Additions to Godwin's Law

[ck4829]

When having a debate or discussion, when someone mentions "Nazi" or "Hitler", that means they have lost.

Well it's time for some additions to that.

When having a discussion about Academic Freedom, the person who brings up David Horowitz to defend so-called Academic Freedom loses as David Horowitz has a track record on being Factually Incorrect when it comes to alleged cases of Conservatives having their Academic Freedom taken away (Horowitz always blows it way out of proportion or gets it totally wrong).

When having a discussion about GLBT equality, the person who brings up Paul Cameron or the 1983 ISIS Survey to say that rights for GLBT people should be restricted loses as both Paul Cameron and the Survey are fraudulent.

[asthmaticeog]

1. That's not what Godwin's law says.

It says, roughly, that the longer an online argument continues, the greater the chance of someone making a Hitler comparison. Nothing at all to do with who "wins" or "loses."

[JackintheGreen]

2. But what is means is:

the person who best represents the intentions of God's infallible bible, i.e. the conservative, wins!


YEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWW!!!!!!

[asthmaticeog]

4. What are you talking about?

[JackintheGreen]

6. He who supports God wins

Jeez!

Lesson learned: never pun before coffee.

[asthmaticeog]

8. *smacks forehead*

I get it now. :) Might have used the direct approach to begin with, for what my opinion on the matter's worth.

[JackintheGreen]

11. That's the coffee kicking in

I know it's after lunch here on the left coast, but when you work third shift all week your coffee schedule gets rather out of whack. :hangover:

[Warren Stupidity]

3. Misinterpretation of Godwin's Law.

Common but incorrect. See the discussion here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

In its pure form the law is simply an observation: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

In its pure application, the comparison ends the discussion. In its common application the invokee has lost the debate. The problem is that a) sometimes the comparison is valid, b) it has become such a part of the neturature, that it modifies the form of debate. This latter part has led to your desire to add new codiciles to the law.

No thanks, in its pure form Godwin's Law remains one of the best observations about cyber culture and needs no additions. Only a nazi would propose such Hitlerian madness. (obligatory smiley not attached.)

[ck4829]

5. Sounds like a new law is necessary then

I shall call it The Citing Fraudsters makes your Debate Hopeless Law.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. Alright then, and good luck with that.

However as I made a comparison to both Hitler and nazis this discussion is way over.

[Berry Cool]

10. To be honest, I think Godwin's Law is overrated.

While I am all in favor of not making a comparison to Hitler or Nazis without a great deal of aforethought and unless it is truly warranted--comparisons to them should not be used as a cheap, easy weapon with which to bash one's enemies--I do not think they are always utterly out of line.

For example: Keith Olbermann puts a picture of Bill O'Reilly's face over his and gives a Nazi salute. Apropos, or no?

I say after what Bill-O did, trying to equate anything that happened at Haditha with "what American soldiers did to Nazis at Malmedy," it's apropos.

Bill-O was trying to say all's fair in love and war, whether it's American soldiers killing Iraqi civilians or American soldiers killing Nazi soldiers in WWII. But, uh, wait. First of all, his WWII example doesn't involve a civilian massacre. Second of all, it's false anyway, because at Malmedy it was NAZIS killing AMERICAN soldiers, not the other way around.

When this was pointed out to him--after he yelled over Gen. Wesley Clark for saying otherwise--he simply said he was referring to vengeance killings some Americans had done of Nazis afterward. Yeah, same difference, eh, Bill?

In other words, Bill tried to say American soldiers killing Iraqi civilians was no worse than American soldiers killing Nazi soldiers. Sounds to me like either he was saying it was OK for American soldiers to kill anyone they want, or that it's bad for American soldiers to kill Iraqi civilians but it's no worse than when they killed Nazi soldiers. Both were equally bad.

Which sounds to me like he's sticking up for the Nazi soldiers.

Which sounds to me like Olbermann was trying to make a point by wearing a mask of Bill and giving a Nazi salute.

But if you believe the freepers, well, they invoked Godwin's Law and declared him the loser of the argument, just because he alluded to Nazis.

And some other people did too--claiming that what Hitler did was so bad and utterly unique and should never ever be compared to anything else and certainly never used to get a laugh. Which might be news to Mel Brooks, for one.

As for me, I wonder if we don't kid ourselves by putting Hitler in a unique category apart from all other genocidal despots. I wonder if we don't, to some extent, treasure him too much that way. In a way, it's like acting as if he is sacred somehow.

I don't believe Hitler should BE sacred. I think he should be down in the same hole with every other despot who ever lived.

Let's not make reference to ANY of them easily and lightly. But when we do--maybe the first thing people should say is not "You lose the argument," but "Is this person making an easy comparison--or do they actually have a point?"

[Warren Stupidity]

12. Godwin's law was apt circa 1990

However given that we are in the midst of the theofascist takeover of the US government, and said government is on a mission to conquer the world, the number of exceptions to Godwin's common interpretation due to 'aptness' renders the common interpretation near useless.

[tjwash]

9. You're just being a wikipedia nazi.

!DOH!
:+

[Warren Stupidity]

13. Game over.