So any thread that uses a comparison to Nazis immediately gets labelled as an example of Godwin’s Law.
My question is: when is a topic sufficiently close to atrocities and problems of Nazi Germany that it is no longer dismissed by invoking Godwin’s Law?
Well, if one were to discuss life under Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot, I daresay comparisons to Hitler are perfectly justified.
One discussing people in permanent vegetative states and the obligation of the state to keep them alive indefinitely, though, kind of misses the (heh) mark.
Godwin’s Law does not apply if one is discussing World War II or the situation in Europe during the 1930s.
Cambodia under Pol Pot comes close, but is still covered.
Any other comparisons trivialize the Nazi regime and give an inflated sense of importance to current events.
Does this mean it’s a valid or invalid comparison?
I’d say that when a comparison to Nazi’s is actually needed to clarify an argument, then it’s alright. In almost all cases, though, the comparison is used for over the top vilification of the other side of an argument.
Actually, Godwins law covers the fact as as a thread gets longer- such a mention will be more & more likely be made- and he was talking about comparing a fellow poster to the nazis. Not just a mention of the word.
Nor is Godwins law a law like the SDMB posting guidlines or a logical fallacy. If you compare the torture under Saddam’s regime to that under the nazis- you haven’t “lost”, even if another poster says “Godwins law!”.
Thus, under the strict definition of what Godwin himself meant- you can compare just about anything other than your fellow posters to the Nazis and still not run afoul of his law. And, in fact, comparing your fellow poster to the nazis could well be called “being a jerk” here. So don’t do that (Calling your fellow posters* theories *“nazi-like” *could *be OK here, but…)
But even if you compare the Boy Scouts to the Nazis- you still haven’t “violated Godwins law” as there is* no law* that prohibits any such comparisons, no matter how stretched.
Basically- other than the fact that on a thread the chance of such a comparison gets closer & closer to 100% as the thread gets longer- there is no substance behind “Godwins law”. Go ahead and compare anything you like to the nazis (other than your fellow posters!) and you haven’t violated any “law” and anyone who says so is wrong.
That being said- some dudes get understandably sensitive when the ternm “nazi” is trivialized to such things as a “soup nazi”. Thus, it is *polite *to not do so. Restrict the nazi comparisons to something serious- please. Not because it’s a “law” but because it’s simply the polite thing to do.
Doesn’t it depend upon the comparison? I claim it is not out of line when someone points out that such things as some features the USA Patriot Act are legal acts of Congress in response to the events of 9/11 that the emergency powers under which Hitler established his dictatorship were legal acts of the Reichstag in response to a perceived emergency.
And I don’t think this gives an inflated sense of importance to the USA Patriot Act.
And the Nazi regime printed paper money legally, as does the current administration.
Do you really believe that forcing a parallel between the actions of fascist Germany and a badly written piece of American legislation accomplishes anything other than being inflammatory?
(Oh, and a piece of legislation cannot have a “sense of importance.” Only people can, and I apologize if my phrasing was inexact. I meant that those applying the Nazi tag to their political opponents overinflate the importance of their own contributions to current events.)
But don’t you see that Germany wasn’t “fascit Germany” until after the Reichstag passed the emergency powers law?
And I want to be inflammatory about badly written pieces of American legislation that open to door to excessive executive power.
Is it exactly the same thing, or is it slightly less tired to use the word “fascist” where oneself is tempted to say “national socialist?” That is to say, when people feel that a politician is acting like a dictator.
Umm…not to be presumtous but this wouldn’t have anything to do with your GD thread about the culture of death? Would it?
I don’t think referring to the Patriot act in those terms is unwarranted. I seriously doubt that the Bush admin is gonna be doing much jew killing, but that doesn’t mean that it is not becoming an abusive regime, and should no be addressed in such terms. I think the fact that we have the Nazis to compare it to probably keeps some social pressure there. The control this administration has over the media is pretty frightening IMO.
I know a guy who is being fined 10,000 and faces criminal charges up to 12 years and 10,000,000 for going to Iraq, coming back and saying the Iraqis don’t want to be invaded right before the Iraq war. It is justified as a violation of the sanctions placed upon Iraq, but not everyone that went over there is being fined, only a select few who decried an invasion when they got back.
That might not be “Nazi” in that it’s not genocide, but it is pretty damn authoritarian, and I don’t think it should be tolerated, nor is it completely outside of the realm of being worthy of a Nazi comparison.
Erek
I don’t think Godwin’s law is in effect unless you’re calling your fellow posters Nazis. If you’re making specific comparisions between the actions of organizatgions/nations/groups with the Nazis, it’s up to your readers to decide whether it’s valid or simple vilificattion.
I kind of like it when people make comparisons to Hitler. It’s a big red flag that they raise which lets you know how irrational they are. If somebody seriously thinks that Bush and the Patriot act is worthy of comparison with Hitler and Fascist Germany, then clearly they are not capable of rational thought.
It’s a real time saver!
Or comparisons between Saddam/Iraq and Hitler/WWII?
Or comparisons between Saddam/Iraq and Hitler/WWII?
Not just trying to take a cheap shot. There can be all sorts of legitimate (useful)uses of historical analogy, as long as it goes beyond “That’s what a NAZI would say” or “You know who else (was a vegetarian/favored gun control/passed emergency decrees/annexed the Sudetenland) . . . HITLER!”
Discussing the potential for the Patriot act to be abused or as a first step towards curtailment of civil liberties in the context of various odious or merely stressed regimes past is not necessarily out of line. Doing so solely in the context of the Nazis is probably more inflammatory than it is worth though.
You know, when somebody brings up Hitler or the Nazis, it’s not always to say “The situation you’re describing is exactly like Hitler and the Nazis!” Sometimes you need an extreme example to demonstrate a valid point. Sometimes you bring up Hitler to demonstrate that yes, there are certain circumstances under which you would agree with my position, even if they don’t apply here.
For example, suppose I disagree with the Iraq invasion because “It violates the principles of national sovreignty”. Then you come back with “What about Nazi Germany? Would you have objected to violating their national sovreignty in 1945?” I can either respond “Yes, national sovreignty should be respected at all costs!” or “No, Nazi Germany was a different situation,” which I would then have to defend by citing examples.
The point is, whether or not we agree that Iraq and Nazi Germany are equally deserving of having their national sovreignty violated, the example of the Nazis has forced me to clarify my position on national sovreignty. If I agree that invading Nazi Germany was the right thing to do, then I have admitted that there are certain circumstances under which it’s acceptable to violate national sovreignty. Having admitted that the violation of national sovreignty is not always enough of a reason to oppose the invasion of another country, I’m now forced to flesh out my position on the Iraq invasion with something other than “It violates national sovreignty”. All because you brought up Nazi Germany. Is that such a bad thing?
And when I read a post that misrepresents an argument I realize that the writer isn’t serious but merely playing a game.
The reason people take note of Godwin is that comparisons to Nazis are in almost all cases attempts to bypass rational debate in favor of just using slogans or sub-rational smears.