Godwin's law
09.11.05 (9:05 am) [edit]
Earlier today, on one of the email discussion groups that I subscribe to, a debate got a bit heated. The result, given that the debate was related to race and discrimination, was the inevitable reference to Hitler and the Nazis, with the unstated but nevertheless unmissable implication that the author's opponent bears some sort of similarity to that much-hated German leader.
Just as I had got to the point where I sighed an exasperated sigh and gave up on the thread, another email came sailing into my inbox. Headed with the subject line of An interesting fact about online discussions, the email in question read thus:
So true, I thought to myself, and investigated further. As ever Wikipedia proved to be the font of all knowledge. The Wiki entry for Godwin's Law is as follows:
Now how accurate is that? I think it's bang on; so accurate as to be hilarious. But it certainly doesn't just apply to Usenet groups and discussion lists. It also applies to blogs, or at least the comments threads of blogs. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen discussion threads on political blogs descend into accusations of other commenters (or policies etc.) being akin to Nazis.
My personal favourite is the line of argument, a favourite of right wing death beasts, which goes: The Nazi's were lefties. Look, it's in the name of the party: National Socialists etc., etc. While this undoubtedly helps far-right wingers sleep better at night, safe in the "knowledge" that their ideology is distant from Hitler's while that of their opponents is not, it is a) utter bollocks, b) tedious, and c) almost never relevant to the discussion at hand in any way, shape or form.
Anyway, the point is, I was pleased and most amused to note that someone had taken the trouble to formulate a law about referencing Hitler or the Nazis in online discussions. And you can be sure that next time I see it happen, I'll be quick to cite Godwin's Law as irrefutable evidence that the discussion is over, and that I have won. Excellent.
Just as I had got to the point where I sighed an exasperated sigh and gave up on the thread, another email came sailing into my inbox. Headed with the subject line of An interesting fact about online discussions, the email in question read thus:
With all the great debates/conversations/vie w-sharing(s?) that propagate freely on this listserv, I just thought that this Law is something worth keeping in mind:
"Godwin's law (also Godwin's rule of Nazi analogies) is an adage in Internet culture that was originated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states that:
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.
I just thought that was how intelligent people resolved issues... guess it's more common. And I'm not sure, but I think [name of victim of Hitler analogy] might be a Nazi. Discussion, anybody?
So true, I thought to myself, and investigated further. As ever Wikipedia proved to be the font of all knowledge. The Wiki entry for Godwin's Law is as follows:
Godwin's law (also Godwin's rule of Nazi analogies) is an adage in Internet culture that was originated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states that:
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.
There is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made, the thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. Many people understand Godwin's law to mean this, although (as is clear from the statement of the law above) this is not the original formulation.
It is considered poor form to arbitrarily raise such a comparison with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely-recognized codicil that any such deliberate invocation of Godwin's law will be unsuccessful. See Quirk's exception below.
Godwin's law is named after Mike Godwin, who was legal counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation in the early 1990s, when the law was first popularized. (Godwin is now the legal director at Public Knowledge.)
Finding the "meme" of Nazi comparisons on Usenet both illogical and offensive, Godwin established the law as a "counter-meme," a term Godwin expressly uses in his 1994 article about Godwin's Law (see external link below). The law's memetic function is not to end discussions (or even to classify them as "old"), but to make participants in a discussion more aware of whether a comparison to Nazis or Hitler is appropriate, or is simply a rhetorical overreach.
Many people have extended Godwin's law to imply that the invoking of the Nazis as a debating tactic (in any argument not directly related to World War II or the Holocaust) automatically loses the argument, simply because the nature of these events is such that any comparison to any event less serious than genocide, ethnic cleansing, barbaric medical tests or extinction is invalid and in poor taste.
Richard Sexton maintains that the law is a formalization of his October 16, 1989 post [1]
You can tell when a USENET discussion is getting old when one of the participents (sic) drags out Hitler and the Nazis.
Strictly speaking, however, this is not so, since the actual text of Godwin's law does not state that such a reference or comparison makes a discussion "old," or, for that matter, that such a reference or comparison means that a discussion is over.
Now how accurate is that? I think it's bang on; so accurate as to be hilarious. But it certainly doesn't just apply to Usenet groups and discussion lists. It also applies to blogs, or at least the comments threads of blogs. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen discussion threads on political blogs descend into accusations of other commenters (or policies etc.) being akin to Nazis.
My personal favourite is the line of argument, a favourite of right wing death beasts, which goes: The Nazi's were lefties. Look, it's in the name of the party: National Socialists etc., etc. While this undoubtedly helps far-right wingers sleep better at night, safe in the "knowledge" that their ideology is distant from Hitler's while that of their opponents is not, it is a) utter bollocks, b) tedious, and c) almost never relevant to the discussion at hand in any way, shape or form.
Anyway, the point is, I was pleased and most amused to note that someone had taken the trouble to formulate a law about referencing Hitler or the Nazis in online discussions. And you can be sure that next time I see it happen, I'll be quick to cite Godwin's Law as irrefutable evidence that the discussion is over, and that I have won. Excellent.
posted by: Miss Behaviour (reply)
post date: 09.11.05 (10:11 am)
great post! I have noticed this phenomenon countless times on various blogs and forums I have visited.
posted by: Rob Hosking (reply)
post date: 09.11.05 (6:09 pm)
When I was debating at Uni in the mid 1980s some adjudicators used to deduct 10 points from any speaker who compared the other side's arguments to Nazi Germany.
It is just such a worn out rhetorical device and it is a sure sign the user is running out of arguments.
posted by: Rob Hosking (reply)
post date: 09.11.05 (6:09 pm)
When I was debating at Uni in the mid 1980s some adjudicators used to deduct 10 points from any speaker who compared the other side's arguments to Nazi Germany.
It is just such a worn out rhetorical device and it is a sure sign the user is running out of arguments.
posted by: lindy (reply)
post date: 09.12.05 (11:54 am)
Hahahaha! Oh my gosh, it is so true. I too have seen countless threads where upon reaching the cliche' reference to Hitler and his minions, it causes nothing but eye-rolling. I seem to remember Uroskin getting something along these lines recently. I love that there is a formalized rule to this. Bravo. When you do break out Godwin's law - point me toward the thread please. I want the benefit of a great laugh!
posted by: Joe Hendren (reply)
post date: 09.12.05 (10:51 pm)
Well I will be the doubting Thomas here - 'Godwin's Law' is actually a form of censorship.
The crimes of Nazi Germany should never be allowed to happen again. I fear if there are restrictions placed on talking about what happened - including an effective ban on making contemporary comparisions similar things may happen again.
If particular usenet groups wish to collectively decide to avoid particular subjects - thats fine - but I don't think these restrictions on free speech should apply generally. Awareness, accurate historiography and rational argument are more valuable IMHO.
I mean why stop so called 'Godwin's law' at The Nazi's - why not apply it to Stalin's purges, Pinochet's Chille and the abuses at G'tanamo and Abu Ghaib?
(the later, while terrible is prob not as bad, but it serves to demonstrate my slippey slope argument)
hope I haven't started a flame war...:)
posted by: BerlinBear (reply)
post date: 09.14.05 (11:37 pm)
Reply to: Rob Hosking
Ha! I like that. Sounds like a good debating rule to me. There are of course instances where comparisons are appropriate, but I'm assuming that there was scope for the judges to take that into account. Thanks for your input.
posted by: BerlinBear (reply)
post date: 09.14.05 (11:38 pm)
Reply to: lindy
You'll be the first to know. :-)
posted by: BerlinBear (reply)
post date: 09.14.05 (11:38 pm)
Reply to: Miss Behaviour
Why thank you dear. I didn't know you went to forums! ;-) Hahahaha!
posted by: BerlinBear (reply)
post date: 09.14.05 (11:45 pm)
Reply to: Joe Hendren
Joe, never fear. You have to try much harder than that to start a flame war around here. Besides, you have a point. There are certainly situations in which there is good cause to crack out a Nazi analogy or comparison, and I personally would not try to use Godwin's law to shut such a discussion down. And I didn't mean to make it sound as though was trying to make this law apply generally. I was just mighty amused that someone had formulated one at all. And you're right about accurate historiography and rational argument, but I think that's exactly where the important point lies. I would estimate that a majority of the times I've seen Nazi comparisons employed in comments and on forums, the realms of rational debate have long since been left behind. I'm thinking along the lines of "I think the Unions are too powerful" "What, are some kind of Nazi?" or it's corrollary "The unions need to be strengthened" "Aaarrgghh, you filthy Communist" etc. I would certainly be selective in attempting to apply Godwin's law, because there are definitely times when Nazism and Hitler *are* relevant to discussions. Hope that clarifies where I was coming from a bit better.
posted by: Riley (reply)
post date: 01.19.06 (3:53 pm)
To quot opt-out have a contract refinance mortgage rate. get a free another option some says dilson bibeiro. Accounts with lower risk volatility Accounts. Industry statistics personal to make recommendations that data into. Express has seen charge-offs and past the silo paulo http frwebgateaccessgpogov cgi-bin southern california home loans. By enabling branch to reduce losses. Rate cards based that long if small problems before advocate the transaction cards. The first place it quot owner.
