Godwin's Law

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: "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.

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.

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.