Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Godwin's Law
pelican
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 1 of 16 (491430)
12-15-2008 11:21 PM


I have just come across Godwins Law and although I have read through it 10 times, I don't think I am grasping the whole meaning or when it is appropriate to use in a discussion. Has anyone a good understanding of it that can explain it in layman's terms? I would greatly appreciate any input.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Coyote, posted 12-15-2008 11:59 PM pelican has not replied
 Message 3 by Rrhain, posted 12-16-2008 12:15 AM pelican has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 2 of 16 (491434)
12-15-2008 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by pelican
12-15-2008 11:21 PM


Godwin's Law
From Wikipedia:
Godwin's law - Wikipedia
Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1] is an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states:[2][3]
"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Godwin's Law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the reductio ad Hitlerum form.
The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued[4] that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact. Although in one of its early forms Godwin's Law referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions,[5] the law is now applied to any threaded online discussion: electronic mailing lists, message boards, chat rooms, and more recently blog comment threads and wiki talk pages.
There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[2] than others invented later.[1] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle itself is frequently referred to as Godwin's Law. It is considered poor form to raise such a comparison arbitrarily with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized codicil that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin's law will be unsuccessful (this is sometimes referred to as "Quirk's Exception").[6]
Godwin's Law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Hitler or Nazis or their actions.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by pelican, posted 12-15-2008 11:21 PM pelican has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 3 of 16 (491435)
12-16-2008 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by pelican
12-15-2008 11:21 PM


Godwin's Law is that the longer any internet discussion lasts, the probability that Hitler will be mentioned approaches 1. That is, intense internet discussions eventually become extremely emotional and sooner or later, someone is going to say that such-and-such an idea or person is "just like Hitler."
What this observation has led to is the idea that the first person to mention Hitler (and by extension, the Nazis, the Holocaust, etc.) automatically loses the debate. This is because given the typical topics that arise in internet discussions, the idea that Hitler/Nazis/the Holocaust is the best and most appropriate reference point to buttress your argument shows that you don't understand not only Hitler/Nazis/the Holocaust, but also that you don't understand your own argument.
The Holocaust was a unique event in human history. This isn't to say that there haven't been other instances of genocide in the world or that the Holocaust was the "worst." It's that the specific factors that led to it and the intended scope (it was intended to be a world-wide extermination of all Jews everywhere, not just a plan to get rid of "the Jewish problem" within Germany) mean that it would be outrageously unlikely to conclude that anything we're discussing is really best exemplified by Hitler/Nazis/the Holocaust.
As an example, take a look at the Bush administration and various comparisons of it to the Nazi regime. Really? I don't see concentration camps in the US where we are systematically killing off an entire class of people. I don't see forced relocation into ghettoes, confiscation of property, etc.
In short, if one wants to talk about the failures of the Bush administration, why not look at our own history? The Declaration of Independence provides plenty of examples of what our country is supposed to be like and how we have violated those very principles. Just to provide a single example:
[referring to King George III] He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
"Signing statements," anybody?
The point here is not to go into specifics about the Bush administration. I am simply trying to give an example of how a topic of conversation could have someone make a comparison to the Holocaust and how that comparison is completely and utterly stupid. There are much better and more appropriate references. To try and compare Bush to Hitler shows that you don't understand not just Hitler but also Bush, which is the topic of conversation.
Does that help?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by pelican, posted 12-15-2008 11:21 PM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by pelican, posted 12-16-2008 4:37 PM Rrhain has replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 4 of 16 (491485)
12-16-2008 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Rrhain
12-16-2008 12:15 AM


godwins law
Thankyou Rrhain, so e.g, if someone was discussing the Benny Hinn ministries, it would be inappropriate to compare them with the nazi regime? If they do then is Godwins Law invoked as a no no?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Rrhain, posted 12-16-2008 12:15 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Shield, posted 12-16-2008 4:53 PM pelican has not replied
 Message 7 by Rrhain, posted 12-16-2008 11:36 PM pelican has replied

  
Shield
Member (Idle past 2861 days)
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-29-2008


Message 5 of 16 (491487)
12-16-2008 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by pelican
12-16-2008 4:37 PM


Re: godwins law
I dont think you understand.
Godwin's law is merely the fact that the longer a discussion goes on, the higher is the chance for someone to mention Hitler/Nazies in some comparison.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by pelican, posted 12-16-2008 4:37 PM pelican has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by RAZD, posted 12-16-2008 9:36 PM Shield has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 6 of 16 (491507)
12-16-2008 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Shield
12-16-2008 4:53 PM


Re: godwins law
Godwin's law is merely the fact that the longer a discussion goes on, the higher is the chance for someone to mention Hitler/Nazies in some comparison.
One could take any major historical event and make the same observation, Nero fiddling while Rome burned (like Shrubia at McCains BDay party while New Orleans flooded?), or the Spanish Inquisition (torture justifications anyone?)
Nazi\Germany\Holocaust is just a likely reference to bad behavior ...
Of course only board nazis use it ...
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Shield, posted 12-16-2008 4:53 PM Shield has seen this message but not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 7 of 16 (491512)
12-16-2008 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by pelican
12-16-2008 4:37 PM


Re: godwins law
pelican responds to me:
quote:
If they do then is Godwins Law invoked as a no no?
Well, mostly it's done to point out that the person making the Hitler comparison is wandering off into la-la land. The idea is to try to pull the discussion back into the realm of the sane. It isn't a formal rule of logic. Rather it is an etiquette concept to help keep discussions from completely disintegrating.
Again, Godwin's Law is just that eventually someone is going to bring up Hitler. The "automatically loses the debate" is the response to that fact: If your emotional investment in your argument has so clouded your judgement that you are the one that brings up Hitler, it's time for you to back off and rethink what your position is.
Bringing up Godwin's Law and expecting it to actually mean anything more than that is considered bad form.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by pelican, posted 12-16-2008 4:37 PM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by pelican, posted 12-17-2008 12:07 AM Rrhain has replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 8 of 16 (491517)
12-17-2008 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Rrhain
12-16-2008 11:36 PM


Re: godwins law
I think my 'opponent' who raised it didn't understand it either. He began his reply with "invoking godwins law permaturely," and then raised the issue of nazism in comparison to religious ministries. Huh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Rrhain, posted 12-16-2008 11:36 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Rrhain, posted 12-17-2008 2:34 AM pelican has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 9 of 16 (491525)
12-17-2008 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by pelican
12-17-2008 12:07 AM


pelican responds to me:
quote:
He began his reply with "invoking godwins law permaturely," and then raised the issue of nazism in comparison to religious ministries. Huh?
Well, he's basically saying that he is aware of the tendency of internet conversations to eventually disintegrate into someone calling someone else a "Nazi." However, he's ignoring the conventional wisdom that when such an event happens, the discussion is pretty much over.
Now, this isn't to say that Germany in the 30s and 40s is incapable of being discussed (notice how we're doing it right now.) For all I know, he has a legitimate connection that might be made. If we're discussing dictatorships, cults of personality, propaganda campaigns, etc., then what happened in Germany is certainly of interest. But if you're going to go there, you had better tread carefully and have very good justifications for why you are going there.
That is, there's a difference between discussing it academically and calling someone a "Nazi" as an ad hominem.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by pelican, posted 12-17-2008 12:07 AM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by pelican, posted 12-18-2008 6:13 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 10 of 16 (491528)
12-17-2008 5:10 AM


Arguing the Moral Toss
I couldn't help but think of this sketch from Mittchel and Webb that sums up quite nicely how some people will use grossly inappropriate analogies comparing anything they don't like with Hitler.
Godwin's Law strikes me as being a good rule to abide by. The Holocaust was a unique event in history, as Rrhain has said. Also, being able to accurately describe actual fascists and Neo-Nazis is a very important thing to be able to do. Trivialising the terminology by invoking it to win unrelated arguments is just selfish and silly.
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-17-2008 12:01 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 11 of 16 (491551)
12-17-2008 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Granny Magda
12-17-2008 5:10 AM


Re: Arguing the Moral Toss
LOL. I guess Ben Stein's "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" movie fullfills Godwin's Law i.e. reductio ad Hitlerum perfectly.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Granny Magda, posted 12-17-2008 5:10 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Granny Magda, posted 12-18-2008 7:34 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 12 of 16 (491600)
12-18-2008 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Rrhain
12-17-2008 2:34 AM


Thanks so much for all the help.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Rrhain, posted 12-17-2008 2:34 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 13 of 16 (491643)
12-18-2008 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by DevilsAdvocate
12-17-2008 12:01 PM


Re: Arguing the Moral Toss
I guess Ben Stein's "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" movie fullfills Godwin's Law i.e. reductio ad Hitlerum perfectly.
By my reckoning, if we apply Godwin's Law to Expelled, Stein loses the argument after 33 seconds. That includes the gaudy Premise Films ident at the beginning, which takes up 22 of those seconds.
Way to go Ben!
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-17-2008 12:01 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Taz, posted 12-20-2008 11:51 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 14 of 16 (491774)
12-20-2008 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Granny Magda
12-18-2008 7:34 PM


Re: Arguing the Moral Toss
Now, we have to be careful when we talk about godwin's law. While I agree with you that ben stein's expelled's connection between hitler, science, and the holocaust automatically failed his point, we have to keep in mind that not all mention of the nazis constitute an automatic loss to the debate.
Let's look at the following as an example.
A: Stalin murdered millions of people, and he was an atheist. Therefore, atheism must be bad.
B: The nazis murdered millions of people, and they were health freaks. Does that mean that being physically healthy is bad?
I would argue that B made a valid point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Granny Magda, posted 12-18-2008 7:34 PM Granny Magda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-23-2008 6:02 PM Taz has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 15 of 16 (491895)
12-23-2008 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Taz
12-20-2008 11:51 PM


Re: Arguing the Moral Toss
My understanding of Godwin's Law is that it has nothing to do with the actual validity of the debate itself but rather whether the subject of Hitler and Nazism would eventually be broached the longer a debate continues. Am I wrong on this.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Taz, posted 12-20-2008 11:51 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Taz, posted 12-23-2008 8:20 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024