Something that has always bothered me was Godwin’s law. Fine, I can see that references to Hitler and the Nazis are much of the time overused as scare tactics and it can take away a veneer of legitimacy from one’s argument.
How broad is it actually? Lately, I have been seeing things such as 1984 and Stalinism being included in Godwin’s law. Where does the legitimacy of Godwin end? When can we “Godwin Godwin”, so to speak? I see it as being invoked a little too often these days to illegitimize legitimate gripes. Once in a while certain tactics ARE legitimately comparable to the SS, Pogroms, or Big Brother. Sometimes the comparison seems so clear.
For instance operation TIPS as well as the USA Patriot Act smack of Big Brother, yet if you mention it, you get Godwined pretty much. So when is it legitimate to invoke Godwin’s Law and when is it pseudo-intellectual babble meant to confuse an argument?
I’m always annoyed when someone yells “GODWIN’S LAW! GODWIN’S LAW! DO I GET A PRIZE?” whenever someone posts a comparison between something, and the Nazis. Even if it’s a legitimate comparison, some always brings up the Godwin.
Godwin’s law, simply stated, is just a claim about probability in very long and heated threads. I agree with it, though a little tounge-in-cheekly.
But the idea that it’s invocation should end discussion is quite a different ball-of-wax, and I certainly don’t agree with it. Some things are faily compared to the Nazis, though hopefully not in the crude and silly way often done. I think the frustration with Nazi comparisons is that the Nazis are such a archetype that simply invoking them all too often avoids any real thoughtful implications. It’s not so much that the comparison is always wrong, but rather that it is very often lazy and uninformative.
The idea is that if you’re so poor at debating a point that you can only compare the opposition to “The Worst Examples of Human Behavior[sub]TM[/sub]”, then you probably shouldn’t be in the debate.
the thing is, the longer a thread goes on, the probability of anything being mentioned approaches one. Applies to nazis, asparagus, firestone tires, vanilla coke, etc.
There are times when I think it’s completely valid to use some aspect of the Nazi regime as a comparison; I can think of an example, although the thread itself was lost in the big purge.
Uekte, dear departed Uekte started a thread in which he suggested that old people should be rounded up and forced to live in designated areas because they (allegedly) are a menace to society. There is a clear parallel here and I feel that mention of concentration camps should not invoke Godwin’s.
These cases are the exception though.
This board seems a bit better than needing something like Godwin’s Law. We Dopers recognize a crappy argument when it is right in front of us, drag it to the pit, spit on it, and continue to do so to all posters and threads which would serve to undermine our most sacred culture.
Well, it depends. If you’re talking about history, dictators, brutality, sadism, racism, whatever-yeah, it fits.
Or comparing literary characters to Hitler (for example, a big debate on the force.net boards was comparing the Empire to the Third Reich).
However, if you’re arguing over say, which way to hang the toilet paper, and someone says, “only Nazis do that!” or calling mods Nazis for enforcing the rules…
I dunno, it depends on the context. Just like real life.
If a comparison is accurate, it should be allowed. Genocide still exists. Dictatorship still exists. The rhetoric of fascism (“strong leaders,” “democracy is too slow,” “we are being overrun by members of X group”) is back in vogue. If we’re not allowed to learn from the mistakes of the past, we increase the risk of repeating those mistakes.
If the comparison is inaccurate, let it get dragged into the open, discussed, debated, and explained. We can’t fight ignorance if we don’t let it show up to the battlefield.
I agree with you Hamish. I think there are plenty of times it is valid.
When I heard people talking about getting rid of the people in the middle east, I said, “I hear Zyklon B works well for that sort of thing.”
When Operation TIPS tries to recruit people that come into your home to spy on you and report it to the government, I’m going to compare it to Big Brother.
When six year old children are encouraged to repeat by rote a pledge they won’t understand for another 8 years, I’m going to compare it to Maoism.
When people talk about segments of our population with a certain political view as being undesirable I’m going to compare that to Stalinism.
I don’t think any of these comparisons are invalid. Comparing an action to the actions of said group, does not mean we are just like them, but that it’s a step toward being like them, that we’re not necessarily willing to take or the person making the comparison feels we shouldn’t be willing to take. Too often I see people giving the numerous examples of how we’re not like those people, which there are many, however that is irrelevant when one particular act IS like those comparisons. Or worse, the argument that we have it great in America and shouldn’t complain. Or by far the worst yet, “I’m not worried about it as it doesn’t affect me (I don’t plan to break a law etc…).”
If you have ten oppressive laws that only affect ten percent of the population and the other 90% is apathetic about it, odds are every person will exist within the 10% of at least one of those ten laws. Therefore I think that comparisons such as these have validity as it is pointing to a historical or allegorical example of where we could be headed. If you eliminate such comparisons you are rendering the idea that you must learn from history in order not to repeat it, meaningless.
Godwin’s Law does not prohibit comparisons. As noted on both of the links already provided, Godwin’s Law is simply a prediction that if a thread runs long enough, someone will make the comparison.
Now, when someone makes such a comparison in a totally inappropriate manner, or wholly out of historical context, Godwin’s Law provides a humorous shorthand to indicate that someone has done the inevitable. That does not prevent any legitimate uses. The fact that some comparison to Nazis on a long thread is inevitable does not, in and of itself, invalidate the comparison.
Godwin’s Law does not (in and of itself) condemn comparisons to Nazis, it merely predicts them.
But the corrolary to Godwin’s law is something to the effect that the side that made the comparison to the Nazis just lost the argument.
Most people, myself included, lump the corrolary in with the original premise, and lump it in the Godwin file with a cross-reference to Nazi. When there is a cry of “Godwin’s Law!”, there is certainly a connotation that it means that the other party has nothing else worthwhile to say.
It doesn’t technically prohibit comparisons to the Nazis, but saying that the person who makes such comparison just lost the argument pretty much stifles such comparisons.
The problem with comparing Republicans to Nazis is that it is not an EFFECTIVE method of argumentation. For instance, I’m a registered Republican (since in my state you have to register for one party or the other to take part in party primaries). I am not a Nazi. Therefore, when you argue that Republicans are really Nazis in disguise, you merely look like an idiot.
That is the point of Godwin’s law. Claiming that your opponents in an argument are Nazis is equivalent to claiming they are motherfuckers. It is simply abusive. Even if you feel that, in a particular case, your opponents actually DO fuck their mothers, calling them motherfuckers isn’t very helpful. In fact, it will make you look foolish.
That is a good point. I do think that is where Godwin’s law applies. But say you are with a group of people, and they are talking about rounding up arabs in concentration camps. Is it not reasonable to make a nazi comparison?
I personally do not think that republicans are nazis. I know a lot of very reasonable republicans who have a philosophy to how this country should run that is valid, I just don’t think it’s the best course of action and therefore disagree with them.
So yes, using it as a personal attack is unreasonable. However, does this apply to ALL usages of the term nazi?