I sure did spell “sovereignty” wrong a lot of times in that last post, didn’t I?
I think you misspelled “irrelevant” (well, you misspelled presumptuous as well).
Whether that’s the correct definition, that’s how people use it.
Hence the attempt of the OP (IMHO) to question and define which cases are not attempts to bypass rational debate.
-
Using the principal “those who forget history are condemned to repeat it”, we look to history for models and patterns to compare to contemporary events. The history of Germany in the 20th century is well known. It, therefore, provides a model for discussion where we can be pretty sure everyone has a fairly common consensus of the events and outcomes.
-
In evaluating something (anything), in this case an event or occurance, one method is to establish the boundries within which it fits. I don’t consider it “sub-rational” to, at some point, establish the boundries widely. By testing this way, I can work toward establishing legitimate boundries. By stating that any comparison to Hitler/Nazi-ism is by it’s very existance an invalid comparison is, I would suggest, as counter-productive as comparing everything to Hitler/Nazi-ism. After all - all generalizations are…well…generalizations.
So, I believe there is a place for using legitimate comparisons to Hitler/Nazi-ism, by accepting that, our job now is to define the boundries.
Would it be reasonable to point out that a government attempt to change it’s relationship with it’s citizens, in a way that is perceived by some as more repressive, bears any resemblance to actions by Germany in the earlier part of the 20th century?
You’ve lost in the sense that other people instantly lose any hope they had that you intended to discuss the matter in good faith.
The problem is that said history has become such a symbol of evil, that any comparison to it bears deep suspicion of just another cheap attempt to rub some of that nastiness off on whatever the speaker is attacking.
The problem is that there are any number of other comparisons that work fine, and any number of ways to make ones point without comparisons at all.
You’d have a hard time justifying it, because the comparison is to something so emotional, so extreme, that the comparison generally could not help but be hyperbolic and meant to emotionalize rather than inform.
emarkp in particular started this thread when he had just gotten finished posting this thread:
“Welcome to Nazi Germany. Godwin’s Law is no longer relevant.”
Not only did he invoke Godwin’s law before anyone else, but he did it by implying that Albany are so much like the Nazis that no comparison or complaints about comparison need even be made. That’s EXACTLY the sort of case in which people rightly complain about Nazi comparisons.
OK, fair enough, so you have identified that one as an example of what commonly fall outside of the boundries.
So, putting that example aside, asked another way, under what conditions would any comparison not be automatically discounted as hyperbolic? Because, as I see it, the thought that there is no condition under which a legitimate comparison can be made, is equal to the thought that under all conditions a legitimate comparison can be made (which I reject).
You may have inferred it, but I didn’t imply it.
I felt that a legitimate comparison was in order. I also knew that some Beavis and Butthead wannabe would come in and say “huh huh, you said Nazi” so I was trying to head it off. Given that most of the thread was hijacked to chime in with “Godwin!” I opened this thread to discuss where the boundaries are of dismissing something simply because Nazis were mentioned (which is how Godwin’s law is commonly used).
Basically, what Icarus said.
Good grief. What you wrote basically translates as “there is no need to worry about the rightness or wrongness of compare these guys to Nazis, because they ARE Nazis.”
Your ass-covering explanation of your own words just doesn’t hold water now. And Icarus seems to agree that your usage was indeed outside the boundary. That’s because you posted in GD something that amounted to a pitting: you made NO basically argument other than “hey look! Nazis!” That’s not going to fool anybody.
As to Icarus’ question, the answer is when something is very carefully couched in an actual substantive argument that could stand on its own without the comparison. On the other hand, there will ALWAYS be a serious question as to why the comparison is there at all when other arguments make the point without the tie-in. That’s the case for any argument that seems to rely on a suspiciously emotionalized comparison rather than a substantive argument. And at the very least, it would nice if the poster would elaborate on exactly why this or that target are like the Nazis, especially taking care to explain how someone can be a Nazi without holding any of the same beliefs or convictions as a Nazi.
But you’re wrong, in the sense that only a Beavis-and-Butthead type would find the comparison invalid, inappropriate and preposterous. In fact, aside from that comparison, your other thread has no substance whatsoever, thus the concept of hijack is meaningless.
OK, taking that into consideration, how would one express the concerned caution that actions and occurances are “moving in the direction very similar to what happended in Germany in the 1930’s and this is the result we observed there, etc.”? You suggest structuring a substantive argument that makes the same points. To what level should one avoid the specific language? Or is neutral language and euphemism still out of bounds, as long as the subject is potentially perceived as this overly toxic reference? Under what condition are we allowed to point to an earth turning garden implement and call it by it’s name?
If you can make a case that they actually are that is usefully instructive in some way because of the specific case of Nazi Germany. If your only point is that “hey, these guys are evil in my particular moral view, JUST LIKE THE NAZIS!” then obviously that’s not going to get you very far. Like I said, if you can demonstrate that the particular people in question really ARE thinking like the Nazis (i.e. that they are nationalist and racist and believe that these goals are served by genocide and eugenics) then you’ll have something. If it’s simply that they are facists, then the real question is why you’d pick the absolute MOST abhorrent facists in history for your comparison. That seems to be jumping to the extremes awful quick. It’s no different than if someone says “you know, I’m just being cautious and concerned here, but your behavior seems to be moving in the same direction as SATAN PRINCE OF DARKNESS!” One wonders if perhaps there are not less explosive and extreme intermediates that are just as worrisome but not quite as out there.
And again, I think the issue of “you lose” in Godwin’s law as applied is nothing more and nothing less than that you lose respect for taking such a lazy and explosive path to condemnation.
I’m going to have to disagree with you on this one. My reasons for wanting to find a way to invoke the comparison to Nazi-ism is because they were in fact human beings, not mythological symbols of evil. They were modern, westernized, literate people who as a nation could reasonably be in the ballpark of resembling the US at the same time. When we look at them we ask, “How did they end up they way they did?” And when we see some specific answers, we should (are obligated to) diligently ensure that we don’t end up heading down similar roads.
I agree, it should be able to make comparisons with the Nazi era when in fact they do apply.
Yes, there is a big chance that people will interpret the comparisson as a smear attempt, just because it usually is used that way. Much like crying ’ OMG teh Appeasement!!’
Sometimes things can be similar, though and there is genuine concern.
There are aspects in modern USA that could indeed be compared to 1930’s Germany.
Like the level of nationalism/patriotism; the idea that the USA is the only civilised country in the world, the adoration of the flag, USA! USA!
The high respect for people with authority; practically nowhere else does police hold such high authority.
Reverence for the office of President; again, a much higher regard as democratically elected leaders get in the rest of the world.
Admiration of the army; as soon as they put on the uniform they’re super heroes.
These are comparisons that are valid and, to people outside the US, are sometimes worrysome. Not to a level where there is the expectation that 6 million people are soon going to be exterminated and… well. the PRINCE OF DARKNESS thing.
Not a like “you are a bunch of fucking Nazi’s” but more a “Hmm, haven’t we seen this before? Let’s keep an eye on them.”
This all besides the fact that the US has just waged a war of agression against another country. To some this still is a big deal, one that cannot be handwaved away with a ‘Godwin!, Godwin!’
Agreed. But it still devolves upon the intelligent reader to look at each case and decide whether the sp;ecific cite is valid.
If an attempt is made to compare a current/past political situation/goverment to the nazis- then Godwins law does not come into play. No matter how valid or invalid. Of course, if such a comparison is weak or invalid- then that certainly can be pointed out. But invoking Godwin’s Law is incorrect.
It’s sorta like invoking the “One true Scotsman Fallacy” whenever someone mentions anything having to do with the Scots. Of course, even then- the “One true Scotsman Fallacy” is a legit logical fallacy, which shows a great flaw in anyones argument. “Godwins law” is more of “wry truism” a “ha ha”, like “Murphy’s Law”.
Godwin’s law only speaks that as a thread gets longer someone will compare another poster- or their theories- to the nazis/Hitler, etc. Here on the SDMB, this could be a violation of the rules, anyway.
As I said before- making a trivial comparison to the Nazis is considered by some to be very inconsiderate. But that also has nothing to do with Godwin’s law.
No, he was talking about any comparison with the Nazis. See: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/godwin.if_pr.html
From your cite: “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.”
Admitedly, the “law” has gone though somewhat of an evolutionary process since then…
But the trouble with this is the Holocaust. Every time you mention the Nazis you are also bringing up the Holocaust. So if you don’t mean to imply that the policies you are concerned about will ultimately lead to the gas chambers, a comparison to the Nazis becomes a huge distraction, since you will invariably have to contend with the people who believe that you did in fact intend to imply that the policies you were concerned about would lead to the gas chambers. And then your focus will be on how you didn’t mean the gas chambers, you meant 1933 Germany, not 1943 Germany. But the people you are arguing with are by then going to assume you are arguing in bad faith, since lots of people are going to believe that talking about Nazism without talking about the gas chambers is impossible.
Here’s the thing. There have been hundreds, thousands, millions of examples of dictatorships, absolute monarchies, rule by mob, mass hysteria, persecutions, curtailments of freedom, disasterous wars, disasterous peace, repression, censorship, and other assorted instances of man’s inhumanity to man. If you don’t want to get involved in arguments about the gas chambers, perhaps making comparisons to one of those other situations might be more helpful, rather than reaching for familiar, easy, soothing, self-satisfying brain-bypassing comparisons to Nazi Germany.
Now, if you DO want to seriously invoke the gas chambers, if you really do feel that the Holocaust is a valid comparison with the situation under discussion, then go ahead. Otherwise, you’re going to be doing yourself a disservice by self-hijacking.
[Slight hijack]
What’s the “One True Scotsman Fallacy”?
]/slight hijack]