Campaign!

G'day, fellow RationalWikians! Don't forget to visit the Campaign page of the 2016 Board of trustees election in order to make your voice heard. Suggested activities include:

  • Endorsing select candidates (lending a hand to your loyal henchmen and/or glorious overlords!)
  • Anti-endorsing select candidates (character-assassinating your hated opponents!)
  • Providing moar goat (please wipe afterwards)
  • Just asking questions to the candidates

Your participation might help other users better direct their votes. More importantly, it'll show the world that we've yet to go full Citizendium in terms of election hype!

from FuzzyCatPotato (Talk), group Site wide (urgent) at 00:24, 25 July 2016

Bronze-level articleGodwin's Law

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Argumentum ad Laroucheum Hitlerum.
Part of the series on

Logic and rhetoric

Icon logic.svg
Key articles
General logic
Bad logic
I wonder if there will come a time when nazis will become primarily known for the ridiculous analogies people make using them and not genocide.
—rupucis[1]

Godwin’s Law (also argumentum ad Nazium, reductio ad Hitlerum,[2] or a Hitler Card) was formulated by the attorney Mike Godwin (former general counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation) in the 1990s and states:

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

Contents

[edit] How it works

If only we hadn't all grown up with this book.
It's like Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, except there's just one degree, and Kevin Bacon is Hitler!
—Lewis Black

Godwin’s Law does not dispute the validity or otherwise of references or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis. As such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate in a discussion, Godwin has argued that overuse of the Nazi comparison should be avoided as it waters down the impact of any valid usage. In its purest sense, the rule has more to do with completely losing one's sense of proportion rather than just mentioning Nazis specifically.[3][4] The law was initiated as a counter-meme to flippant comparisons to the Nazis, rather than to invoke a complete ban on comparisons. As Mike Godwin wrote himself in 2008:[5]

When I saw the photographs from Abu Ghraib, for example, I understood instantly the connection between the humiliations inflicted there and the ones the Nazis imposed upon death camp inmates—but I am the one person in the world least able to draw attention to that valid comparison.

Additionally, Godwin made an appearance in Glenn Greenwald's Salon comments section in 2010 to confirm, as Greenwald put it in a column titled The odiousness of the distorted Godwin’s Law:

Godwin himself appears in comments (authenticity confirmed via email) to explain that his “law” sought to discourage frivolous, but not substantive, Nazi analogies and comparisons.[6]

With the increase in the number of media for online discussion, Godwin's Law is now applied to any online discussion — be they mailing lists, message boards, forums, chat rooms, blog comment threads, or wiki talk pages.

Traditionally in many Internet discussion forums, it is the rule that once such a comparison is made, the discussion is effectively finished and whoever mentioned Hitler or the Nazis has automatically lost the debate, though it is considered sort-of acceptable if one immediately says "Pardon me for invoking Godwin's Law." The blogosphere has only heightened the prevalence of Godwin's Law, with Nazi references being dropped across the political spectrum, such as the liberal Daily Kos, right-wing religious strongholds such as Bill Donohue's Catholic League, and intelligent design advocates like the Discovery Institute.

Compared to other known blog-based laws, namely Poe's Law, Godwin's Law is quite well known in more mainstream areas.[7] Just to prove it, the law even has its own Wikipedia article.[8] In 2012 it was added to the Oxford Dictionary,[9] which means that in 500 years' time it will be reviewed by completely mystified college arts majors.

[edit] Stormfront and other corollaries

This is exactly how Nazi Germany was started! A bunch of layabouts with nothing better to do than to cause trouble!
—Basil Fawlty[10]

A number of corollaries have been proposed since the introduction of Godwin's Law.

In a hilarious instance of cosmic symmetry, a similar law applies to neo-Nazi boards such as Stormfront: as the discussion grows longer, the probability of someone calling their opponent a Jew approaches one. (For another version, replace Stormfront with Conservapedia and Jew with liberal.)

Another example of a corollary, and an early example, is called "Sircar's Corollary," which is: “If the Usenet discussion touches on homosexuality or Heinlein, Nazis or Hitler are mentioned within three days.”'[4]

Another corollary was proposed by "Buddy Larson" in the comments to a post by the libertarian Volokh Conspiracy blog (alleging that gun control caused the Kristallnacht) in November 2010:

As an online discussion of an original post concerning Nazis or Hitler grows, the probability of observing a laboured and unwarranted retreat or appeal to Godwin's Law (of laboured, unwarranted retreat to Nazi or Hitler references) approaches one.[11]

A corollary for feminists is:

As an online discussion about sexism continues, the probability of a woman who speaks out being called a feminazi approaches 1.[12]

[edit] Other versions

A number of different Internet laws have been proposed which basically mirror Godwin. Arken's Law states:

A discussion is over when present society is compared to George Orwell's Oceania in the book 1984.[13]

The exact history of the law is debatable,[14] but it is claimed that Arken's Law has its roots in the days of HTML 1.0 and earlier (such as Usenet). Any accusations of Big Brotherism, utilizing newspeak, practicing doublethink, thought policing, sending updates down the memory hole or belonging to the Anti-Sex League would all be invocations of Arken's Law.

Researchers from the University College London attempted to formulate reductio ad Hitlerum into a Bayesian framework, presenting evidence that this is pretty much exactly how people processed the argument:[15]

P(good|Hitler)=\frac{P(good)P(Hitler|good)}{P(Hitler)}

[edit] Criticisms

Some, such as author Robert J. Sawyer, have criticized Godwin's Law for implying the Holocaust was sui generis, a unique event that can never happen again. Consequently, he argues, people will be reluctant to issue comparisons for future situations until it is too late, and even if they try, Godwin's Law will be used to falsely shoot them down.[16]

[edit] See also

[edit] External links

[edit] Footnotes

Articles on RationalWiki about Eponymous laws
  Badger's Law  -  Danth's Law  -  Feminist internet laws  -  Gore's Law  -  Haggard's Law  -  Haig's Law  -  Internet law  -  List of Poe's Law examples  -  Loi de Poe  -  Murphy's Law  -  Poe's Law  -  Rove's Law  -  Whale.to  
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
support
Community
Tools