Thanks for that.
I see it used more for that than for anything else.
An old quote of Voyager’s I saved:
One of the more common usages of “Godwin’s Law” I see is to shout down someone who is pointing out obvious, direct parallels between something happening right now and something the Nazis did. It’s gotten to the point where the more Nazi-like something is the more immune to criticism it becomes on the Internet, shielded by legions of Godwin-screamers.
The easiest way to get around the law is to just use Stalin or Mao instead.
Doubtful, at least not for a couple thousand years. Hitler is a legendary figure. Genghis Khan is up there for go to evil people and he died in 1227. And we don’t have video of him, nor has there been a million books and movies about him. Most people know something about Caesar and Alexander the Great and they lived even further back.
I disagree, on two grounds.
First, no one here is granting immunity to bad people. When we see rotters doing evil, we’re pretty vocal about it.
Second…there really aren’t any current parallels to the Nazis. ISIS is about as bad as we’ve got, and they’re pikers in comparison.
There’s plenty. People like the Nazis aren’t all that rare; that’s how they were able to recruit enough people to run a country.
People like them aren’t rare; that’s horribly true.
But there aren’t any regimes like theirs today. There aren’t any working parallels. North Korea is about as close as we get (I forgot about them when posting above) and they’re nothing but weak sisters when compared.
I don’t know about that but one of the more insane things I’ve read on SDMB recently was from this GD thread, Does Israel have to stay where it is? by Reply. He says :
and later :
Being American Indian, the second one was more personal but to refer to the Holocaust as “moving millions of Jews” and suggest it is something which is in any way to be emulated is beyond scary. People after these posts in the thread made sure to let him know how insane he was and no one - no one screamed “Godwin”.
Except the point of the “Law” was to point out hyperbolic attacks and comparisons in a debate. If you’re talking about exterminating people in a gas chamber, comparisons to Hitler or Nazi Germany are not hyperbolic. Someone saying “Hur hur, Godwins Law you lose!” is just dumb.
Well, first of all, Death Eaters are clearly inspired by Nazis. 
As I said in the OP, Nazis are the most familiar example of fascism, and often the point is just “this is getting uncomfortably close to fascism”. I don’t see a problem with using an example people immediately understand.
Cannot be unseen.
Although, I dislike the word “Godwinization”. When an object has force exerted upon it and it reacts with equal and opposite force, it has not been “Newtonized”. Anything subject to Godwin’s Law has already been “Godwinized”.
I think my OP covered that. The point doesn’t have to be that someone is as bad, in all ways and in the same measurable quantities (such as body counts) as the Nazis at their worst.
I am appalled that people seem to think that Godwinizing is something to do with the winning of the debate. It is not; it is simply the observation that the Nazis are going to be mentioned if any on-line discussion goes on for long enough. It is not a judgment on the validity of either side in the argument.
There’s that too, although most people lump Godwin’s Law and the later “corollary” (You lose!) into a single thought.
How about Manning’s Corollary to Godwin’s Law:
Manning’s Corollary to Godwin’s Law: In any online conversation about an incident of violence perpetrated by adherents of Islamic fundamentalism, the conversation will inevitably devolve into claims that Christians commit the same type and degree of violent acts, regardless of how demonstrably false that is; further, the claim will be made that past historical violence involving Christians means that present-day Christians are morally incapable of denouncing current violence involving Muslims.
Yes, to the point where I usually assume whoever is citing Godwin’s Law has admitted to lacking a more persuasive rebuttal.
Bunny’s Law – if any online debate involving any “Democrats vs. Republicans” goes on long enough, the probability of Benghazi being mentioned as shorthand for “evil liberal government coverups and general malfeasance” approaches 1.
(I’d use my real surname, but I think it’s used for an existing corollary of Godwin’s law. Yes, my entire clan are geekoids.)
I submit Miller’s Paradox, which states “As a network evolves, the number of Nazi comparisons not forestalled by citation to Godwin’s Law converges to zero.”
But they are non-helpful ad hominem attacks. Clearly exterminating people in a gas chamber is bad enough and the proposition could be argued against on its own merits. The fact that the Nazis did it as well has no bearing on the desirability of the current gassings.
And further, the problem trickles down. Although comparing gassings to Nazi Germany is factually correct and probably helps emphasis the already strong argument against it, people use the exception for their own pet peeves and insist, as some posters in this thread, that certain other modern issues are equivalent to Nazi atrocities.
It serves nothing to use these types of attacks: When they are correct they are meaningless, and when they are wrong they stifle debate.
I don’t really agree with the notion that it’s an ad hominem attack and can’t be discussed but, regardless, what they’re not is overblown hyperbole. Therefore, calling “Godwins!” (or worse, trying to pull the pathetic “You lose!” line) isn’t appropriate.
Godwin’s Law isn’t actually the name of a falacacy -
Side A invoke’s Hitler , Side B then belittles them with "Thats just Godwin’s "
The other then says “Well if you reply the same or similar arguments I call you a Nazi !”
The Nazi’s did teach us all something about propaganda, so its not wrong to invoke it,
it may well be that one size is propagandist or somehow trying to weazel in some racist or extreme attitude with some rationale…
There’s never a need to say “You are just like Harry Potter” though