Godwin's Law - a discussion

Dr. Eddies Wingman

Dr. Eddies Wingman

Brighter than thousand_suns
I'll use the following quote from Perun as a starting point.

Perun said:
I got out-Godwinned by an Iranian today.

Me: "I picked up some books about Khomeini for my presentation yesterday, but I'm not really satisfied with them."
Her: "How so?"
Me: "They have obvious political tendencies. I'd rather have something neutral as well."
Her: "They're not writing neutral books about Hitler either, are they?"
Me: "You said the H-word."
Her: "You said the Kh-word."
Click to expand...

Now, part I of Godwin's law simply states that as an internet discussion goes on, the probability of somebody making a reference to Hitler or the Nazis will approach 1. Especially for political discussions, I find this to be close to the truth.

However, I have a bit of a problem with the second part of it; the claim that the one who brings the Austrian painter into the discussion, automatically has "lost" the discussion. It does seem like a widespread opinion, but why? In the discussion quoted above, the reference to Hitler was obviously meant to illustrate that in the opinion of many Iranians, Khomeini was no better than Hitler. Of course, I doubt the average Eastern European would agree, after what Nazi Germany did there, but if this Iranian woman felt that it was an appropriate comparison - why not? Leaders like Hitler, Stalin and Mao, with millions of lives on their consciences, can all serve as examples of ultimate abuse of power. I haven't seen any equivalent to Godwin's law for references to Stalin.

Therefore, I raise the question: What is the reason for stating that one who brings Hitler or Nazis into a discussion where these are not directly involved in the topic, should be considered to have lost that discussion?
 
Have you ever run into stuff like "evolution lead to the Holocaust!" or "Hitler was an atheist!"? Nazi references and comparisons are all over the place and they're rarely justified or relevant. Most of the time they're just cheap appeals to emotion, using the horrors of Nazi Germany to score points with the audience.

So while I wouldn't say that a person who brings up Hitler has lost, there are few discussions where it's justified. 
 
Shadow said:
Have you ever run into stuff like "evolution lead to the Holocaust!" or "Hitler was an atheist!"? Nazi references and comparisons are all over the place and they're rarely justified or relevant. Most of the time they're just cheap appeals to emotion, using the horrors of Nazi Germany to score points with the audience. 
Click to expand...


That's really a different thing than I was thinking about. The kind of parallels you mention here are clear examples of irrational links to Hitler or the Third Reich. That is a general point for every argument that is based on that some bad person (here; Hitler) has taken arguments (about the survival of the fittest) from some idea (the theory of evolution) which really has nothing to do with the bad person.

If somebody comes up with arguments of that kind, I'd actually say it's justified to say they have lost the discussion, because they are bringing straw-men to the table.
 
Well, that's the sort of thing people typically refer to when they say people who bring up Nazis lose the argument.
 
As said before, I think it always serves a discussion better, when arguments are made, in order to show why a comparison would be unjust to make. Explaining something is always better than killing something, or leaving something/someone.

I find it better to continue a(n uncensored) discussion respectfully instead of ending it prematurely. When someone ends quickly without proper arguments it gives the other (at least me) the idea that that person ran out of ideas.
 
Forostar said:
As said before, I think it always serves a discussion better, when arguments are made, in order to show why a comparison would be unjust to make. Explaining something is always better than killing something.
Click to expand...

I sort of agree with this, but the problem is that unjustified Nazi references tend to bring the discussion down to a level where it's no longer interesting. You get to the point where you have to waste your time debunking straw men instead of arguing properly.

(The examples I mentioned above aren't very good though, as they're usually brought up by creationists. Arguing with creationists is always an exercise in debunking straw men.)
 
You may wonder where to draw the line when you say "unjustified Nazi references". When is it justified, when not? When it's on the edge or when there's a difference in opinion, I'd like to hear both points of view.

But indeed, when people are terribly convinced about something (even if their arguments seem worthless) it's less enjoyable to convince them that they are wrong. There has to be an opening. If there's no opening, explaining something can be annoying at times.
 
I guess it purely depends on your views on Hitler and the Nazis. If you take offense or find the subject a little too emotional, you'd take it as a low blow and hence would see it as lowering the quality of the argument.
If you were less effected by such a comparison, you'd be more inclined to consider the comment.

It would also depend on a variety of other factors, such as if you know the person was making a exaggerated comparison on purpose to lighten the argument or something.

The key thing is though, in text form without detailed description, we cannot take any indicators to show the person really means it or is exaggerating. This is something I constantly come across time and again, there are so many things we can mean with the same words thanks to the added information we can transmit through the sound of our voice, hand gestures or facial expressions.
This makes it difficult to judge if the person is "unjustified" or not when referring to how bad the Nazis are in relation to Iran.

This is also why I tend to believe relationships based on the internet or other text-forms is generally bad, its all too easy to take something the opposite way to how it was meant, especially considering people of different nationalities and their understanding and communication of other languages.
 
I wonder what would hitler say about that.

Now to be serious. I actually find pretty funny. Also, mentioning the law will make you lose the discussion as well.
 
Eddies Wingman said:
However, I have a bit of a problem with the second part of it; the claim that the one who brings the Austrian painter into the discussion, automatically has "lost" the discussion. It does seem like a widespread opinion, but why? In the discussion quoted above, the reference to Hitler was obviously meant to illustrate that in the opinion of many Iranians, Khomeini was no better than Hitler. Of course, I doubt the average Eastern European would agree, after what Nazi Germany did there, but if this Iranian woman felt that it was an appropriate comparison - why not? Leaders like Hitler, Stalin and Mao, with millions of lives on their consciences, can all serve as examples of ultimate abuse of power. I haven't seen any equivalent to Godwin's law for references to Stalin.
Click to expand...

I feel I should have given the quoted post a bit more background. That Iranian and I are good friends and we always have talks like that. I try to outsmart her, she tries to outsmart me... it's a thing we do. All the time. Hence, the conversation I paraphrased and that was quoted here wasn't dead serious. I only posted that in the silly forum because I thought some people who post on an internet forum would smirk at it.

This is not supposed to kill the thread or discussion, it's just to clarify the original situation. Now, please continue. ;)
 
Perun said:
Hence, the conversation I paraphrased and that was quoted here wasn't dead serious. I
Click to expand...

Well, it served as a good example. I think there's a tendency for people to declare a participant's arguments null and void whenever the H word is written. It is also commonly stated as a "follow-up" on Godwin's Law that if you mention Hitler, you lose.

Of course, when references to Hitler, Nazism (or to other bad people or ideologies) are made where they are completely out of place, like in a discussion about biological evolution, those references will only serve to make the value of the argument smaller. Shadow has explained well what he means.

However, when one sees tendencies in for example the media of a country that one finds similar to the heyday of Goebbels, wouldn't it be right to say so? Should the reference to the Nazis be avoided, when one thinks it is due?

Finally, an example: In Norwegian discussion boards related to politics, and especially where the Israel/Palestine question is discussed, Nazi references are abundant and are thrown either way. This is, in my opinion, an example of a debate where one should beextremely careful with that sort of comparisons - in no other debate is a reference to Hitler more certain to invoke a flame war.
 
Then let it be a flame war.

Some of those orthodox Israelian Jews are no hair better than the average Nazi of the past. I am always shocked when I see interviews with those people. If they had total political power, the consequences would be devastating.

I make such a comparison because I wish those conservative people (included the ones who agree with them) would learn from WWII (even if they wouldn't read this forum).

Godwin's Law might be my enemy, fine. I say what I want to say.
 
I'm not going to start a flame war. And I also want to point out that the Nazi label is frequently put on far more moderate forces than the most radical Jewish nationalists.

(I don't understand why you bring the orthodox Jews into the picture, are they very nationalistic? Out of those settlers who are violent, few are orthodox. Or I might be way off. If you can provide me with some reliable source to tell me the opposite, I've learnt something today. Which is positive)
 
Eddies Wingman said:
I'm not going to start a flame war. And I also want to point out that the Nazi label is frequently put on far more moderate forces than the most radical Jewish nationalists.
Click to expand...

I know you didn't want to start a flame war. I only meant that some things are inevitable, when points of view differ, and when Godwin's Law is not in use.

Eddies Wingman said:
(I don't understand why you bring the orthodox Jews into the picture, are they very nationalistic? Out of those settlers who are violent, few are orthodox. Or I might be way off. If you can provide me with some reliable source to tell me the opposite, I've learnt something today. Which is positive)
Click to expand...

Your reply is exactly the reason why Godwin's Law should not be used all the time:
Like this you can explain to me that the orthodox Jew might be a wrong term to use. You could be right, I could be wrong (maybe not). I need to seek that out, and formulate it better.

edit: I meant Jewish colonists/settlers. Hope that term is better.

By the way, I didn't necessarily mean violence only when I made that comparison. I mean the determination, the will of those settlers, to take land from the Palestinians, to take the Holy Land back for the Jews, because they are the only rightful owners. This whole thing really reminds me of Lebensraum. This ideology and the way they talk about Arabs disgusts me.

Here's an 8 minute item, in Dutch, but it also features interviews with some colonists, plus one Palestinian, which are in English. In case you want to see the item, you might understand how I look at this (and why I made the extreme comparison).

Alternative link (it starts at the 13th minute)
 
A thought for this discussion... why is it always necessary to compare?
 
Well, if you are trying to make a point in a discussion, drawing comparisons (or parallels) to something everyone knows, will make your point clearer. At the same time, drawing comparisons to extremes just to give your argument more punch can easily make your point drown in the comparison.

For example, when Barack Obama's opponents use comparisons to the communist regimes of Eastern Europe, when criticizing propositions that would hardly be considered as far left as "social democrat" in Europe, then the overstatement becomes so blatant it turns into a rhetorical own goal. Or, when a politician proposing a stricter immigration policy is labeled a racist and compared to Hitler, the critic scores an amazing own goal.

On the other hand, if somebody comes up with an argument which is extreme in itself, one should be allowed to draw comparisons to more known examples of the extreme, to show how bad it can get - without being accused of ruining the discussion by mentioning Hitler, Stalin or Mao.
 
I don't know, any point where you can get a nazi reference in already speaks for itself. The Hutu killed 800 000 Tutsi and others. Sounds like what Hitler did. Only kind of makes the Tutsi come second after the Jews instead of letting a terrible crime like this stand for itself.

Or look at the Iraq War: Anti-war protesters commented on Bush being like Hitler. We all know the t-shirts with a picture of Bush and a picture of Hitler with the slogan "same shit, different asshole". Bush attacking a small, weak and poor country for the sake of extending his own power? Sounds an awful lot like what Hitler did. Yesterday, I saw a film about what Saddam did to the Kurds. You know, like burying entire village populations alive, keeping women as sex slaves, driving the men into guerilla warfare... sounds an awful lot like what Hitler did. Hmm, Hitler vs Hitler, now that's an interesting match.

See what I mean?

Edit:

Another point: Who is the moral authority that decides who is like Hitler and who isn't? Who elected them and what qualifies them to make such a judgement? What do they want to achieve with that judgement?
 
I'm going to make this statement very tentatively, because...
a) I may be wrong, and I expect smarter people than I could poke holes in it, and...
b) this may be somewhat controversial.

As Perun points out, Hitler is hardly the only evil dictator in world history. So why is he pointed out as the epitome of evil?

Sure, there are some obvious reasons. Though the number of people old enough is decreasing every day, Hitler is still within living memory. The struggle to stop Hitler was a major focus of WWII - few other dictators caused a global war.[sup]1[/sup] And the scale of the Holocaust - about 10 million dead IIRC - is unmatched, as far as I know.

But how about the simple fact of who the victims were? I don't mean that they were Jewish, but that they were mostly white Europeans. They were people like us, not third-world people or Kurds or some other ethnic group. They looked like us, and I think that strikes home on a subliminal level.

I'm not saying that the idea "Hitler = ultimate evil" is intentionally based on race, but I think it's part of it.

Again, this is just a thought I had, and I may be dead wrong, but it makes some sense to me.


[sup]1[/sup] Please don't go into the causes of WWII here. I know my statement is overly simplistic. But hopefully you get my point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top