Difference between revisions of "Godwin's law"
(The Wonkette Nazi Analogy Flowchart) |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<hide> | <hide> | ||
[[page type::article]] | [[page type::article]] | ||
| − | [[thing type:: | + | [[thing type::aphorism]] |
| − | [[category: | + | [[category:aphorisms]] |
</hide> | </hide> | ||
[[File:The-Wonkette-Nazi-Analogy-Flowchart.jpg|right|400px]] | [[File:The-Wonkette-Nazi-Analogy-Flowchart.jpg|right|400px]] | ||
==About== | ==About== | ||
| − | [[Godwin's Law]] is an [[ | + | [[Godwin's Law]] is an [[aphorism]] having to do with the use of comparisons to [[Adolf Hitler]] or [[Nazi]]sm. |
The law was originally stated in 1990 by Mike Godwin in this form: | The law was originally stated in 1990 by Mike Godwin in this form: | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
A tradition has also emerged that the first time such a comparison is made, the conversation is over and the person who made the comparison automatically loses the argument; this is sometimes referred to as "Godwin's Corollary", though a more accurate term would be "Godwin's [Law] tradition". | A tradition has also emerged that the first time such a comparison is made, the conversation is over and the person who made the comparison automatically loses the argument; this is sometimes referred to as "Godwin's Corollary", though a more accurate term would be "Godwin's [Law] tradition". | ||
==Legitimate Usage== | ==Legitimate Usage== | ||
| − | === | + | ===Candid World=== |
The [[blog]] [[Submitted to a Candid World]] has [http://www.acandidworld.net/2009/04/17/your-papers-please-birther-publication-tacitly-links-itself-to-nazism/ proposed] that inclusion of the following language should negate the effects of the Godwin's Law tradition: | The [[blog]] [[Submitted to a Candid World]] has [http://www.acandidworld.net/2009/04/17/your-papers-please-birther-publication-tacitly-links-itself-to-nazism/ proposed] that inclusion of the following language should negate the effects of the Godwin's Law tradition: | ||
<blockquote>I, being duly sworn, depose and say: | <blockquote>I, being duly sworn, depose and say: | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
# However, the post being critiqued makes explicit or implicit reference to Nazis or Nazism. | # However, the post being critiqued makes explicit or implicit reference to Nazis or Nazism. | ||
# As such, any reference herein to Nazism is wholly derivative of the original post, and a good-faith attempt at criticism. | # As such, any reference herein to Nazism is wholly derivative of the original post, and a good-faith attempt at criticism. | ||
| − | Therefore, the rule of | + | Therefore, the rule of Godwin's Law, or Godwin's Corollary ("any individual referencing Nazis in an internet debate is deemed to have lost") should be waived. |
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
===Issuepedia=== | ===Issuepedia=== | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
This is a specific case of a more general rule, which should probably apply in any discussion: | This is a specific case of a more general rule, which should probably apply in any discussion: | ||
* Any attempt to associate a given entity (idea, person, organization, etc.) with anything extremely unpopular (such as Hitler or Nazis) must include an explanation of the grounds for the association, otherwise the speaker is practicing the [[rhetorical deception]] of [[guilt by association]] and should be [[recognized as insincere]]. | * Any attempt to associate a given entity (idea, person, organization, etc.) with anything extremely unpopular (such as Hitler or Nazis) must include an explanation of the grounds for the association, otherwise the speaker is practicing the [[rhetorical deception]] of [[guilt by association]] and should be [[recognized as insincere]]. | ||
| − | == | + | ===Mike Godwin=== |
| + | Mike Godwin himself [https://twitter.com/sfmnemonic/status/896884949634232320 has stated] that "[[white nationalist]]"s (referring specifically to those who [[2017/08/12/Charlottesville Nazi march|marched on Charlottesville VA]], as he made clear in an [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2017/08/14/the-creator-of-godwins-law-explains-why-some-nazi-comparisons-dont-break-his-famous-internet-rule/ interview with the ''Washington Post''] and a [https://twitter.com/sfmnemonic/status/897174006880718848 follow-up Tweet]) may safely be compared to Nazis. "By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with you." | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Related== | ||
| + | * [[Blake's Law]] parallels Godwin's Law with respect to equating atheism and religious fundamentalism. | ||
| + | ==Outlinks== | ||
===Reference=== | ===Reference=== | ||
* {{rationalwiki}} | * {{rationalwiki}} | ||
Revision as of 23:33, 14 August 2017
About
Godwin's Law is an aphorism having to do with the use of comparisons to Adolf Hitler or Nazism.
The law was originally stated in 1990 by Mike Godwin in this form:
As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.
Usenet being now largely supplanted by internet discussion forums and chatrooms, Godwin's Law's applicability has been transferred to those venues.
A tradition has also emerged that the first time such a comparison is made, the conversation is over and the person who made the comparison automatically loses the argument; this is sometimes referred to as "Godwin's Corollary", though a more accurate term would be "Godwin's [Law] tradition".
Legitimate Usage
Candid World
The blog Submitted to a Candid World has proposed that inclusion of the following language should negate the effects of the Godwin's Law tradition:
I, being duly sworn, depose and say:
- This post references Nazis.
- However, the post being critiqued makes explicit or implicit reference to Nazis or Nazism.
- As such, any reference herein to Nazism is wholly derivative of the original post, and a good-faith attempt at criticism.
Therefore, the rule of Godwin's Law, or Godwin's Corollary ("any individual referencing Nazis in an internet debate is deemed to have lost") should be waived.
Issuepedia
It has become clear that Godwin's tradition hinders the free expression of ideas when such a comparison is actually legitimate, as became increasingly the case during the presidency of George W. Bush. We therefore propose the following modification to this tradition:
- Anyone who makes a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler must immediately state the grounds upon which they are making this comparison, otherwise they automatically lose the argument.
This is a specific case of a more general rule, which should probably apply in any discussion:
- Any attempt to associate a given entity (idea, person, organization, etc.) with anything extremely unpopular (such as Hitler or Nazis) must include an explanation of the grounds for the association, otherwise the speaker is practicing the rhetorical deception of guilt by association and should be recognized as insincere.
Mike Godwin
Mike Godwin himself has stated that "white nationalist"s (referring specifically to those who marched on Charlottesville VA, as he made clear in an interview with the Washington Post and a follow-up Tweet) may safely be compared to Nazis. "By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with you."
Related
- Blake's Law parallels Godwin's Law with respect to equating atheism and religious fundamentalism.
Outlinks
Reference
- RationalWiki
- Wikipedia
- Conservapedia
dKosopedia: no equivalent page (as of 2009-04-17)SourceWatch: no equivalent page (as of 2009-04-17)
Discussion
- 2010-07-01 Godwin's Law FAQ, or "How to post about Nazis and get away with it"