Hey wait, I’m outside of this inside joke?
Yeah, that was before your time. 1999, or maybe early 2000…
Yeah? Well, I think you’re just pissed because it was your alter ego/sock puppet who got the law named after her, not you! 
I barely remember the outline of the story myself. Something about a fairly large-stakes bet between manhattan and Phaedrus. Manny won and Phaedy didn’t pay up.
Much of the UBB-era SDMB archives have been lost over time. (I think we switched from UBB to vB in early 2000, but that’s a guess.) A board search turns up only two threads that Phaedrus posted to.
Hit the showers.
In some ways it makes sense that Airman is all in a dither about people being hypersensitive and picky.
These days somebody’s always making a silly fuss over nothing.
A Nazi, a Communist and a Klansman walk into a bar. You’d think one of them would have seen it.
Thank you! Try the veal!
.
Ten grand. Phaedrus, being a big-time lawyer, could afford it. Shame we’ve lost that debacle over the years–although in retrospect, as it ties so deeply into the LBMB stuff, it’s probably a good thing.
Mind you, back in them days we had real trolls. Not the pissant little kids we get nowadays. Hell, I think it’s a shame we can’t dig up the old HWSNBN stuff (though in the sake of full disclosure that in the AOL days, and before my delurking). And I confess that I still miss the hell out of Connie.
But that all goes to my point, really. The fact that I’ve been a netgeek since the late 1980s and a Dope-lurker/Doper since 1998 is utterly irrelevant to the content of my posts. Being able to throw around catchy jargon like Godwin’s Law doesn’t make my points any more valid than if I’d taken the Nazi reference and either ignored or run with it.
(And Fishes? I always thought I was her sock. :))
.
I don’t see referring to Godwin’s law as clever or funny at all. I see it as useful shorthand.
In my experience, the great majority of comparisons to Hitler are strained and insipid, stupid cheap shots by people too dim to make a coherent argument. They’re piggybacking on Hitler’s reputation, hoping to score points by proxy. It’s sort of like when people talk about raping Mother Earth, or about Fascists or Communists among their political opponents when such terms aren’t remotely relevant.
Referring to Godwin’s law is shorthand for, “that’s an idiotic comparison, and by associating the horror of the Holocaust with such a comparatively trivial issue, you’re doing your own small part to trivialize the Holocaust.” It’s not a clever shorthand, but it’s a useful shorthand.
I’ll continue using it for just that purpose, and I’ll think those who get upset by it are pretty silly.
Daniel
Yeah, you’re full of it. What, no love for LOVREROCK?
The OP will have to speak for themselves, but for me… I don’t disagree with you.
There are HOWEVER times that drawing a parallel to the most studied war in history (and it’s cultural setting) is appropriate. Despite that, many invoke Godwin as a kneejerk and you can just see their shit-eating grin as they type it.
It’s damned annoying and, again, a fucking hijack.
So, is this thread long enough for Godwin’s Law to be invoked? Just wonderin’. . . .
Sometimes, I think, some folks shriek “Your Godwin’s showing” simply because they have no cogent argument to offer.
Besides, what the hell is wrong with dissing Hitler every chance we get? He’s earned it.
I propose the Godwin-Cube Law: “In any online discussion or its offshoots, the probability of an accusation of abusing Godwin’s Law to score cheap debating points approaches one (yes it does!), and does so independently of the rate at which the probability of a poster invoking Godwin’s Law to score cheap debating points approaches one (which it does). which does so independently of the rate at which the probability of a comparison to the Nazis or Hitler to score cheap debating points approaches one (which it will).”
“Godwin this, and Godwin that…” seems to have, in the OP, a slightly different meaning than the original Godwin’s Law (which after all only…OK, everybody knows): for the OP, GTAGT seems to mean vague cries of foul whenever certain key words or phrases (Hitler, Nazi, Fascism, brown shirt, etc., etc.,) appear, without any attempt at actual argument explaining why their appearance is inappropriate. OK by me, I guess, but…
It doesn’t seem to me that the OP’s referenced thread was an especially egregious example of his complaint (for one thing, the poster who introduced it did so before the comparison was ever made, and the poster to whom he directed the comment was himself busy denying such a comparison, so the comment was actually an admission that it’s author wished to subtly make the comparison, and he had begun to construct the arguments to support it before other odious comparisons, to Nixon and Bush, started to surface.
In other words, I’m not sure what post or who the OP is complaining about, especially as it’s another one of those threads complaining about posts in other threads in which the OP hasn’t bothered to show up. The only thing I can think of is that the OP really wants to compare somebody to Hitler, but because of the overuse and misuse of Godwin’s Law, doesn’t dare, so he wants to kill that one argument before he begins the discussion. I hope the target of his comparison isn’t me, because I have an iron-clad defense that doesn’t depend on Godwin’s Law: I’m not Hitler. Hopefully, many of you can say the same.
Not me! I’m Spartacus!
Lucky you. I really am Hitler. 
That is incorrect. I showed up in the first page.
My problem was elaborated upon two days ago. There are two kinds of “Godwinizers”, if you will: those that allude to it rather than simply saying what they want to say (like what I addressed in the OP), and those that will, upon the first mention of Hitler, the Nazis, NSDAP, or dozens of other keywords, fall all over themselves to be the first to post “Godwin’s Law!!!111!!” in response.
Both of these categories are composed of pinheads, so I propose that the term Godwin’s Law goes away forever. Yes, it’s shorthand. It’s shorthand for “I’m a drooling moron if I say it”.
There’s obviously something here too subtle for me. The thread linked to in your OP is BrainGlutton’s “Indonesia buries mass-murderer Suharto with full military honors.” There’s less than a page of it, and of the forty-two posts in it, I can’t see one with your name on it. Which is yours? For that matter, what was “a joke, a mere exercise in mimetics?” Are you talking about a post in some other thread, one not linked?
That’s what makes horse races, I guess. I thought the post was clear as a bell: that there’s a parallel to be drawn whenever someone attempts the sort of balancing act Captain Amazing essayed in the thread. And, in fact, both posters went on to argue about just that in civil and articulate fashion.
Nobody in that thread belongs in either of the categories you’re complaining about: everybody involved seems to agree implicitly that Hitler comparisons might be valid if argued persuasively and, if invalid, that that must be argued persuasively as well. It’s sort of fun to watch you and BrainGlutton sniping at each other from opposite ends of the same trench, though – it’s a shame when people get all level-headed and allow mere agreement to stop a good fight.
This is the kind of reasoning I admire. Remind me sometime to tell you about the two categories of people who misuse handguns.
Ah, I see. Is this a new rule, I must participate before I call something idiotic? I promise, the next time I have something to say I’ll make a cursory posting so that a positive connection may be made.
When the only words in your post are “Not to Godwinize, but…” you are a pinhead. Just. Say. It. Godwin’s Law is an abused, idiotic cliche.
Please do. I doubt very much you’ll get any disagreement from me.