Talk:Nazi analogies

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon logic.svg

This Fallacies related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

This page is automatically archived by Archiver


Some content from αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 18:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Using this picture[edit]

Any chance we could use the following random dump image for the article? ^^ Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the problem, but it might be too memeish (shall we say) to have any lasting value. Zero (talk - contributions) 15:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Ex mayors question[edit]

Successive Mayors of London Red Newt Ken and Bojo Bike made Hitler comparisons within a few days. Is this an example of Godwin's Law meets the Horseshoe theory? (talk) 13:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

reductio ad Hitlerum[edit]

Godwin's is certainly related to reductio ad Hitlerum, but is most definitely not the same thing --Rusty Lugnuts (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Curzan's Law[edit]

This is based off of something I learned on the latest episode of Adam Ruins Everything. This law is quite similar Godwin's Law, but instead of being about Nazism, it's about grammar Nazism. "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of one member claiming they have won an argument and/or are leaving due to another member making a minor grammar error, real or imagined, approaches one." —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 15:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Godwin's law in action[edit]

Can be found here.

And how does 'the first person who mentions Hitler (or any of the other usual suspects) out of context automatically loses the argument' relate to Godwin's Law? Anna Livia (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually Hitler was not an Atheist[edit]

He called Atheists foolish and said he will only be a Roman Catholic. 2003:C3:3741:1600:2D51:F5F8:EB4C:D4B1 (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)