Godwin's Law

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!

osarusan

Saipanne wrote: »

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

Pointing out the stupidity of a lazy Nazi reference is just as bad as making the lazy Nazi reference?

NoMore MrNiceGuy

Saipanne wrote: »

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.

The original claim doesn't say ( or imply) infinite posts. It's implying that the accusations of Naziism, or references to hitler or cognates like femi-nazis, will turn up sooner rather than later in long running but far far from infinite political threads.

unlike say references to lollard founder John Wycliffe which you would only really expect in discussions of medieval Lollardism.

andrew

Saipanne wrote: »

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


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

Fine, to WWII, I'll add 'discussions about modern day Nazisim' and Nazi-ism in general, though I thuoght that'd be a given.

In most other conversations, there are better examples. For racist state policies, how about South Africa?

NoMore MrNiceGuy

The irish Godwin would for the moment be water charges.

Saipanne

NoMore MrNiceGuy wrote: »

The irish Godwin would for the moment be water charges.

Yes. NoMores Law?

Karl Stein

SeanW wrote: »

1) It highlights when someone loses an argument

That depends on two preconditions:

1. That the discussion/argument will have zero-sum outcome with a winner and loser.
2. That the person invoking Godwin's Law is competent enough to employ it.

In my experience GL is normally cited by people who haven't a clue.

2) It prevents people from abusing the "Nazi" label, so that words like "Nazi" and "Hitler" retain their real meaning

I doubt it.

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

There doesn't have to be a genuine comparison for something to be exempt. For example:

'US corporations such as IBM and Ford enabled the Nazi war machine'.

A demonstrable fact that isn't reductio ad absurdum.

And the above will often be replied to with:

OMG you Godwinned the thread, LOL, ha ha I win, LOL. Na na n-na na!

astrofool

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.

It really means, if you're engaging in meaningful debate, avoid using hyperbolic comparisons, as, if you are, you've likely lost the debate already. Nazi's happen to be the most visible form of hyperbolic comparison, and thus, anyone can recognise it. Other examples could be comparing water protesters to ISIS, or people using the phrase "like I was raped" over getting short changed on something.

The mathematics part comes in that as long as a thread goes on long enough, the chances are that there will be someone simple minded enough to come along and make that type of comparison.

Sometimes the simpleton comes in the very first post, this thread could be a 1:1

Saipanne

NoMore MrNiceGuy wrote: »

The original claim doesn't say ( or imply) infinite posts. It's implying that the accusations of Naziism, or references to hitler or cognates like femi-nazis, will turn up sooner rather than later in long running but far far from infinite political threads.

unlike say references to lollard founder John Wycliffe which you would only really expect in discussions of medieval Lollardism.

"As the discussion grows longer" does imply infinity, actually. Prof Godwin would have understood the implications of not specifying the size of 'n', I'm sure, even if you don't.

NoMore MrNiceGuy

Saipanne wrote: »

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

Bit of well poisoning there.

IsaacWunder

NoMore MrNiceGuy wrote: »

The irish Godwin would for the moment be water charges.

You're too late: That clown, Joan Burton, came out and compared water protesters to fascists yesterday. She also compared them to British army torturers, both insulting the victims of torture by making light of their abuse and the overwhelming majority of anti water protesters, who are peaceful.