NationStates Jolt Archive

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

Of course this applies to forums and anything else similar, not just Usenet.

Anyway, my main beef with this is you'll get 'arguments' that go like this.

Poster A: There's nothing wrong with putting ethnic minorities into open-air prisons.

Poster B: Yeah, like Jews in Auschwitz.

Poster C: GODWINS LAW!

Poster A: lol, Poster B, you LOSE!


Godwin's Law states nothing about the validity of such a comparison. Furthermore, your ability to shout GODWIN is not an argument, nor is it a rebuttal, nor is it anything other than your ability to recognize a Nazi comparison.

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

Of course this applies to forums and anything else similar, not just Usenet.

Anyway, my main beef with this is you'll get 'arguments' that go like this.

Poster A: There's nothing wrong with putting ethnic minorities into open-air prisons.

Poster B: Yeah, like Jews in Auschwitz.

Poster C: GODWINS LAW!

Poster A: lol, Poster B, you LOSE!


Godwin's Law states nothing about the validity of such a comparison. Furthermore, your ability to shout GODWIN is not an argument, nor is it a rebuttal, nor is it anything other than your ability to recognize a Nazi comparison.

But...but....the laws of the internet are always right, just, and fair...

Are you being a debate nazi? ;)

But...but....the laws of the internet are always right, just, and fair...

Even if they are, Godwin's Law says nothing about "Whoever can point out Godwin's Law automatically wins the debate."

Are you being a debate nazi? ;)

Nah I'm just tired of seeing "GODWIN" (it's always in all-caps, too, just for added obnoxiousness) being used as if it was a rebuttal. Seems to happen whenever I post, and that has nothing to do with the fact that Nazi comparisons are my second favorite thing in the whole universe. ;)

Are you being a debate nazi? ;)

GODWIN!!!


As per the laws of teh interwebz, I win u looz, I r teh best!

Godwin's law only applies to invalid comparisons. If you're going to compare someone to the Nazis, you'd better be prepared to defend it.

Either that, or use the Soviet Union instead. Just as good.

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

Of course this applies to forums and anything else similar, not just Usenet.

Anyway, my main beef with this is you'll get 'arguments' that go like this.

Poster A: There's nothing wrong with putting ethnic minorities into open-air prisons.

Poster B: Yeah, like Jews in Auschwitz.

Poster C: GODWINS LAW!

Poster A: lol, Poster B, you LOSE!


Godwin's Law states nothing about the validity of such a comparison. Furthermore, your ability to shout GODWIN is not an argument, nor is it a rebuttal, nor is it anything other than your ability to recognize a Nazi comparison.
In most cases, such as the one you mentioned, the Nazi comparison is hyperbolic and indicative of a poorly thought out, emotive argument.
What's more, such comparisons belittle the horror of genocide, a crime which has no parallel. Especially not to the events that were being discussed in the thread to which you refer.

Godwin's law only applies to invalid comparisons.

...no it doesn't. Look, I posted Godwin's Law right there in the OP. That's it, that's the whole thing, there's no white-text/invisible/hidden closet clauses like that.

In most cases, such as the one you mentioned, the Nazi comparison is hyperbolic and indicative of a poorly thought out, emotive argument.

I think being able to draw parallels and make comparisons indicates more thought, not less.


What's more, such comparisons belittle the horror of genocide

No, they don't. They drag up the horror and make it fresh and more importantly, don't allow it to be forgotten and dismissed as a one-time, unrepeatable occurance. As many people in the US seem to believe just that.

Honestly, it seems to me that to some people, a Nazi comparison is only valid when and if the actual Nazis rise to power, kill Jews, and happen to be led by a guy named Hitler.

...no it doesn't. Look, I posted Godwin's Law right there in the OP. That's it, that's the whole thing, there's no white-text/invisible/hidden closet clauses like that.

I should have said using Godwin's law to invalidate an argument.

But then again, who gives a shit? Usenet has been a hive of scum and villainy for as far back as I can remember, so it's probably best to simply disregard anything that exists there no matter its quality or applicability.

I should have said using Godwin's law to invalidate an argument.

But that's just it. If a comparison is flawed, its flawed for reasons having NOTHING to do with Godwin's Law.

But then again, who gives a shit? Usenet has been a hive of scum and villainy for as far back as I can remember, so it's probably best to simply disregard anything that exists there no matter its quality or applicability.

Perhaps, but it seems Godwin's Law is here to stay, even if no one uses it right.

But that's just it. If a comparison is flawed, its flawed for reasons having NOTHING to do with Godwin's Law.

Like most things on the internet, it's long since evolved from its original meaning in to something completely different. Sort of like how people use "lol" as an all-purpose particle even after things which are in no context amusing, let alone enough to "laugh out loud".

Ultimately, it'll probably end up in a form totally contradictory to the original law.

Perhaps, but it seems Godwin's Law is here to stay, even if no one uses it right.

True that.

I think being able to draw parallels and make comparisons indicates more thought, not less.
Not when it's a knee jerk reaction, as in:
OMFG!!!!GOVERNMENTS NOT PLAYING FAIR!!!NAZISSS!!!!!!!
No, they don't. They drag up the horror and make it fresh and more importantly, don't allow it to be forgotten and dismissed as a one-time, unrepeatable occurance. As many people in the US seem to believe just that.
Genocide wasn't invented by Hitler, and it didn't die with him. However, saying "An open air prison, sounds like AUSCHWITZ!!!" isn't going to do anything to stop it.
For one thing, the comparison makes no sense. Are you implying that Auschwitz would have been better had it been an indoor facility? Is forced labor and systematized murder only acceptable as an inside activity?
NoHonestly, it seems to me that to some people, a Nazi comparison is only valid when and if the actual Nazis rise to power, kill Jews, and happen to be led by a guy named Hitler.
Godwin's law states, more or less, a Nazi comparison is valid if:
Someone is openly stating an admiration of Nazism or Hitler
Someone is suggesting (or engaging) in acts of genocide

Are you being a debate nazi? ;)

I'm a Godwin's Law nazi.

There needs to be a Godwin's Law about invoking Godwin's Law.

Maybe we should have a thread on the other rules of the internet. Who wants Rule 34?

Indri, you go first.

Not when it's a knee jerk reaction, as in:
OMFG!!!!GOVERNMENTS NOT PLAYING FAIR!!!NAZISSS!!!!!!!

And the comparison we just talked about was in all caps and literally calling anyone NAZISSS!!!!?

No. It wasn't. STRAWMAN'S LAW!

Genocide wasn't invented by Hitler, and it didn't die with him. However, saying "An open air prison, sounds like AUSCHWITZ!!!" isn't going to do anything to stop it.

Neither is shouting GODWINS LAW in an attempt to shout-down any and all mention of or reference to or comparison with Nazism or Nazi tactics.


For one thing, the comparison makes no sense. Are you implying that Auschwitz would have been better had it been an indoor facility? Is forced labor and systematized murder only acceptable as an inside activity?

I am implying that putting ethnic minorities into prison camps sounds strikingly similar to putting ethnic minorities into prison camps. Nonsensical, indeed.

Godwin's law states, more or less, a Nazi comparison is valid if:
Someone is openly stating an admiration of Nazism or Hitler
Someone is suggesting (or engaging) in acts of genocide

If by "more or less" you meant "not at all" you are correct.

Godwin's Law states:

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

How many times do I need to repeat what it says? Apparently as many times as folks like you are going to insist it says something else.

GODWIN!!!


As per the laws of teh interwebz, I win u looz, I r teh best!

you know who else thought he was the best? Hitler.

Maybe we should have a thread on the other rules of the internet. Who wants Rule 34?

what's Rule 34

what's Rule 34
"If it exists, there exists porn of it."

As to the OP, I quite agree, many folks seem to misunderstand Godwin's Law.

Godwin's law only applies to invalid comparisons. If you're going to compare someone to the Nazis, you'd better be prepared to defend it.Incorrect. Godwin's law applies to all comparisons, because it is merely a descriptive observation with no normative elements.

That valid comparisons to the Nazis go under in a flood of reductio ad Hitlerum and that that is sad is a conclusion you can come to based on that observation, but it doesn't help to determine the validity of an individual comparison.

Why is it called Godwin's law?

Why is it called Godwin's law?
The term was coined by Mike Godwin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Godwin), lawyer for the EFF.

Why is it called Godwin's law?
Go forth and be educated. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law)

The thing is, 99.99% of the time a comparison with the Nazis is made, it's a really inane and tenuous comparison, usually only used to produce an emotive response.

The thing is, 99.99% of the time a comparison with the Nazis is made, it's a really inane and tenuous comparison, usually only used to produce an emotive response.And even then it's still not an excuse to automatically invalidate a valid comparison.

Godwin laws is about probability not about the veracity of the argument.

But usually a Godwin falls into the reductio at hitlerun fallacy.

Like Hitler was atheist (which by the way isn't true) so all atheist are immoral like him.

Godwin laws is about probability not about the veracity of the argument.

But usually a Godwin falls into the reductio at hitlerun fallacy.

Like Hitler was atheist (which by the way isn't true) so all atheist are immoral like him.
Exactly.
"You know who else was a non-smoker? Hitler!" is reductio ad hitlerum while "You know, claiming to be protecting their citizens as the Russians are doing in South Ossetia is not all that different from what the Nazis were doing with the Sudeten Germans in Czechoslovakia." is a valid comparison.

Exactly.
"You know who else was a non-smoker? Hitler!" is reductio ad hitlerum while "You know, claiming to be protecting their citizens as the Russians are doing in South Ossetia is not all that different from what the Nazis were doing with the Sudeten Germans in Czechoslovakia." is a valid comparison.

Its a valid comparison in the sense that the two situations are similar, but it is also without logic - just because the Nazis did something doesn't make that thing bad (or good).

Its a valid comparison in the sense that the two situations are similar, but it is also without logic - just because the Nazis did something doesn't make that thing bad (or good).Is handing out citizenship to people within a sovereign nation to be able to use the claim of protecting citizens as an excuse to invade said sovereign nation a good thing?

Hitler is similar to me, as we are both non-smokers, but that's about where it ends. The foreign policy of landgrabbing based on getting all Germans home into the empire was quite obviously wrong, and a comparison to similar modern recreations thereof is valid.

Godwin laws is about probability not about the veracity of the argument.

But usually a Godwin falls into the reductio at hitlerun fallacy.

Like Hitler was atheist (which by the way isn't true) so all atheist are immoral like him.

Exactly. Godwin's Law is not even about debate or anything. Godwin's Law only states that the more you argue, the more chances there are someone brings out the nazis into the discussion. The addendums, including the reductio at hitlerum, is what the rest of the people of this thread, including the OP, is speaking about.

And yes, logically speaking, even "valid", or otherwise "pertinent", (pertinent is a better word) comparisons to Hitler or the Nazis are just that, comparisons, and so logically invalid, because it would constitute a fallacy if you try to base an argument around them.

Is handing out citizenship to people within a sovereign nation to be able to use the claim of protecting citizens as an excuse to invade said sovereign nation a good thing?


A situation being similar to what Hitler did does not affect whether the situation is right or wrong. The only thing you could possibly conclude is a slippery slope, but slippery slope arguments are rarely logical.

and a comparison to similar modern recreations thereof is valid.

Valid but pointless and can only be used for emotive purposes.

A situation being similar to what Hitler did does not affect whether the situation is right or wrong. The only thing you could possibly conclude is a slippery slope, but slippery slope arguments are rarely logical.I disagree with the second part. The comparison is meant to highlight the bad nature of something by comparing it to something most people agree with was evil. Problems arise when comparing things that aren't really wrong to similar things the Nazis did in an effort to prove it's wrong. However comparing bad Russian foreign policy to similar Nazi foreign policy asks the defender of bad Russian foreign policy "So you agree it was wrong when the Nazis did it, but right when Russia does the same thing?"

Another example is the whole torture debate. The allies executed a couple of Japanese officers for waterboarding allied soldiers on the grounds that it was torture and violated the Geneva Conventions. Now we have the same waterboarding being done by Americans to their enemies. Comparing the two situations is valid, since they are similar situations involving different parties and involve a value judement of whether the action was right or wrong. That's basically the same thing as using the Nazis, 'cept for the not using the Nazis as the comparison.

The fallacy of Reductio at Hitlerum comes from assuming that sharing one characteristic, idea or attitude with Hitler or the Nazis (or Stalin), for example being a non-smokers makes share all the other undesirable characteristics, ideas or attitudes of these people. Example:

Hitler was a non-smoker (true)
I am a non-smoker (true)
I am like Hitler in that we both are non-smokers (true)

thus

I am like Hitler in all aspects (fallacy <- does not follows from...)

If you say.

Hitler used the excuse of protecting the german population to invade Czechoslovakia (true)

Putin is using the excuse of protecting the russian population to invade Georgia (true)

thus

Putin is like Hitler in all aspects (fallacy)

I disagree with the second part. The comparison is meant to highlight the bad nature of something by comparing it to something most people agree with was evil.

But that's not logical, that's merely trying to induce an emotive response.


However comparing bad Russian foreign policy to similar Nazi foreign policy asks the defender of bad Russian foreign policy "So you agree it was wrong when the Nazis did it, but right when Russia does the same thing?"

Well yes, if you were to actually ask the question "when Hitler similarly did x, do you agree that was ok as well?" then that might be a good way to catch a poster out, but that's typically not how people Godwin.

Is handing out citizenship to people within a sovereign nation to be able to use the claim of protecting citizens as an excuse to invade said sovereign nation a good thing?

No, its not. But that is why it is important to clarify why the action is bad in your view, otherwise it appears that you are using Reductio ad Hitlerum rather than making a logical point.

The fallacy of Reductio at Hitlerum comes from assuming that sharing one characteristic, idea or attitude with Hitler or the Nazis (or Stalin), for example being a non-smokers makes share all the other undesirable characteristics, ideas or attitudes of these people. Example:

Hitler was a non-smoker (true)
I am a non-smoker (true)
I am like Hitler in that we both are non-smokers (true)

thus

I am like Hitler in all aspects (fallacy <- does not follows from...)

If you say.

Hitler used the excuse of protecting the german population to invade Czechoslovakia (true)

Putin is using the excuse of protecting the russian population to invade Georgia (true)

thus

Putin is like Hitler in all aspects (fallacy)
Of course. I'm not saying that Putin is like Hitler in all aspects. There are more aspects than just this one that I would attribute to him (short stature and an ego that attempts to compensate for it, ability to speak German, etc), but they play no real part in the argument that what the Nazis did back then was bad, ergo what Putin is doing is also bad. Basically, what I'm saying is:

Hitler used the excuse of protecting the german population to invade Czechoslovakia (true)

Invading Czechoslovakia on those grounds was bad (disputeable value judgement)

Putin is using the excuse of protecting the russian population to invade Georgia (true)

Ergo, invading Georgia on these pretenses is bad (disputable value judgement)

Of course. I'm not saying that Putin is like Hitler in all aspects. There are more aspects than just this one that I would attribute to him (short stature and an ego that attempts to compensate for it, ability to speak German, etc), but they play no real part in the argument that what the Nazis did back then was bad, ergo what Putin is doing is also bad. Basically, what I'm saying is:

Hitler used the excuse of protecting the german population to invade Czechoslovakia (true)

Invading Czechoslovakia on those grounds was bad (disputeable value judgement)

Putin is using the excuse of protecting the russian population to invade Georgia (true)

Ergo, invading Georgia on these pretenses is bad (disputable value judgement)

I'm not saying that you are saying that I´m saying...:confused:

I was just showing an example of how a reductio at hitlerum argument would be. This is a fallacy that tries to appeal at the emotional level, at the repulsion people generally feel for Hitler and the Nazis. Appealing to emotions is not a valid argument, even if its a very effective. I was just exemplifying that.

What Putin is doing is bad, it doesn't matter if the Nazis did it before.


EDIT:

It was bad when X did Z (true)
Doing Z is bad, no matter who does the action. (true)
It follows that when Y did Z it was also bad. (true)

Sounds like a valid argument. But the first premise is unnecessary.

The valid argument you are trying to construct maybe accused incorrectly of being a reductio at hitlerum that's another fallacy. The fallacy of pointing a fallacy in argument when there is none.

I cant remember how its called.

But that's not logical, that's merely trying to induce an emotive response.No, it's both. You can see the logic behind it, the emotive part is meant primarily to facillitate convincing people, thus saving time.
Well yes, if you were to actually ask the question "when Hitler similarly did x, do you agree that was ok as well?" then that might be a good way to catch a poster out, but that's typically not how people Godwin.Of course not. Those are the bad apples that need to be weeded out. Godwin himself lamented that the flood of bad comparisons weakened the good ones to the point that all you had to do was shout "You used the Nazis! Comparison invalid! Argument ended!" and that would be that.
No, its not. But that is why it is important to clarify why the action is bad in your view, otherwise it appears that you are using Reductio ad Hitlerum rather than making a logical point.Yes, no. Most people agree that Germany's landgrab prior to WWII was one of the major causes and that it was an unjustified intervention and attack on the sovereignity of a number of nations. Normally, you don't have to point out why this is the case; it's been determined by international law that it was wrong. It looks like reductio ad hitlerum primarily because a vast majority of comparisons to Nazi Germany are only reductio ad hitlerum, not because it is.

Shall we then postulate the Godwin Fallacy?

FALLACY:

Invalid comparisons to Hitler are fallacies called reductio ad hitlerum. (true)
Your argument includes the words Hitler and/or Nazis. (true)
thus
Your argument is a reductio ad hitlerum fallacy (false -> Godwin's fallacy)

Shall we then postulate the Godwin Fallacy?

FALLACY:

Invalid comparisons to Hitler are fallacies called reductio ad hitlerum. (true)
Your argument includes the words Hitler and/or Nazis. (true)
thus
Your argument is a reductio ad hitlerum fallacy (false -> Godwin's fallacy)I approve of this message.

No, it's both. You can see the logic behind it, the emotive part is meant primarily to facillitate convincing people, thus saving time.

But it's by definition not logical, is/ought and all that.

But it's by definition not logical, is/ought and all that.Normative arguments can be logical. That's what philosophy is all about.

Normative arguments can be logical. That's what philosophy is all about.

Well if you want to argue that you can, but this is now a thread jack, so if you have a good argument as to how a normative ethical judgement can be purely logical, I suggest you make a new thread.

Well if you want to argue that you can, but this is now a thread jack, so if you have a good argument as to how a normative ethical judgement can be purely logical, I suggest you make a new thread.Purely logical? Do I strike you as the kind of fool that would attempt to prove an absolute statement? =P

Purely logical? Do I strike you as the kind of fool that would attempt to prove an absolute statement? =P

Well what do you mean by 'can be logical'? Based on logic but ultimately subjective?

Well what do you mean by 'can be logical'? Based on logic but ultimately subjective?Math is pretty much the only purely logical discipline I can think of at the top of my head. Just about everything is ultimately subjective. Consider it this way, the US has a democratic government, but is not a democracy, similar to how arguments are logical without being purely logical. There'll always be some motivation that isn't entirely based on logic but emotions on your behalf to make a certain argument and avoid it's competitors.

Math is pretty much the only purely logical discipline I can think of at the top of my head. Just about everything is ultimately subjective. Consider it this way, the US has a democratic government, but is not a democracy, similar to how arguments are logical without being purely logical. There'll always be some motivation that isn't entirely based on logic but emotions on your behalf to make a certain argument and avoid it's competitors.

Then going back to Godwinning. An ethical statement based on logic would require you to look at the consequences of the action or various ethical precedences. I don't see, 'Hitler did this as well' as logical discourse, just a way to promote an emotive response.

Then going back to Godwinning. An ethical statement based on logic would require you to look at the consequences of the action or various ethical precedences. I don't see, 'Hitler did this as well' as logical discourse, just a way to promote an emotive response.I'd make the argument that the Nazis and the people judging them set many ethical precedences, which are inferred to under certain comparisons between activities by the Nazis and modern actions. Convincing other people isn't only about making sound logical arguments. That alone won't help you, as your years on NSG should have shown you.

I'd make the argument that the Nazis and the people judging them set many ethical precedences, which are inferred to under certain comparisons between activities by the Nazis and modern actions. Convincing other people isn't only about making sound logical arguments. That alone won't help you, as your years on NSG should have shown you.

Well then you should at least clearly state the ethical precedent involved, rather than merely making a comparison and nothing else.

Well then you should at least clearly state the ethical precedent involved, rather than merely making a comparison and nothing else.And here's where we get back to Godwin's lament: You shouldn't have to, but because of the massive amount of fallacious comparisons, people expect a valid comparison to be accompanied by a full explanation.

But that's not logical, that's merely trying to induce an emotive response.


It's meant to illustrate something in a way that is more clear. Not "logical," not "illogical," just illustration.

There needs to be a Godwin's Law about invoking Godwin's Law.

LOLWINS LAW!

It's meant to illustrate something in a way that is more clear. Not "logical," not "illogical," just illustration.



LOLWINS LAW!



Sorry but no. Lolwins law is about posting a lolcat as response to an argument. And its always a [/thread win]

http://icanhascheezburger.com/2008/08/26/funny-pictures-did-i-do-dat/

snip

You just broke sub section 8 of Godwin's law: Don't question it.

And while we are at it....

http://xkcd.com/261/

At risk of going off on a tangent may I suggest that people track down copies of a couple of poems: Requiem by Anna Akhmatova and Daddy by Sylvia Plath. Especially after reading the former, the latter comes across as a literary example of reductio ad hitlerum.

BTW, the name Godwin conjures up for me a somewhat goofy character from the anime series, Last Exile.

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

Of course this applies to forums and anything else similar, not just Usenet.

Anyway, my main beef with this is you'll get 'arguments' that go like this.

Poster A: There's nothing wrong with putting ethnic minorities into open-air prisons.

Poster B: Yeah, like Jews in Auschwitz.

Poster C: GODWINS LAW!

Poster A: lol, Poster B, you LOSE!


Godwin's Law states nothing about the validity of such a comparison. Furthermore, your ability to shout GODWIN is not an argument, nor is it a rebuttal, nor is it anything other than your ability to recognize a Nazi comparison.

"Automaton" is a synonym for the word "Zombie" the fact that more and more posters are posting with an automated posting style suggests that either the robot revolution is beginning and their comps have been compromised or the zombie apocalypse hast begun. :eek:

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

Of course this applies to forums and anything else similar, not just Usenet.

Anyway, my main beef with this is you'll get 'arguments' that go like this.

Poster A: There's nothing wrong with putting ethnic minorities into open-air prisons.

Poster B: Yeah, like Jews in Auschwitz.

Poster C: GODWINS LAW!

Poster A: lol, Poster B, you LOSE!


Godwin's Law states nothing about the validity of such a comparison. Furthermore, your ability to shout GODWIN is not an argument, nor is it a rebuttal, nor is it anything other than your ability to recognize a Nazi comparison.
Exactly. It's just a statement that states that the odds of a discussion mentioning Nazis approaches one the longer it goes on. Nothing about the quality of an argument or anything.

I hate it when people use Godwin to declare they win an argument. You might as well be shouting "NO U!"

"If it exists, there exists porn of it."


so,if say a galaxy exists,there's porn of it?that doesn't make any sense!(well,in astronomical objects)

so,if say a galaxy exists,there's porn of it?that doesn't make any sense!(well,in astronomical objects)

You can find star wars porn... I'm sure of it.

You can find star wars porn... I'm sure of it.

star wars isn't an astronomical object!

Laugh, you know you want to.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v73/PAY5353/LOL.jpg

Godwin's law only applies to invalid comparisons. If you're going to compare someone to the Nazis, you'd better be prepared to defend it.

Either that, or use the Soviet Union instead. Just as good.
Ahh, the good old "Stalin Corollary" to Godwin's Law. I always liked that one.

Tell me, WMU. Do you really want to find it?

That's not really how Godwin's law works.

It usually goes into play when you accuse the other of being a Nazi or of Nazi related ideas in an unrelated thread.

Concentration camp idea, considering Nazis DID have alot to do with it, Godwin does not apply.

so,if say a galaxy exists,there's porn of it?that doesn't make any sense!(well,in astronomical objects)

I'm sure you can find a sex joke on Galaxies. If not then Rule 35 comes into play.