Talk:Nazi analogies

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

This Fallacies related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


Archives for this talk page: , (new)

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)

evil nazi things[edit]

going out on a limb and say no one the slightest of fucks about most of the things mentioned. its not informative in any useful way and is mostly arse AMassiveGay (talk) 02:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)