Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Godwin's Law simply states that as a discussion's length and/or number of participants increases, the probability of someone making a comparison of another's position with Hitler or the Nazis approaches 100%.
Godwin was happy when people referred to this in order to challenge...
Quote:
a poorly reasoned, hyperbolic invocation of Nazis or the Holocaust and call the arguer to account, claiming the shallow argument had proved (or, sometimes, had “violated”) Godwin’s Law.
Good point. It definitely makes a poster think twice before posting stuff like "Hitler was a vegetarian who drank only an occasional beer. Therefore all such people are Nazis". Same thing for those who support a stronger national defense.
But, and here's a crucial point, Godwin himself did not mean to make taboo all comparisons with Hitler or the Nazis - only spurious ones. If such and such an idea or act is an intrinsic part of Nazi ideology that is not shared by the mainstream of other ideologies (usually conservative or 'rightist' ones, but not restricted to them), then Godwin says there may be a plausible point made with Hitler/Nazi comparisons. But as he said, you'd better know what you are talking about first.
So what does it mean to know what you are talking about before you express such comparisons?
Do you have to be a well-published Ph.D specializing in German history, Anthropology of Germany, Right Wing Ideologies, and such?
Or is it simply enough to be well-read by a wide variety of internationally respected scholars in such fields, along with full knowledge of the context of the quote?
I have one B.A. in History (concentration, post 1789-Europe to the then-present (1990)) and I don't feel qualified to simply make such comparisons to Hitler.
Regardless of what your criteria are, I think we can all agree that merely seeing something on the History or Discover channel alone is not a strong basis to support such a claim. At best, TV programs of that nature are more though-provokers and nothing more.
I think the "he's a Nazi" get's way over used and had been for years. It's become a cliché to just throw that term out anytime someone disagrees with a point. Even, to use your illustration, to somehow equate Nazism and "Right Wing" ideologies. In reality most Right Wing groups abhor Nazism.
Now a different comparison might be made about Nazi like tactics used by any group, regardless of political goals, when their actual agenda is not Nazi in nature. That's a different discussion we could have about some groups on all sides of the political spectra.
Status:
"Moldy Tater Gangrene, even before Moscow Marge."
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,599,675 times
Reputation: 5697
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnff
I think the "he's a Nazi" get's way over used and had been for years. It's become a cliché to just throw that term out anytime someone disagrees with a point. Even, to use your illustration, to somehow equate Nazism and "Right Wing" ideologies. In reality most Right Wing groups abhor Nazism.
Now a different comparison might be made about Nazi like tactics used by any group, regardless of political goals, when their actual agenda is not Nazi in nature. That's a different discussion we could have about some groups on all sides of the political spectra.
You're correct in all this, including falsely equating "Right Wing" ideologies to Naziism. That's why I included scholars specializing in right-wing movements - presumably they have both the depth and breath of knowledge and experience necessary to differentiate between Nazis and other right-wing movements, including Italian fascism and other pre-war fascist groups.
There's also different flavors of right-wing thought, just as there are of left-wing thought. Even in a close-to-extreme case, the KKK and the Nazis may overlap about the place of black in particular in the "racial order", but reject the Nazi's antidemocratic beliefs. The KKK does believe in democracy for white people, particularly those of "anglo-celtic" stock. Not to speak of the differences between economic Libertarians, religio-political conservatives, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
I'm glad the OP posted this. I tire of people who never feel that comparisons to Hitler and Nazis are appropriate in a discussion.
YW, phetaroi, although I cannot stress enough--- you'd better know what the hell you're talking about before you do? (the similarities and DISsimilarities of X-group and actual Nazis, and even within the set of similarities how frequently you find such ideas among more respectable center-right political groups). Regardless, it's always best to be circumspect about such things.
A thought of mine has been that our tendency to think in linear left/right politics does not capture the true multi dimensional nature of things. An example might be conservatives are "right" and liberals are "left" so we extend that to think libertarians are "righter" and socialists are "lefter" when they are really more orthogonal.
I think this law needs to be applied more often. Since the constant use of Nazi analogies against political opponents (something which to an extent has been fueled by the internet), has served to significantly dumb down the tone of serious political discussions. The amount of the Hitler and Nazi comparisons used in the recent US elections was astounding. Alarmingly not just by regular folks on social media, but those with significant influence within the media and political establishment. It's true to say that it's not a one way street. Anyone who's slightly right of center is likely to be compared to Hitler at one point, but increasingly left wingers also receive it back since the Nazis were "National Socialists". So now political debates increasingly degenerate into both sides trying to accuse the other of being responsible for Hitler, even if the initial topic of discussion was far removed from Hitler and the Nazis.
Is this how grown-ups now debate politics, but calling each other Nazis? Not only does it disrespect those who suffered under the Nazi regime, it trivializes the ideology to an extent where those who make the comparisons clearly have little no understanding of the Nazis or how they operated.
Status:
"Moldy Tater Gangrene, even before Moscow Marge."
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,599,675 times
Reputation: 5697
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnff
A thought of mine has been that our tendency to think in linear left/right politics does not capture the true multi dimensional nature of things. An example might be conservatives are "right" and liberals are "left" so we extend that to think libertarians are "righter" and socialists are "lefter" when they are really more orthogonal.
Yep. Anyone who takes political quizzes and is slightly politically aware knows even the 4-quadrant square of Social Ideology and Economic Ideology still doesn't capture it. Supporting legalization of marijuana and prostitution on one hand, and simultaneously supporting voluntary student-led prayer in public schools and religious-messaged ornamentation or attire on the other could be called Libertarian. The reverse, government control over every aspect of a person's life is either authoritarian or totalitarian (the latter is the extreme of the other, I think; although I'm sure there's some deeper matter differentiating between the two).
Still, what about national defense or law enforcement? Someone who's moderately liberal/left on both social and economic issues may be all for strengthening national defense (usually labeled a conservative issue). Then there's foreign policy (support social justice or economic development, at least in the short term)?
So in truth, charts and graphs as we know them are inadequate, even with today's technology. It requires a hypercube to capture all major aspects of socio-political beliefs. So where do the Nazis themselves fall on that hypercube. Then, to be really careful, you have to find out where non-racial fascism falls, then to less extreme belief systems usually labeled right-of-center (even if only moderately so).
The same thing goes for leftist beliefs and communism. Most people on the left that I see online do support the capitalist system, but wants to tax the wealthy in order to both (a) provide key services to the population generally regarded as a human right, and/or (b) prevent power imbalances among society's members. You don't need to abolish the practice of private property and wealth ownership to accomplish this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caligula12
I think this law needs to be applied more often. Since the constant use of Nazi analogies against political opponents (something which to an extent has been fueled by the internet), has served to significantly dumb down the tone of serious political discussions. The amount of the Hitler and Nazi comparisons used in the recent US elections was astounding. Alarmingly not just by regular folks on social media, but those with significant influence within the media and political establishment. It's true to say that it's not a one way street. Anyone who's slightly right of center is likely to be compared to Hitler at one point, but increasingly left wingers also receive it back since the Nazis were "National Socialists". So now political debates increasingly degenerate into both sides trying to accuse the other of being responsible for Hitler, even if the initial topic of discussion was far removed from Hitler and the Nazis.
Is this how grown-ups now debate politics, but calling each other Nazis? Not only does it disrespect those who suffered under the Nazi regime, it trivializes the ideology to an extent where those who make the comparisons clearly have little no understanding of the Nazis or how they operated.
Mostly agreed. Still, I will say that (a) sometimes a non-Nazi's belief system can reasonably be called fascist (i.e. focus on extreme nationalism, general xenophobia, hard-core extreme social darwinism, etc. without the explicit "formal" system springing from "scientific racism"), (b) point (a) can be a gateway belief into outright Naziism or something too close to it for democracy's comfort, (c) some few beliefs are in every essential way indistinguishable from Naziism - even if they target some other group instead of Jews, LGBT, the disabled, etc.
Essentially though, I agree with your broader point about just kneejerk throwing around the term Nazi. I've called certain people and ideas on C-D Social Darwinist, and maybe fascist a time or two that I don't recall. But I don't ever recall using Nazi or would imagine I ever would. Even the less extreme terms I used still require careful thought before use.
Here's an interesting piece where Mr. Godwin is asked, point blank, to clarify &/or to 'update' his law, particularly in light of recent events & history:
Quote:
...The man who coined “Godwin’s law,” an adage from the early days of the internet that derides the prevalent use of Nazi comparisons in online discussions, has sanctioned the analogy for one specific group: neo-Nazis. ...
Godwin’s law author endorses comparing neo-Nazis to Nazis
'By all means, compare these $hitheads to the Nazis. Again and again. I'm with you,' says eponymous author of famed internet adage
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
