Godwin's Law: Where's the line?

[DepricatedZero]

Though I assume everyone is familiar with Godwin's Law, let me open by presenting it for clarity's sake.

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

Comparisons to Hitler are often seen to invalidate arguments. My favorite example of it's place in an argument: "You know, the Nazis had pieces of flair that they made the Jews wear. " (Office Space, 1999) We can agree that most of the time a comparison such as this is irrelevant. However, how do we determine it's relevance?

Or perhaps better put, how do we determine when an argument isn't invoking Godwin's Law? We can assume in most cases that it is, since it's just someone grasping for straws most of the time.

Since the reason it's assumed to invalidate is because it's grasping for straws, we need to first determine when it isn't.

Is the theist argument of "Hitler was an Atheist!" a Godwin? I believe so, because it's grasping for straws(not to mention patently false).

But what about the argument that the Christian God has committed more atrocities than Hitler? I think it's equally off-topic. He's committed worse atrocities than anyone in recorded history, not just Hitler - and I don't think Hitler is the worst in recorded history, just the most publicized.

So what about to say that a particular leader, say Kim Jong Il, is like Hitler? I think in this context it fits, because it's a like comparison. It's a comparison of an apple to an orange, rather than an apple to a carburetor.

So where is the line?

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Comparisons to Hitler are often seen to invalidate arguments. My favorite example of it's place in an argument: "You know, the Nazis had pieces of flair that they made the Jews wear. " (Office Space, 1999) We can agree that most of the time a comparison such as this is irrelevant. However, how do we determine it's relevance?

The point of Godwin's Law is that someone can take anything simple, and somehow link it to something purely atrocious, in order to make the simple fact seem terrible, and whoever cares to be associated with such a fact seem equally atrocious. Who better to associate with than the Nazis?
Example:
[Youtube]watch?v=xtlOBa6qa3o[/Youtube]

Is the theist argument of "Hitler was an Atheist!" a Godwin? I believe so, because it's grasping for straws(not to mention patently false).

It's a fake Godwin. That's what we in the business call "Bullshit."

But what about the argument that the Christian God has committed more atrocities than Hitler? I think it's equally off-topic. He's committed worse atrocities than anyone in recorded history, not just Hitler - and I don't think Hitler is the worst in recorded history, just the most publicized.

It's the reason Godwin's Law came to be. Everyone hates Nazis - why not compare it to the most violent and brutal killers in history?

So what about to say that a particular leader, say Kim Jong Il, is like Hitler? I think in this context it fits, because it's a like comparison. It's a comparison of an apple to an orange, rather than an apple to a carburetor.

Godwin's Law only applies when it's spoken with intent to bring a negative image on the fact or view.
Fact: "Nazis ate dinner."
Godwin's Law: "HOLY SHIT KIDS. Did you know that HITLER ate dinner around 6 P.M. every night? Why the HELL are you acting like Hitler?"

So where is the line?

The line is simple. If it's being stated as a fact, it's not a Godwin. If it's being used to sensationalize the viewpoint or fact and make it horrendous, then it is Godwin's Law.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Godwin's Law has been perverted to mean "if you mention Hitler or Nazis, you automatically lose." The initial formulation by Mike Godwin himself was intended to minimize frivolous invocations of Hitler and Nazis, because it lessens the impact of substantial comparisons.

So that's kind of where the line is. For instance, fruitcakes like Glenn Beck like to toss the word Nazi around in comparison to pretty much everything he doesn't like. The anti-vaccine crowd compares the medical community and pharmaceutical companies to Nazi medical experiments and the Holocaust. PETA calls the deaths of chickens a new Holocaust. The gun nuts call any form of gun control an example of Gestapo tactics, as the "sovereign citizen" do about the normal operations of law enforcement officers. Every time someone does something you don't like it doesn't make them just like Hitler, and tossing the comparison around inappropriately diminished the strength of the comparison when used correctly.

Proper invocations of Hitler and the Nazis might be applied in discussions of:

• Large-scale ethnic cleansing
• apartheid
• medical experiments on prisoners without their consent
• neo-Nazi and other hate groups
• World War II

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

So that's kind of where the line is. For instance, fruitcakes like Glenn Beck like to toss the word Nazi around in comparison to pretty much everything he doesn't like. The anti-vaccine crowd compares the medical community and pharmaceutical companies to Nazi medical experiments and the Holocaust. PETA calls the deaths of chickens a new Holocaust. The gun nuts call any form of gun control an example of Gestapo tactics, as the "sovereign citizen" do about the normal operations of law enforcement officers. Every time someone does something you don't like it doesn't make them just like Hitler, and tossing the comparison around inappropriately diminished the strength of the comparison when used correctly.

Don't you love how Glen Beck has convinced HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE that Hitler was Far-Left?
-_-
Even my own DAD believes that shit, and when I tried to set him straight on the issue we just ended up yelling at each other. His argument ended with "BLAH BLAH BLAH I KANT HEAR U" and I just rolled my eyes and gave up.
Hitler was Christian. Hitler was FAR-RIGHT. Like, so Far-Right that he made Andrew Jackson look like a left fielder. What did he do for Germany? He used programs, not unlike what we have in the United States, to jumpstart the German economy by giving them all jobs making stuff so that they could buy the stuff they were making.
All this shit about "Hitler had National Healthcare" - because the rest of Europe had a Healthcare system of some sort or another. Since most of Germany was working by that time anyhow, it was BASICALLY National Healthcare simply because everyone was working and needed it - a common courtesy we extend here in the United States.

Hitler was Conservatism on crack, and Glen Beck has successfully changed history.

 

[Pennies for Thoughts]

Ever since G.W. Bush compared Saddam to Hitler to jump-start Iraq II, my brain has gone 100% numb on such comparisons. Hitler is indeed the go-to savior for empty arguments.

I can't help but wonder if Godwin's Law isn't missing an important corollary. Whenever I hear that something or other is "for our children" :roll: my doubt-o-meter also red lines.

 

[JustBusiness17]

All posts above and below this one are posted by Nazis!

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

All posts above and below this one are posted by Nazis!

Hallo guys, you should all check out mein new Volkswagen - it parked over derr by vonSprulesnek.

 

[nasher168]

All posts above and below this one are posted by Nazis!

Awww...

 

[pokethechutney]

Comparisons of Hitler to someone's idea of evil is tired and lacks validity for it's overuse. It makes it sound like the person making the comparison has no idea how great the atrocities he committed really were. They aren't intelligent enough to reach for a more realistic comparison so they automatically jump to Hitler. Like how many used to use Satan. And since Satan doesn't exist, and they must know it also, because they know to use a comparison to the modern day equivellant of the devil, Hitler. In a way it's an improvement, because they're making comparisons to someone who actually existed. But in most cases it's just clutching at straws. Like using the tired old metaphor, 'clutching at straws'. Because when it comes to being inventive and new in argument most just end up like me,clutching at straws.

 

[lilablassblau]

I actually never like it when anyone compares someone or something to the Nazis, no matter for what argument or which side it used. Like pokethechutney pointed out so nicely, it lacks creativity and mostly is brought up to ulitmately smash the other's position.

It pains me to say, it is not only used by theists, but also by atheists. And as a historian I have to say that comparisons of any historical event to an event later on rarely make any sense. I understand that is is used because peope associate "Nazis" with something terrible, but It completely neglects political and social circumstances and through that takes something out of context. Just because someone is doing something you don't like, it doesn't make them a "Nazi". Nationalsozialismus and their members can only be understood when you understand and study the time it emerged and developed in. It is not something that just came to be, detached from its environment, but was tightly connected to the German society at that time.

If you call someone a Nazi you are most likely shutting down the conversation immediately instead of bringing up reasons why a certain position is questionable. Therefore, in my opà­nion, there is never a situation where you should use comparisons to any historical event or movement to characterize something nowadays. And if you still feel compelled to do so, please please please make sure you actually know enough about it to not make an utter fool out of yourself when you do so.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Your opinion is wrong. Human beings have a terrible tendency to act based on human nature, and that nature doesn't change simply because a few decades have gone by. George Santayana wasn't just being a smartass about things.

 

[lilablassblau]

And I disagree with you.

Saying, it is in the nature of people neglects the circumstances and quite frankly doesn't explain anything. Even it is is in the nature of human being to behave like Nazis behave, it doesn't say anything what "it" is.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

And I disagree with you.

Saying, it is in the nature of people neglects the circumstances and quite frankly doesn't explain anything. Even it is is in the nature of human being to behave like Nazis behave, it doesn't say anything what "it" is.

What, do you believe that Nazis are something special and unique in human history, to be cherished and protected for all time?

 

[lilablassblau]

Where did I imply anything like that? :roll:

I just was pointing out that saying behaving terrible is in the human nature is not adding much to the topic then stating it is bad. Actually, now that you mention it, if someone studies the Nazis they will loose a lot of their mysticism and will put them in perspective. I'm actually arguing for the opposite treatment than "cherishing" them.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Where did I imply anything like that? :roll:

I just was pointing out that saying behaving terrible is in the human nature is not adding much to the topic then stating it is bad. Actually, now that you mention it, if someone studies the Nazis they will loose a lot of their mysticism and will put them in perspective. I'm actually arguing for the opposite treatment than "cherishing" them.

Well then, you should accept that modern behavior can, in limited instances, be placed into context with the Nazis, right? For instance, if a country engages in ethnic cleansing, they belong in the same category as the Nazis, don't they?

 

[Pennies for Thoughts]

Charles Darwin is just like Hitler according to creationists like Ray "Banana Man" Comfort. AronRa, one of the smartest guys on YouTube, makes a fine case that Hitler was indeed a no-Godwin's-Law-about-it creationist.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Hitler didn't wear his grandma underware on his head while running arround naked covered in butter going (and I quote) "BRUUB BRUUB!!" Are YOU like HITLER?!?!?!?!?
I think there is a form of falacy by negative association, just because someone done something that was wrong it desn't mean that everything that such person does is wrong (same goes if a person done some rightit doesn't mean that everything that such peson does is right). This is why I find the comparison between negative figures to shun a particle idea to be shalow and nonsensical, or as most of you have said "grasping for straws". Hitler also wanted to ensure that there were jobs for everyone and frankly speaking I whish that all politicians were more like Hitler in that aspect, but this doesn't in anyway mean that I want all politicians to also be Biggots and murdering Jerks.
I think ideas should either rise or fall by their own merit including those of Hitler, or else we may run the risk not only to throw away the good stuff but also let in the very bad stuff like what happened in the case for what Hitler is known for.

 

[Case]

And I disagree with you.

Saying, it is in the nature of people neglects the circumstances and quite frankly doesn't explain anything. Even it is is in the nature of human being to behave like Nazis behave, it doesn't say anything what "it" is.

What, do you believe that Nazis are something special and unique in human history, to be cherished and protected for all time?

Way to make a fallacious statement (non sequitur), IJ. I expected something of substance from you, tbh. Lila is correct in pointing out that your "human nature" 'argument' doesn't explain anything. What is "human nature" then? Furthermore, it seems you are trying to say the Nazis were a prime example of that "human nature" of yours. Define human nature then.

Besides, neither did the Nazis invent ethnic cleansing nor is it the most recent example thereof, nor are the people generally compared to Nazis in these threads guilty of such, so reference to the overuse is valid. That said, I don't see too many people accusing others of being fucking "Maoists", "Americans (lacking a term for the political affiliation of the settlers who annihilated native American tribes)" or "Romans", for that matter. Fucking Romans.

p.s.:

I think ideas should either rise or fall by their own merit including those of Hitler

Perfect.

 

[Demojen]

"You know, the Nazis had pieces of flair that they made the Jews wear. "

I'm going to have to use that if I ever have to wear a uniform.

 

[lilablassblau]

Well then, you should accept that modern behavior can, in limited instances, be placed into context with the Nazis, right? For instance, if a country engages in ethnic cleansing, they belong in the same category as the Nazis, don't they?

Well, yes and no. Yes, ethnic cleansing is something the Nazis attempted, but as Case pointed out that is not something the Nazis invented.

Maybe I was not very good in explaining at what my problem with the comparison is. If someone would compare whatever, let's say the killing of a whole village to the Sowjets methods I would first of all ask why that is. And the same goes with the Hilter or Nazi comparsion. If someone compares an action to the Nazis methods I would like to know why it is equal. And then we are back to the start or worse, instead of discussing the actual problem we now argue if something is like the Nazis or not. Or the accused is offended and just stops the debate right there. I personally just don't see that it adds anything to any debate and mostly it is used as an insult.

That being said, I'm not against comparisons to explain a position per se, but when it comes to history I'm mostly very sceptical about it, unless you stay in the same context. For example I think it makes sense to compare faschistic states to each other to work out if there are certain features common to all of them, but even then one should be careful not to only rely on a comparison alone and completely neglect the specific contexts. Just because something looks the same, it doesn't mean it is acutally the same.