Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

A follow up to Godwin's law

Page 1 of 2 [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

25 May 2016, 1:56 am

As readers here likely know, Godwin's law states that if in a debate a participant makes a comment a policy or person to the Nazis or Hitler, where what they are talking about is actually no where near the scale of what the Nazis did, then the debate is effectively over and that participant loses.

On the Internet, I have seen at times in heated discussions where a participant asserts their right to free speech to their opponents, even though their opponents have never questioned that right neither have they given any indication of trying to impinge on those rights. Instead, they seem to imply that criticism of their views violate their free speech rights. At this point, in my experience, the participant making this accusation has pretty much nothing left, and it appears the participant is doing this to distract from that.

Because of this, I have come up with a new law: If in a debate a participant asserts their free speech rights, where such rights were never questioned in the debate, or asserts nonexistent rights (such as the nonexistent right to an audience or to a platform, such as a publisher), then the debate is effectively over and that participant loses.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


Schlumpfikus
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

Joined: 8 Jan 2016
Age: 39
Posts: 79

25 May 2016, 4:44 am

Absolutely, there is a point at which participants in a discussion just can't be taken seriously anymore.
This happens when they draw the Hitler/Nazis-card as well as when they assert their free speech rights when those rights were never questioned, especially since this is (almost?) always done by people who make some delusional claims such as 'Jews control the world' preceded or followed by 'one mustn't say that aloud'.
I would like to add to the list of losing phrases those starting with 'I have nothing against (insert Jews/Muslims/homosexuals/blacks/other group), but'



Drake
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,577

25 May 2016, 7:24 am

Schlumpfikus wrote:
I would like to add to the list of losing phrases those starting with 'I have nothing against (insert Jews/Muslims/homosexuals/blacks/other group), but'

Why?

There is potentially an argument your position is stronger without saying that and just going straight in with what you're saying though, and then dealing with any accusations of having something against that group rather than trying to head them off before they come.

But I don't understand why it's become a bad phrase in the first place. When I see it used, it appears to be sincere. An effort to avoid knee jerk reaction to potentially sensitive subject matter. Yet the phrase itself seems to be starting to provoke knee jerk reactions. I googled it and the first one I looked at got such a reaction, among others:

https://www.reddit.com/r/offmychest/com ... eople_but/

I don't think this person is a homophobe.



Schlumpfikus
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

Joined: 8 Jan 2016
Age: 39
Posts: 79

25 May 2016, 7:56 am

Drake wrote:
Schlumpfikus wrote:
I would like to add to the list of losing phrases those starting with 'I have nothing against (insert Jews/Muslims/homosexuals/blacks/other group), but'

Why?

There is potentially an argument your position is stronger without saying that and just going straight in with what you're saying though, and then dealing with any accusations of having something against that group rather than trying to head them off before they come.

But I don't understand why it's become a bad phrase in the first place. When I see it used, it appears to be sincere. An effort to avoid knee jerk reaction to potentially sensitive subject matter. Yet the phrase itself seems to be starting to provoke knee jerk reactions. I googled it and the first one I looked at got such a reaction, among others:

https://www.reddit.com/r/offmychest/com ... eople_but/

I don't think this person is a homophobe.


Well, it just sounds silly to me to first state you have nothing against someone only to immediately say afterwards what you have against them. Also it's unnecessary. Like the poster from your link could have just as well made his/her point without starting with 'I have nothing against gays'.



Drake
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,577

25 May 2016, 9:03 am

Well that doesn't seem like a reason to decide someone has lost a debate.



Schlumpfikus
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

Joined: 8 Jan 2016
Age: 39
Posts: 79

25 May 2016, 11:48 am

Well it is assuming one has lost a debate as soon as one shows oneself as being offensive, prejudiced and/or non-logical.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

25 May 2016, 11:48 am

You know who also liked to make rules like this?

Nazis.

I rest my case. 8)



seaweed
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Sep 2015
Age: 30
Posts: 1,380
Location: underwater

25 May 2016, 11:54 am

people get free speech confused with no criticism.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

25 May 2016, 11:55 am

Also use real examples instead of strawmen so we know what you're talking about



Schlumpfikus
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

Joined: 8 Jan 2016
Age: 39
Posts: 79

25 May 2016, 11:57 am

Jacoby wrote:
You know who also liked to make rules like this?

Nazis.

I rest my case. 8)


Which brings us to annoying standard-phrase number three: Not everything the Nazis did back then was bad. (Autobahn). :mrgreen:



Schlumpfikus
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

Joined: 8 Jan 2016
Age: 39
Posts: 79

25 May 2016, 12:13 pm

Jacoby wrote:
Also use real examples instead of strawmen so we know what you're talking about


There are examples all over the internet, such as the example given by Drake with the reddit link.
Of course, if it actually means you lose a debate depends on how your opponent reacts to it, he or she can just as well just let it go, but in a discussion that's not very likely, is it?
Watch 'Jon Stewart -A relatively closer look - Hitler reference' on youtube.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

25 May 2016, 12:24 pm

Schlumpfikus wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
You know who also liked to make rules like this?

Nazis.

I rest my case. 8)


Which brings us to annoying standard-phrase number three: Not everything the Nazis did back then was bad. (Autobahn). :mrgreen:


"Nazis not so bad" - Schlumpfikus 8O

:P



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

25 May 2016, 1:11 pm

beneficii wrote:
As readers here likely know, Godwin's law states that if in a debate a participant makes a comment a policy or person to the Nazis or Hitler, where what they are talking about is actually no where near the scale of what the Nazis did, then the debate is effectively over and that participant loses.

On the Internet, I have seen at times in heated discussions where a participant asserts their right to free speech to their opponents, even though their opponents have never questioned that right neither have they given any indication of trying to impinge on those rights. Instead, they seem to imply that criticism of their views violate their free speech rights. At this point, in my experience, the participant making this accusation has pretty much nothing left, and it appears the participant is doing this to distract from that.

Because of this, I have come up with a new law: If in a debate a participant asserts their free speech rights, where such rights were never questioned in the debate, or asserts nonexistent rights (such as the nonexistent right to an audience or to a platform, such as a publisher), then the debate is effectively over and that participant loses.


More, or less, agree. But I would say it this way "the right to be heard (ie free speech) does not include the right to be taken seriously".

And along with that: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

If you climb a soap box to preach about how NASA is suppressing evidence that the Moon is made of green cheese then...hey...its your right to do so. But dont demand that folks listen to you, or stop laughing at you if they do listen to you. Unless you can back it up with some REALLY good evidence.



Drake
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,577

25 May 2016, 4:07 pm

Schlumpfikus wrote:
Well it is assuming one has lost a debate as soon as one shows oneself as being offensive, prejudiced and/or non-logical.

These are all very subjective. Which is fine when it comes to your own personal code for when you decide someone is no longer worth your time, but not when making rules for others to abide by.



Edenthiel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Sep 2014
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,820
Location: S.F Bay Area

25 May 2016, 5:19 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
beneficii wrote:
I have come up with a new law: If in a debate a participant asserts their free speech rights, where such rights were never questioned in the debate, or asserts nonexistent rights (such as the nonexistent right to an audience or to a platform, such as a publisher), then the debate is effectively over and that participant loses.


[...]More, or less, agree. But I would say it this way "the right to be heard (ie free speech) does not include the right to be taken seriously".


I think she was going for the same structure and style as Godwin or Poe. Hence the schema of,

outlandish appeal to emotion fallacy = argument forfeited

In this case it is a participant relying on the very American value of Free Speech to shut down their opponent by shaming them, but without understanding what "Freedom of Speech" actually means in a legal sense. And I agree, at that point the argument is truly lost.


_________________
“For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love.”
―Carl Sagan


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

25 May 2016, 6:33 pm

Edenthiel wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
beneficii wrote:
I have come up with a new law: If in a debate a participant asserts their free speech rights, where such rights were never questioned in the debate, or asserts nonexistent rights (such as the nonexistent right to an audience or to a platform, such as a publisher), then the debate is effectively over and that participant loses.


[...]More, or less, agree. But I would say it this way "the right to be heard (ie free speech) does not include the right to be taken seriously".


I think she was going for the same structure and style as Godwin or Poe. Hence the schema of,

outlandish appeal to emotion fallacy = argument forfeited

In this case it is a participant relying on the very American value of Free Speech to shut down their opponent by shaming them, but without understanding what "Freedom of Speech" actually means in a legal sense. And I agree, at that point the argument is truly lost.


That's kinda my point. You don't need to construct a complex rule to counter that kind of irrational debating opponent All you need is to remember a couple of simple phrases.