Godwin's law

Post Reply New Topic

Godwin's law states that anyone comparing anything to nazi history has lost the debate.

Why?

If there are similarities, why can't we talk about them? Saying that nothing compares to the nazis is ridiculous and wrong.

You could say that to just about everything in the world: Nothing, absolutely nothing in this world compares to anything else in this world - if you really want to go down this road.

Therefore Godwin's law and anyone who invoke Godwin's law in any discussion, is ridiculous and wrong.

Invoking Godwin's law is the most damaging thing to Free Speech that the internet discussions have ever invented.

Everyone who invoke Godwin's law is only trying to silence opposition.

It's obvious you cannot compare say a liberal left wing who believes in personal freedom above economic freedom, with nazis.

But hate speech, racial discrimination, systematic government oppression and right wing authoritarian governments are all very similar to nazism.

Invoking "Godwin's Law" is the same as calling out a "Red Herring".

The idea behind Godwin's Law seems to be that invoking an unrelated, yet emotionally-charged topic to defend or attack an argument is to introduce a "Red Herring" to that argument.  In other words, the act of invoking Nazis induces an emotional reaction that distracts otherwise reasonable people from their own arguments.  Thus, a person who does invoke Nazis in an unrelated argument may have already realized that he or she has lost that argument, and is merely trying to distract others from that fact.

By the way ... because you have already mentioned Nazi's in your original post, you have already lost not only this debate, but the entire thread as well!.

I don't see it that way. When I compare anything to the nazis, it is because I'm using a slippery-slope argument, which isn't a fallacy (despite alot of people use to say that the slippery-slope is a logical fallacy).

Fact is, when it comes to politics one policy often leads to another.

If you take one step in the direction of totalitarianism, chances are you are taking the next steps towards the same goal increases.

When China elected Xi Jinping president for life, China displayed all signs of nazi ideology. And guess what? Now they're having concentration camps. They oppress and persecute (innocent) people just like the nazis. Actually, I see little to no difference between today's China and Nazi Germany.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/12/11/co ... w-slavery/

Slippery-slope isn't a fallacy, because it is evident in every place you look:

Everywhere, one action always leads to another. Therefore slippery-slope isn't a fallacy but a fact of life.

What you are saying makes sense: when an argument is valid, it is no longer a fallacy.  But when the same argument is used to intentionally distract the speakers and disrupt the discussion, then it become fallacious.

What I am saying is that "Godwin's Law" is often invoked to either disrupt a discussion or end it completely, and not to present one side's argument as any more less valid than the other's.

Well, that makes sense.

The issue is that both Godwin's law and slippery-slopes are claimed as fallacies regardless of one's use of nazi comparisons or slippery-slope arguments are valid.

You and I agree on something?

Maybe I disagree. There might be something which either you or me might have misinterpreted

Last edited by thinkinginpictures on 27 Dec 2019, 2:23 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Often done in an effort to use the fallacy fallacy to shut down a debate.

Godwin's law merely states: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1

It says nothing about comparisons with Nazis amounting to a loss, no matter how badly people who are often compared to Nazis wish it meant that.

The Nazi comparisons have been overused and they were being way overused long before the arrival of the World Wide Web. The overuse of "Nazi" degrades in the public mind the actual horror of actual Nazis and those that are being falsely compared to them.

If there is good reason to believe the person(s) being described as a Nazi or compared to them if having the power to do so would systematically kill every member of a group(s) and attempt massive conquest then the label is apt.