can make a similar law by substituting any concept (including "Godwin") for Nazis. That law will be every bit as true, and therefore every bit as valid a basis for any rules you might want to make.
Posts: 100 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another aspect of Goodwin's Law is that if somebody resorts to comparing others to Hitler or Nazis, then the productive part of the conversatin is already over. The productive conversation isn't over because somebody cried Nazi, but they cried Nazi because they aren't communicating productively anymore.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there a corellary about Stalin and the Soviets?
28 million killed under his highly paranoid regime. If you didn't like someone, you just said they went against The Party. Children actively taught in school to watch their parents and tell the authorities if their parents did anything anti-party.
Posts: 438 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
PSI, I know that as soon as someone invokes Godwin there's no point in discussing anything further with them because they have it so drilled into their head that Nazis end the discussion regardless of whether or not the comparison is valid.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
That is, it is an idea that is used to shut down debate.
USUALLY, comparing someone to a National Socialist or Hitler is also an anti-concept. The problem is, as TomD pointed out, there are no exceptions to Godwin's Law so it falls into the same trap it seeks to prevent.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:if you can think of someone who's killed six million people, I don't think anyone would be surprised if you compared them to Hitler. - teleport
Is it really the number that's important? Is difference between a soldier in Afghanistan and the Washington DC sniper the number of deaths? It's the motive. It's not even the difference in the victim, the atrocity is in the motive. The threat to civilization is in the circumstance surrounding the order, we need to talk about the problematic nature of invoking the Lord's name in public policy.
quote:Evil men often attribute their crimes to God. That doesn't mean that good men who attribute their good deeds to God are therefore evil. -kacard
No, but it sure means that we should talk about the difference, and I take issue with silencing that discussion. Silencing the discussion is an offense against the virtue of free-speech, and this speech is relevant in these days where it is appropriate to blend religion and public policy. This blend is as dangerous as it is righteous and holy, and it could be the well-spring of a whole lot of good, but it is worthy of thought and discussion.
Now I know that free-speech stops at the entrance to this board, but it doesn't make the closing of that thread was any less of an offense against a principle that is important to worthy government.
posted
I think Goodwin's law is a good rule-of-thumb. For most conversations, if somebody resorts to comarisons to Nazis or Hitler, then they are arguing, and not discussing. The conversation really is over.
It's great at what it is -- a rule-of-thumb.
But it's called a Law, you say.
Big deal. Goodwin's Law sounds a lot cooler than Goodwin's rule-of-thumb.
Nobody really thinks that it is a law.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
You two (beverly and mph) seem to always post together. Do you sit next to each other when you go on Hatrack? Or is it like a way you guys converse when mph is at work and beverly at home?
Either way, I think that is kind of cool.
Posts: 438 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Porter works out of a home office. He has his puter down in the dungeon, and mine is up here in the land of the living. (As you shall see should you come celebrate Billtmas at our house next weekend!)
Actually, we most often don't post together. If we do, it is a fluke. But it is fun to be able to respond to each other here and see what the other has written.
(I told Porter about your post, so he went downstairs to post at the same time as me. )
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
mph works out of their home, IIRC, but downstairs (basement?). I always figured that in-sync conversations from beverly and mph mean their kids are busy or asleep. [edit: too slow!]
BTW, for the sake of accuracy, the Nazis actually killed far more than 6 million. It was probably closer to 12 million -- 6 million Jews, and close to another 6 million Poles, handicapped people, gays, and other people the Nazis considered "undesirable."
posted
With respect to the Rabbit's thread and my last post, there are questions of responsibility and appropriateness.
As a President:
Is it appropriate to be responsible to God in your decisions?
Is it appropriate to be responsible to the Greater Good of the public, at the expense of forthrightness in your speech to the public?
Is it appropriate to be responsible to honesty in public dialogue at the expense of the Greater Good?
Is it appropriate to the office of the President to be responsible to your family? __________________
These are questions which concern the President with respect to that which makes him the President, while he may be informed by his Christianity or other responsibilities, I don't know how these responsibilities ought to attend to this role as a President. For all of those who think I'm baiting, I really don't know. I'm not even sure that these are the kind of problems that give themselves to answers, but I am sure that they are the character of questions which ought to be discussed.
posted
Vovka and I have a huge corner desk, so we both have our own computer but we sit next to each other. It is kind of fun. He likes Jatraqueros, but he already visits a couple of Russian forums.
Posts: 438 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Godwin's Law is mainly just an excuse for intellectual laziness. It normally comes into play when someone gives a particular argument, and then someone else takes that argument to the extreme by invoking Hitler. (Reductio ad absurdum is what it's called, and it's a valid method of debate.) Rather than explain why Hitler would not fit into the given argument, or rather than admit the argument is wrong if Hitler would fit, Godwin's Law allows people to simply ignore the counterpoint as if for some reason comparisons to Hitler aren't ever valid.
Example of misuse of Godwin's Law:
A: The U.S. had a right to invade Iraq without U.N. approval because a nation can use its own military however it wants. B: Does that mean Hitler had a right to invade Poland, since it was Germany's military, and Germany can use its military as it wants? A: Godwin's law! Godwin's law! I don't have to answer that.
The truth is, if it is obvious why so-and-so is not like Hitler, it should be easy to show why. In the case above, B's statement about Hitler follows from A's first claim, and thus his invocation of Hitler is valid. If A wants to refute B in a legitimate way, A must revise his original claim in some way that would make the Iraq War acceptable but Hitler's war wrong.
posted
Which is followed by a list of how they are common to each other....which leads to an almost automatic emotional denial for the facts in question.
It isn't a matter of intellect, or lasiness. Godwins Law simply means that the longer a heated argument (or any thread/conversation)goes on the more likley Hitler is to be mentioned...even when the topic at hand has nothing to do with genocide. Or war. Or.....
Once Hitler is mentioned (even here) he takes over the thread, and the thread ceases to be what is was...a real discussion.
posted
I've noticed that a Hitler comparison isn't provocative with respect to Hitler. It's usually the tacit comparison of the poster to one of those Germans or Americans who stood idlely by while the atrocities happened, before we were attacked. World War II comparisons aren't about Hitler, they are about the problems of the Good Samaritan, personal and public responsibility, and individual sovereignty.
That's the real dodge when you cry Godwin's Law. The Rabbit's post wasn't disturbing in that it compared Bush to Hitler, its power came from comparing the Germans to us standing blithely by while being inappropriately led. _____________________
Do you want to know why it's important not to close down discussions. I didn't know where this thread was going when I started it. But through the process, I think I figured out something. Notice, no new information was added. No proof. No links to charts. Just more thought to the appropriate issue.
Thanks Dr. Rabbit, for drawing my attention to this. And thank you, Ms. Card, for being the crack in the window which draws attention to the window's existence.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
[edit: too slow!]
