Godwin's Law: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
m (categories and general cleanup) |
No edit summary |
||
| (17 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{
[[File:hitlercard2.jpg|link=Magic:
{{quote|
Also known as "Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies". Originated by Richard Sexton, and popularized by Mike Godwin of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (and of [[The Other Wiki|the Wikimedia Foundation]] until 2010) in 1990 in the form:
{{quote|
{{quote|
It is generally accepted that [[Derailing|whoever is the first to play the "Hitler card"]] has lost the argument as well as any trace of respect, as having to resort to comparing your adversary to the most infamous mass-murdering dictator in history generally means you've run out of ''better'' arguments. Thus, once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as '''Godwin's
The usage of Godwin's Law also has "Henderson's Law" as a corollary, referring to an observation by Joel Henderson that while Mike Godwin specifically stated this to pertain to "gratuitous Hitler-comparisons", Godwin's Law has been frivolously thrown at ''any'' comparison no matter how accurate or on-point. Case example: Jon Stewart of ''[[The Daily Show]]'' [http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=114018&title=A-Relatively-Closer-Look---Hitler-Reference criticizing comparisons to Hitler.]
Note that the [[Captain Obvious|Law is not supposed to apply to serious discussions of]] [http://xkcd.com/261/ Fascist Germany or its policies], but rather describes the logical fallacy of Hitler/Nazi comparisons.
{{quote|''In other words, it's OK to call these un-American white supremacists exactly what they are: "By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with you," Godwin said on Sunday evening.''|[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/08/14/godwins_law_creator_rescinds_ruling_after_nazis_march_in_charlottesville/ Chap behind Godwin's law suspends his own rule for Charlottesville fascists: 'By all means, compare them to Nazis']}}
This would not, by the way, [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/12/20/godwins-law-trump-hitler-comparisons/ be the last time Mike Godwin would note an exception to the rule].
The most common forms of Godwin's Law are [[Hitler Ate Sugar|"The Nazis supported X, therefore X is bad"]], or alternatively, [[Hitler Ate Sugar|"The Nazis opposed X, therefore X is good"]]. Whether using "Nazi" as a random insult falls under the Law is a matter of debate. Unfortunately, this has become so popular as to come full-circle, making any discussion of totalitarian regimes susceptible to "HAY GODWIN'S LAW HURR".
As Quirk's Exception points out, attempting to invoke Godwin's Law ''intentionally'' in order to force-terminate a thread rarely works. All the same, shouting "Hitler!" is a fun way to express your opinion that a thread should be put to rest. Of course, it's also helping Hitler indirectly, as his greatest expressed wish was to be remembered forever, which means that you're [[Hypocritical Humor|just as bad as Hitler, you horrible Nazi-bastard.]] However, this corollary ''is not'' in the law itself. Likewise, trying to bait your opponent into breaking the law is poor form too. Sometimes commenters will try to get around mentioning Hitler's name directly (e.g. "You know who ELSE got rejected in art school? THAT'S RIGHT."), but this is really no better.
Occasionally Stalin is referenced, often by [[Genre Savvy|people who are aware of]] Godwin's Law but want to convey a similar message; in this case, this might slip into the [[Commie Nazis]] trope. Some people will be topical and use [[Osama Bin Laden]] or slavery (especially America's brand of it) as the canonical ultimate evil. However, any of these can also be seen to have violated Godwin's Law, since the point remains: comparing your argument to a clear and non-debatable atrocity is simply bad debating, since it implies that the opposition has no redeeming qualities whatsoever, and is obviously insensitive to real-life victims and their descendants.
Line 26 ⟶ 31:
In fan circles, there's the "[[Fandom Heresy|true fan]]" argument, in which anyone who plays the "true fan" card automatically loses the argument:
{{quote|"After a rather influential message by M Sipher in 1997 the term 'true fan' has taken on a whole new meaning among some TransFans. It's a sort of twist on Godwin's Law where anybody who accuses somebody of not being a true fan automatically loses any argument, and is often discounted as a buffoon afterwards."
|'''[http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~sstoneb/tf/faq/fandom/fans.php Steve-o's Transformers FAQ]'''}}
Note that some lay claim to the ability to invoke "Bentsen's Defense" (i.e. "I knew Mike Godwin, Mike Godwin was a friend of mine -- you, sir are no Mike Godwin") to negate invocations of Godwin's Law. Note, also, that this is only available to those who can truthfully make the statement and that it is designed to foster reasoned discussion
Pre-Mike Godwin and its prevalence on the internet, the spoken and written word version of this was called ''[[wikipedia:Reductio ad Hitlerum|reductio ad Hitlerum]]'' or ''argumentum ad Hitlerum'', coined by ethical philosopher Leo Strauss in 1953. It means pretty much the same as Godwin's Law: [[Hitler Ate Sugar|"A view is not refuted by the fact that it happens to have been shared by Hitler."]]
George Orwell said something similar in his 1946 essay, "[
This trope is (perhaps not surprisingly, given [[Humans Are
Showcased on ''[[QI]]'' as "Godwin's Rule", giving an example of Hitler's love of animals (and disgust of fox hunting) as a fallacious reason to keep fox hunting legal, though this wiki considers that a wholly separate logical fallacy: [[Hitler Ate Sugar]].
Line 40 ⟶ 46:
Heavily overlaps with [[Demonization]] and can be seen as its modern, secular adaptation. See also [[Abomination Accusation Attack]]. Not to be confused with [[Godwin's Law of Time Travel]]. It ''might'' be justified when seriously discussing [[Would Be Rude to Say Genocide|genocide]], since the Holocaust is pretty much the [[Trope Codifier]] that most other genocides are measured against. The word was even first coined in reference to it.
Even Nazis aren't immune to it. On neo-Nazi forums, one participant will eventually accuse another participant of being a Jew.
{{reflist}}
[[Category:
[[Category:
[[Category:Laws and Formulas]]
[[Category:Net Culture]]
[[Category:New Media Tropes]]
[[Category:Reichstropen]]
[[Category:
| |||