Left wing Godwin's Law

Post Reply New Topic

There should be a left wing equivalent of Godwin's law if Godwin's law is to be applied so broadly that you can't say 'locking kids in cages because of their national immigrants is kind of fascist adjacent'.

It would cover things like calling socialism and communism synonyms, implying that Americans wanting an NHS or Brits wanting a president is Commie etc.

Because believe it or not, most of us do not want a USSR. We just want a slighly more leftist equivalent of a mixed economy.

Fnord's Law: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Socialists or Hillary approaches 1.



As a side note, why even use the word "Fascist" when words like "Cruel", "Ignorant", "Narcissistic", "Profane", "Racist", "Sadistic", "Sexist", and "Violent" will suffice?

They don't like you saying racist either.

Unless someone is (was unless you have a time machine) a 1920s guy who believed in 'Racial science' nobody wants to own up to being a racist.

Even David Duke.

Oh, I forgot "Xenophobic"!

Also, I consider "Homophobic" to be a form of Sexism, as it is an expression of one's sexual bigotry toward another.

They don't like us saying much of anything. It's almost like these people are all about censorship as the latest form of free speech.

They seem to do this while simultaneously complaining about the Left imposing Politically Correct Speech upon them.

Sad.

That is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone or something will be called Antifa the point at which effectively the discussion or thread often ends.

Interpret their complaints over political correctness as being motivated by losing control of defining what is politically correct, not about the general idea of someone defining what is 'polite and agreeable speech'.

When they had a monopoly on defining polite and agreeable speech they were certainly not complaining about it.

Godwin came up with his law 30 years ago, which pertained to Usenet debates, long before WOKE became such a thing. The Woke movement has redefined a lot of nomenclature.

Yeah I think the slippery slope argument of "nationalized healthcare=USSR" is a bad one. Slippery slope is a classical logical fallacy, but one that is very easy to fall into even if you're aware of it.

The USSR comparison is really only constructive in showing the abject failure of a centralized government planned economy to allocate resources especially in comparison to a primary market economy. See Mao China for another example. The generalized principle of "the government is less efficient at doing things than the private sector" is often but not always true.

There are numerous factors in favor of nationalizing health care in the U.S. There are also factors against it that tend to get overlooked by proponents. Debate should be on these factors alone, not whether it will set a precedent to make the country communist.

You're both wrong. Debate should be a matter of what we can do with the available resources. Defining it racially or by socioeconomic criteria is moot of there are more or less resources.

Yeah - I hate the term 'politically correct'. It seems to only be used by reactionaries.

Speech has always been defined in terms of what is polite and what is impolite. Look at the U versus Non U language systems for eg. Or the way we have different words for excrement depending on if we're talking to a child, a doctor or a friend.

I think 'don't use this term it offends people with less power than you' is a pretty good way of regulating speech tbh. Far better than 'he's your boss, call him Mr ...'.

Imagine if someone had got offended at the McCains oven chip ad because it showed only white married heterosexual couples with kids. I'd consider such a person a snowflake. I also consider the same (snowflakes) that the right are offended cos it shows all sorts of families as well as friends. (Apparently it's not a new ad haha)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgjXw2OMEIQ

I don't recall ever seeing a "nationalized healthcare=USSR" comparison made on WP. Rather I've seen applicable comparisons made to Canada. The USSR comparison is far broader than just nationalized healthcare, just as what went on under the USSR was far broader than just that.

Are you or aren't you in favor of medical care for people who need it?

Who me? Yes I am in favor of it. I know Americans in unions who pay very little for good healthcare plans. I know veterans have good healthcare plans. I also remember a homeless WP member who got free healthcare. He didn't have to think twice about checking himself into an ER. Whereas someone making minimum wage working a non-union job would get a huge bill, even if they had Obamacare.

I don't think actually affordable healthcare should be limited to certain groups.

I'm also for stricter gun laws in America.

What I'm against is a Big Brother government that totally micromanages most/all aspects of society.

Presumably this is in response to this?



What we can do with the available resources is certainly contained in "factors in favor of nationalizing healthcare, and factors against nationalizing healthcare." The point is to keep the debate on healthcare and not to expand the scope.