Talk:Godwin's Law/Archive1

Top
Never heard of it...love it...guilty of it.--PalMD-Talk 09:52, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

Now I understand why Ed Poor thought he had won an argument with me. Actually I only compared him to Margaret Thatcher, but it's the same thing.--CatWatcher 09:57, 24 May 2007 (CDT)


 * I have no problem comparing fascists with other fascists.--PalMD-Talk 10:00, 24 May 2007 (CDT)


 * and actually, at the time I was pointing out that in attempting to ban everyone who rocked the boat, CP would be left with a tightly-knit set of people who all agreed with one another, but whom, in the long run, like Thatcher would be ignored as irrelevant.--CatWatcher 10:10, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Man, the way this site treats conservative ideas is worse than the way Hitler treated the Jews. human be in 01:31, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Invoking Hitler to purposefully activate Godwin's Law is not kosher. Tmtoulouse 01:33, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
 * ROTFLKJHF:OUIRHGHSFDUHGUKHUOKHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHFHJ1!!!!!1111!!!111oneoneoneone!!!!1one!11!11 I'd eat that salt. human be in 01:42, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Wait, I thought the law said that whoever first compared their opponent to nazis/hitler in an argument loses? Or is that yet another one? Or just me misunderstanding and making up a new law? human  06:46, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Doesn't the probability of any sort of comparison approach 1 as a discussion continues?
 * Never mind, I read the whole thing and what I thought the Law was is at the end, kind of as a corollary. human  18:21, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

I've grown to hate this law because so many Bush apologists use it as a shield. It doesn't matter if Bush blatantly uses 9/11 in exactly the same way as Hitler used the Reichstag, or if Republicans use hatred of communists, gays and liberals to build support (they left out the Jews and Gypsies this time), or even if Bush suspends Habeas Corpus, Posse Comitatus and builds detention centers and raises his own private army... you can't compare him to Hitler!!! Garble 18:42, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
 * If Godwin's Law is the only defense someone has, they're in trouble... human  19:05, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
 * As I understand it, you're allowed to use it where the comparison is justified. It's just if you start shrieking "NAZI!!! NAZI!!!" that you've lost the argument. Writing out a step-by-step comparison of Hitler and Bush might get past the law. Wazza (Yes, that Wazza)Bring a little light into my dim and dull existence 17:43, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

Star Trek Corollary
I wonder if there's a corollary to this law: "As the number of episodes in any Star Trek series grows, the probability of a storyline involving Nazis approaches one."--SpinyNorman 17:22, 12 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Well, it's funny, anyway. human  17:38, 12 May 2008 (EDT)
 * There's been at least one ST episode about Nazis, so I'd guess so. -- AKjeldsen Cum dissensie 17:40, 12 May 2008 (EDT)
 * How about a more general "As the number of episodes of any show (which can figure out a way to do so) increases, the probability of the old 'if you could go back and kill baby Adolf' plot canard being milked approaches one" (I know, it lacks a certain concisity!) human  17:43, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

I like the original iteration better :-). And it's SO TRUE.  I know they did it in ST:TOS, I don't know about TNG, but I know it was in Enterprise too...- 17:47, 12 May 2008 (EDT)


 * From what I can tell it happened in the original series, in Voyager, and in Enterprise. They used allegorical references a lot in DS9, but had the good sense to hold back :-). --SpinyNorman 17:02, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Hmmm...

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

Can be reworded as


 * As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of someone referencing the subject of Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

It follows that


 * As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of someone referencing any unrelated or tangentially related subject approaches one.

Similarly,


 * As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of discussion of any unrelated or tangentially related x subject approaches one.

From this we can conclude that


 * As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of discussion of any unrelated or tangentially related x subject approaches one.

Where x subject can be Nazis, Hitler, unicorns, spaghetti, or any other topic. The converse of all of this is


 * As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of discussion of any unrelated or tangentially related x subject approaches one, and the probability of the original subject remaining the main subject of discussion approaches zero.

This could be applied to any discussion, therefore


 * As a discussion grows longer, the probability of discussion of any unrelated or tangentially related x subject approaches one, and the probability of the original subject remaining the main subject of discussion approaches zero.&mdash; Unsigned, by: 24.5.253.99 / talk / contribs


 * Wrong. As my Philosophy 101 teacher used to write on my paper DNF--does not follow. Specifically, here:As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of someone referencing any unrelated or tangentially related subject approaches one. Does not follow from previous assertions. Nice try. Thanks for playing. PFoster 23:17, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

jsp
As with 'The pound in your pocket' and other quotes the original version and the (often pithier)colloquial rephrasing coexist.

Perhaps '...Hitler, the Nazis or any contemporary very unpleasant character' with the point being that the reference is a non sequiteur/has ad hominen overtones.

&mdash; Unsigned, by: 82.198.250.5 / talk / contribs 18:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Godwin and Stalin?
In may online discussions/flamewars I've noticed a new trend emerging (particularly among Catholic Apologists): Its basicly the same as goodwins law, but instead of hitler, its Stalin (or someone else, usually Stalin though. I had to ask: Does Godwin's Law still apply when the comparison isn't Hiter and Nazis, but Stalin and Communists? Or (Insert Dictator Here) and (Insert Oppressive Regime here) IAMELIPHAS (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it definitely should still apply, it's not like Stalin was any better then Hitler anyway. -- 21:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a pretty similar phenomenon but I don't think we can legitimately say this is still Godwin's Law, since what Mike Godwin said (as well as all the unofficial corollaries of the Law) was specifically about comparisons to Hitler & the Nazis. & I don't agree that it's a new trend or that it's just substituting Stalin in place of Hitler for the sake of variation.  While the desired effect may be pretty much the same (discrediting an opponent by dubious analogy), there are some rather different connotations in making a communist comparison rather than a Nazi one.  + Making outrageous accusations of communism has a long heritage in (especially American) politics & shouldn't just be seen as a spin-off of Godwin-style flame wars.   23:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Deviloser's Law
I hereby nominate a spin-off of Godwin's Law which I have called Deviloser's Law (or Devilloser's Law, for the grammar n.. whoops, that was close!).

Here it is:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of one user accusing another of being a Troll approaches one.

Why "Deviloser"? Who's the opposite of God? And what's the opposite of winning? Why not "Devilose's"? It rolls off the tongue and is more memorable.

But why Deviloser's Law? Not only is it far more relevant this day and age -- when was the last time you personally saw Godwin's Law invoked in the wild? -- if you trawl the Net in just about any online gathering that isn't banhammer-enforced by Miss Manners, people will knee-jerkingly accuse others of being a troll in ad hominem fashion even if they don't agree with that person (his political opinions differ from my own?! TROLL!!), if they so much as don't like that person (her statement is perfectly logical and correct and has thoughtfully and thoroughly debunked my own, but she's meeeaaann, waah! TROLL!! TROLLING TROLL!! YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID BECAUSE YOU'RE A BIG, FAT, BEEF JERKY TROLL! ALSO, YOU SMELL.), or for reasons incomprehensible like posting a thread and not posting in it again -- how, exactly, is that trying to get a rise out of somebody again? Maybe they just wanted to repost something they thought was interesting and is either shy or just doesn't see the point in discussing it further as they've already said their piece in the opening post, like a professor tossing out a subject and asking his students to discuss and debate it.

The whole thing has become as sad as the Salem Witch Trials, and just like those old-timey folks that we pride ourselves for being so much more enlightened and rational, Netizens, for some reason, still take the accusation with the same dire seriousness as if you had said the n-word or c-word.

This place is called Rational Wiki, so let's think this through. Do you honestly, seriously believe that every single person who is meeeaaann, waah on the Internet is doing so for the sole purpose of getting a rise out of others? Really? No other possibility? If so, maybe you also believe what the "9/11 was an inside job"-types say, too.

I mean, it's like everyone on the Internet has become so paranoid of other users being personally out to get them that they actually believe that everyone who says something that they don't like, is just doing it to make them mad. As if that were as bad as a regime of racial genocide.

"A troll! he's a troll!" has become the new "she's a witch! may we burn her?" Yes, people like that exist. But the vast majority of the time, "troll!" is just a bogeyman. A baseless ad bominem. A dishonest, underhanded conversation killer and debate ender.

And you know what? This public paranoia and fear of trolls engendered by the original trolls of old? The Internet has been faithfully continuing their mission, decades after they have left the scene: anger and strife amongst yourselves over their blowing of hot air.

Really, accusing others of being a troll has become the non-politician's go-to insult in lieu of comparing Bush to Hitler. That's right, 99/100 times when someone has been labeled a troll, the accuser has willingly transformed himself into the Internet equivalent of Glenn Beck.

For further reading, look up The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf.

--Nobody in particular (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Shut up troll. -- 00:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I do believe this to be an example of hipster irony. --50.104.18.162 (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Reductio ad hitlerum redirect
From the results of the search, "Reductio ad hitlerum" redirects to "Godwin's Law". However, Reductio ad hitlerum is a special case of an Ad hominem and not all invocations of Godwin's Law are automatically reductio ad hitlerums. Therefore I would recommend to point the redirect from "reductio ad hitlerum" toward "ad hominem", rather than this page. Chaosof99 (talk) 12:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I concur. "Argumentum ad Hitlerum" also redirects to Godwin's Law, and should probably redirect to "ad hominem" instead. --Tracer (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Playing a bit around paradoxes
May I add this image to the article, just for fun? Faunas (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please don't. 23:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ^This. Ty JFBANBSRADA 00:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, ^this. My step-grandpa from Ottawa rocked that kind of moustache, and it looked nothing like that. For one thing, his was grey. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How would you do it? Faunas (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why, Weaseloid? Faunas (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

but I am the one person in the world least able to draw attention to that valid comparison
Not sure if this is worth mentioning in the article or not. The difference in scale, plus the intent of the nations involved and their responses to unsanctioned abuse make this just another Godwin's Law comparison. The Nazis didn't even punish anyone who committed unsanctioned abuses. –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 06:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * lolwut. Osaka Sun (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

See also: privilege
It definitely belongs here. "Privilege", in the political cant sense, also signals the futility of further discussion. The person who invokes the concept has chosen to ignore you, based on who he or she thinks you are. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No. 20:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Russia and Crimea
A lot of comparisons have been made between the actions of you-know-who's Germany and Russia vis-a-vis Crimea/Sudetenland/Anschlus.......is this a case for an exemption??--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 03:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If Nazi Germany was a fragile petro-state dependent on European trade, had a sizable chunk of its business leaders' assets outside the country, had a multinational alliance protecting nearby Poland and most of Eastern Europe, didn't receive the support of a dictatorship in the Far East, and Czech and German ethnicities were bound by a historic 'brotherhood,' then yes. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey nothing is perfect :p--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if you have a point, it's better to avoid comparisons to Hitler because in every case that's relevant, you could actually use the proper argument. Stealing parts of other countries is bad whether or not you are Hitler.62.159.14.9 (talk) 13:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Devil's Advocate
Yes he was a jerk but he did kill Hitler. Jokes aside, Godwin's has been around long enough that the aforementioned joke is one of several standard responses to anyone invoking Godwin's. CorruptUser (talk) 01:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)