An atricle written about "Godwin's Law" in The Economist...

[Soup_du_jour]

…but by another name. In an article called “Many a true word…,” they dubbed the famous debating tactic “The Fuhrer manoeuvre.” Which do YOU think is the better name?

[WordMan]

Hmmm…

To comment on this, I would need:

a) a link to the article (sorry, I travel and pick up the Economist in airports - haven’t done so lately)

b) a definition of Godwin’s Law

c) an explanation as to why it might be referred to as the Fuhrer’s maneuver.

Sorry if I am one of those pesky naive 'merkins, but this one’s over my head…

[Avalonian]

I love Godwin’s Law… the most striking thing about it is how true is usually is.

From The Jargon Dictionary:

Godwin’s Law - prov. - [Usenet] “As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.” There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin’s Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin’s Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.

It was originated for Usenet discussions, but also applies to bulletin board discussions and e-mail threads. Hopefully you can see why this would apply to the new title the Economist gave it. (Hitler = Nazi leader = fuehrer)

To answer Soup’s question, I think “The Fuehrer Maneuver” is certainly more descriptive, though more people know it as Godwin’s Law, I’m sure. For clarity’s sake, I suppose I prefer the former.

[Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor]

Who is “Godwin”?

[Michael_Ellis]

Mr. Godot in disguise.