Dr. Eddies Wingman
Brighter than thousand_suns
I'll use the following quote from Perun as a starting point.
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?
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."
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?