Godwin's Law

Saipanne

I made this point in another thread, I'll expand here.

Godwin's Law states that: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1"'

This is such a stupid concept. Any of 1000s popular/infamous figures or events could have been the subject here and it would still be true. And yet people treat it like it is a unique phenomenon, relating only to Nazis.

The probability of ANY comparison or any statement approaches 1, as a discussion grows. No matter how unlikely.

Anytime I see people referencing Godwin's Law in a thread where someone makes a Nazi reference, all I read is ”I have little or no understanding of probability".

Educate yourselves.

DeadHand

You're as bad as Hitler for bringing this up.

jonnyfingers

I'm sorry to say that you also need to educate yourself. The purpose of Godwin's law has always been rhetorical. The mathematics of it don't even matter.

*enter obligatory Hitler comparison here*

Ghost Train

it is a good way to judge when a thread has run its course... this thread has probably reached that point

A Primal Nut

I'm pretty sure everyone knows that; you're pointing out the obvious.

Godwin's Law is just a joke to make fun of people who bring up the Nazis for no reason.

Karl Stein

It's a pointless observation of no substance and its invoking adds nothing to any discussion.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Karl Stein wrote: »

It's a pointless observation of no substance and adds nothing to any discussion.

Karl Stein.

Sounds like a real Nazi name to me.

Donkey Oaty

Karl Stein wrote: »

It's a pointless observation of no substance and adds nothing to any discussion.

You could say that about most of the comments on AH though.

Including this one.

The_Valeyard

Hitler
Hitler
Hitler
Hitler
Hitler
Hitler
Hitler
Mussolini
Hitler
Hitler
Hitler
Hitler
Hitler
Hitler
Hitler

Karl Stein

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Karl Stein.

Sounds like a real Nazi name to me.

Only at the weekends.

Pat Mustard

Karl Stein wrote: »

Only at the weekends.

Just plan ole Chucky Stone during the week?

Saipanne

jonnyfingers wrote: »

I'm sorry to say that you also need to educate yourself. The purpose of Godwin's law has always been rhetorical. The mathematics of it don't even matter.

*enter obligatory Hitler comparison here*

If the mathematics of it doesn't matter, then the ENTIRE concept is redundant. Thank you for getting behind me. I appreciate it.

Vomit

DeadHand wrote: »

You're as bad as Hitler for bringing this up.

Literally word for word the first reply I expected to see when I opened this thread!

whisky_galore

A Primal Nut wrote: »

I'm pretty sure everyone knows that; you're pointing out the obvious.

Godwin's Law is just a joke to make fun of people who bring up the Nazis for no reason.

I did 'Nazi' that coming...

Saipanne

A Primal Nut wrote: »

I'm pretty sure everyone knows that; you're pointing out the obvious.

Godwin's Law is just a joke to make fun of people who bring up the Nazis for no reason.

Godwins Law is a prime example of pointing out the obvious.

Its like me saying that you saying "obvious" is Saipannes Law.

You just Saipanned the thread.

MonkeyTennis

I knew you were Goering to say that.

osarusan

Jaysus that's gas.

Karl Stein

jonnyfingers wrote: »

I'm sorry to say that you also need to educate yourself. The purpose of Godwin's law has always been rhetorical. The mathematics of it don't even matter.

The purpose of Godwin's Law and the probability of its 'applicability' are two separate issues.

The purpose of Godwin's Law (inasmuch as a meaningless observation can have a purpose) is often confused, by those who cite it, with it being a form of logical fallacy.

smcgiff

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Hitler
Hitler
Hitler
Hitler
Hitler
Hitler
Hitler
Mother-In-Law
Hitler
Hitler
Hitler
Hitler
Hitler
Hitler
Hitler

.

Saipanne

Karl Stein wrote: »

The purpose of Godwin's Law and the probability of its 'applicability' are two separate issues.

The purpose of Godwin's Law, inasmuch as a meaningless observation can have a purpose, is often confused by those who cite it with it being a form of logical fallacy.

Yep.

Like when people cite it as if they have cut someone's argument in two, somehow.

Dravokivich

It has nothing to do with probability, but of a guy who called himself Godwin that tended to turn as many topics as he could towards issues with Nazis/Hitler .

Saipanne

Dravokivich wrote: »

It has nothing to do with probability .

No? What is the actual definition?

Let's see

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

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

And where does that statement come from? Why, Mr. Godwin himself.

DeadHand

Don't even Goebbels there.

DeadHand

MonkeyTennis wrote: »

I knew you were Goering to say that.

I was just thinking something Himm-ilar.

Donkey Oaty

Saipanne wrote: »

Why, Mr. Godwin himself.

Who he?

That's "Dr Godwin" to you.

The_Valeyard

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Who he?

That's "Dr Godwin" to you.

Actually it's Professor Godwin now.

Saipanne

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Actually it's Professor Godwin now.

A putdown within a putdown within a putdown.

Nice.

osarusan

Saipanne wrote: »

No? What is the actual definition?

Let's see

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

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

And where does that statement come from? Why, Mr. Godwin himself.

Here is Godwin himself also:

Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust

Donkey Oaty

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Actually it's Professor Godwin now.

As he makes up the laws as he goes along, we should really call him "Judge Godwin" or even better, "Führer Godwin".

Saipanne

osarusan wrote: »

Here is Godwin himself also:

That is quite a distance from "nothing to do with probability", which is what I responded to in the post you quoted.

Thanks for confirming that for me.

osarusan

Saipanne wrote: »

That is quite a distance from "nothing to do with probability", which is what I responded to in the post you quoted.

Thanks for confirming that for me.

That's the second time in the thread you've taken something that indicated you are wrong, and pretended that it reinforced your point.

I don't know who you expect will fall for it.

Saipanne

osarusan wrote: »

That's the second time in the thread you've taken something that indicated you are wrong, and pretended that it reinforced your point.

I don't know who you expect will fall for it.

Nothing to do with probability, even though it uses the language and concepts of probability theory.

Makes sense.

osarusan

For what it's worth, I didn't imagine anybody actually believed it was a law or anything like that.

I've always assumed everybody knew it was a way to highlight the absolute stupidity of comparing something trivial to Nazi crimes.

Something alone these lines - "Last night I was in a pub and the barman refused to take my order. He said I was too drunk. That's how Nazi Germany started."

Dan_Solo

osarusan wrote: »

For what it's worth, I didn't imagine anybody actually believed it was a law or anything like that.

I've always assumed everybody knew it was a way to highlight the absolute stupidity of comparing something trivial to Nazi crimes.

Something alone these lines - "Last night I was in a pub and the barman refused to take my order. He said I was too drunk. That's how Nazi Germany started."

Have a look at some threads here about Sinn Fein if you want to see exactly this stupidity in action...

Saipanne

osarusan wrote: »

For what it's worth, I didn't imagine anybody actually believed it was a law or anything like that.

I've always assumed everybody knew it was a way to highlight the absolute stupidity of comparing something trivial to Nazi crimes.

Something alone these lines - "Last night I was in a pub and the barman refused to take my order. He said I was too drunk. That's how Nazi Germany started."

But sometimes the comparisons are appropriate, but everything gets tarred with the sh1t stained Godwin's brush. The argument for morons.

Dan_Solo

Saipanne wrote: »

But sometimes the comparisons are appropriate, but everything gets tarred with the sh1t stained Godwin's brush. The argument for morons.

That's the reflex response when everybody calls Godwin and starts laughing at yet another hilarious comparison to Nazis alright. Well spotted.

andrew

Saipanne wrote: »

Nothing to do with probability, even though it uses the language and concepts of probability theory.

Makes sense.

Well it does make sense, insofar as analogies are a thing which make sense.

Also, there is rarely a comparison with Nazi germany that could not be replaced by another, better, more specific comparison. So much happened in WWII that any comparison with the Nazis is bound to be so general as to be meaningless.

osarusan

Saipanne wrote: »

But sometimes the comparisons are appropriate, but everything gets tarred with the sh1t stained Godwin's brush. The argument for morons.

In the event that the comparisons are appropriate, the person making the Godwin comment doesn't know what they are talking about.

That's their fault, nobody else's.

It doesn't make the concept (which is rhetorical, not mathematical) 'stupid' as you said in your OP.

Saipanne

andrew wrote: »

Well it does make sense, insofar as analogies are a thing which make sense.

I have an analogy for you. A blind man will not thank you for a looking glass.

Dan_Solo

osarusan wrote: »

In the event that the comparisons are appropriate, the person making the Godwin comment doesn't know what they are talking about.

That's their fault, nobody else's.

It doesn't make the concept (which is rhetorical, not mathematical) 'stupid' as you said in your OP.

Methinks *somebody* gets Godwin called on them fairly often and has a bee in the bonnet...

SeanW

Godwins Law (as a rule) serves two vital purposes:

1) It highlights when someone loses an argument, because they take it to Reductio Ad Nazium level.
2) It prevents people from abusing the "Nazi" label, so that words like "Nazi" and "Hitler" retain their real meaning, and avoids cheapening the suffering of people who lived and died under REAL Naziism.

Of course, genuine comparisons to Hitler/Nazis, i.e. when discussing actual Nazis or something genuinely similar to Naziism, is or should be exempt.

Saipanne

osarusan wrote: »

In the event that the comparisons are appropriate, the person making the Godwin comment doesn't know what they are talking about.

That's their fault, nobody else's.

It doesn't make the concept (which is rhetorical, not mathematical) 'stupid' as you said in your OP.

Its stupid because it may as well be about anything. Its not the slightest bit clever. Its for morons only.

Dan_Solo

The argument that Godwin's law is only for morons is only for morons.

Saipanne

SeanW wrote: »

Godwins Law (as a rule) serves two vital purposes:

1) It highlights when someone loses an argument, because they take it to Reductio Ad Nazium level.
2) It prevents people from abusing the "Nazi" label, so that words like "Nazi" and "Hitler" retain their real meaning, and avoids cheapening the suffering of people who lived and died under REAL Naziism.

Of course, genuine comparisons to Hitler/Nazis, i.e. when discussing actual Nazis or something genuinely similar to Naziism, is or should be exempt.

1) is good

2) Does it? Does it really?


They should be exempt, but people jump in there with it the second the third Reich is referenced.

osarusan

Saipanne wrote: »

Its stupid because it may as well be about anything.

The Nazi regime is often considered to be the most evil in history (or, at least, it is a regime that is recent and its crimes are well documented).

It's exactly this level of evil which makes the comparisons with something trivial so inappropriate.

If it were about virtually anything else*, the contrast wouldn't be as stark, and the commenter's stupidity wouldn't be as plain to see.

*Communist Russia is another one that gets thrown about a lot, and such comparisons deserve similar ridicule.

andrew

Saipanne wrote: »

Its stupid because it may as well be about anything. Its not the slightest bit clever. Its for morons only.

It's that aspect of Nazi references which Godwin's law point out. If you need to rely on a reference to the Nazis, and you're not in a discussion about WWII, you're stupid.

sheesh

you are all worse than Stalin

Saipanne

osarusan wrote: »

The Nazi regime is often considered to be the most evil in history.

It's exactly this level of evil which makes the comparisons with something trivial so inappropriate.

If it were about virtually anything else*, the contrast wouldn't be as stark, and the commenter's stupidity wouldn't be as plain to see.

*Communist Russia is another one that gets thrown about a lot, and such comparisons deserve similar ridicule.

Every hyperbolic argument should have a "law", then...

Its a poor and lazy substitute for an argument. Lazy and moronic. Just as bad as a lazy Nazi reference.

IsaacWunder

I propose Crilly's Law: the longer a thread goes on an Irish discussion forum the greater the probability someone will post a Father Ted quote.

Saipanne

andrew wrote: »

It's that aspect of Nazi references which Godwin's law point out. If you need to rely on a reference to the Nazis, and you're not in a discussion about WWII, you're stupid.

Or a discussion about far right politics? Or modern day Nazism? Or racist state policies? Or pre WWII Nazism?


No, no. You're right. Only WWII...

The_Valeyard

IsaacWunder wrote: »

I propose Crilly's Law: the longer a thread goes on an Irish discussion forum the greater the probability someone will post a Father Ted quote.

Down with that sort of thing!