Maybe this belongs in GQ.
I was reading up on Godwin’s Law at wikipedia and it said this:
This is the first I have ever heard of this corollary or what have you. Is this really the way it is interpreted by many?
IIRC, the reverend Sun Yung Moon actually asked Hitler this very question while channeling the evil dictator last year. Hitler’s response? “Any mention of Godwin, or his law is kitschy.”
I’m a serious Usenet rat. That isn’t really correct. And, remember that’s from Wikipedia, and you or I can edit that. (And, I may very well do so after this thread ends.) Godwin’s Law doesn’t mean who points out it applies to the thread loses. However:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/
-
What should I do if somebody else invokes Godwin’s Law?
The obvious response is to call them on it, say “thread’s over”,
and declare victory. This is also one of the stupidest possible responses,
because it involves believing far too much in the power of a few rules that
don’t say exactly what you wish they said anyway. The proper response to
an invocation is probably to simply followup with a message saying “Oh.
I’m a Nazi? Sure. Bye” and leave, and in most cases even that much of a
post is unnecessary.
It’s often best when someone Godwinizes a thread to ignore it, and let someone else reading who is neutral jump in and point out the thread has been Godwinized, and you won.
You must be a freakin’ Nazi to post something like that. I suppose now you’re going to go gas some Jews.
I win! 
Seriously, I have never heard of this. If we could never call people out on Godwin’s law, how would they ever know about it?
Fair point. Also, that Wikipedia article states “…In addition, whoever points out that Godwin’s law applies to the thread is also considered to have “lost” the battle, as it is considered poor form to invoke the law explicitly.” This would mean both sides lose the argument, which makes no sense.
Actually, both sides losing an argument makes perfect sense to me. But that’s just my opinion; you may disagree.
Well, you should understand that Godwins law is just a bunch of hooey. There are many appropriate times to mention or compare whatever is going on with the Nazi’s.
This is also why perhaps the article states it is “poor form” to point out that Godwins law applies- as there is no such "law’. You don’t “lose” anything if you are the first one to mention the nazis. It’s not like you have commited a Logical Fallacy or anything. It’s just a silly thing someone (Godwin?) made up.
To be technical, Godwin merely stated that as a thread grew longer a Nazi comparison was near inevitable. The part about who wins the thread isn’t in Godwin’s Law itself; just some have interpreted it that way. And I say legit Nazi comparisons are rare on Usenet. Sure, if someone is advocating genocide a Nazi comparison is warranted. However, usually the Nazi comparisons are over trivial issues.
It has always been my understanding that the mere comparison or invocation of Nazis re: the issue at hand is not Godwinization. Godwinization is when one participant in a discussion says that another participant in the discussion is [behaving like] a Nazi.
Am I wrong here?
Dani
Noone special, check out the link supplied by rfgdxm in the third post. It gives a really good treatment of all the aspects of Godwin’s Law on usenet.
Also check out Godwin’s own commentary on the topic.
To quote Godwin himself from the previously posted link:
“It was back in 1990 that I set out on a project in memetic engineering. The Nazi-comparison meme, I’d decided, had gotten out of hand - in countless Usenet newsgroups, in many conferences on the Well, and on every BBS that I frequented, the labeling of posters or their ideas as “similar to the Nazis” or “Hitler-like” was a recurrent and often predictable event. It was the kind of thing that made you wonder how debates had ever occurred without having that handy rhetorical hammer.”
The law applies to comparing the issue, as well as another participant.
I’d just like to quibble that the Nazis were evil well before they began commiting genocide. They used intimidation against their political opponents, they impugend the patriotism of anyone who disagreed with their agenda, they turned national idenity into a religion, they turned a minority group into second class citizens, they started a war for revenge, they scapegoated…
Since this kind of discussion is not a formal debate, and there is no judge or jury with authority to declare a winner, who “won” such an argument can only be a matter of opinion. (Just like the presidential debates – most, by no means all but most, commentators thought Michael Dukakis “won” his debate with Bush I in 1988. And I don’t think anybody in the whole world thought Quayle won his debate with Bensten. But winning the debate and winning the election are two different things.)
Even today, we can’t really say there’s an international consensus that the bolded part is “evil.”
That’s fair enough, but some actual religions might have a problem with it, along with worshipping national symbols.
That’s why I have formulated js’s Lemma: In threads, there is a positive probability that random comments will be posted.
Now, because of js’s Lemma, as the number of posts grows infinitely, the number of random comments will approach infinity as well. Thus the probability that a Hitler remark will be posted will approach one.
That’s another way of looking at it. 
A corrolary of that, which is more what Godwin was getting at, is after those debating have exhausted reasonable arguments, they will then begin to use random, unreasonable ones. It just so happens that the most obvious random, unreasonable one is to compare the other side to the Nazis. Sure, it is possible to compare the other side to cannibals that eat their enemies. However, in English language newsgroups (which Godwin was thinking of), the Nazis are more familar in their mind to tribes that practiced cannibalism. So, they bring up the Nazis.