Godwin's Law: Not Meant To Be Invoked By jargonCCNA in Op-Ed Thu Jul 01, 2004 at 08:55:14 PM EST Tags: Internet (all tags)
	A long time ago, a gentleman by the name of Godwin noticed something about Usenet: Given a long enough timeframe, in any heated discussion, someone will eventually make a comparison between his opponent and Germany's National Socialist Party of seventy years ago or its leader. He also noticed something very important about the first person to make such a comparison.

ADVERTISEMENT Sponsor: rusty This space intentionally left blank ...because it's waiting for your ad. So why are you still reading this? Come on, get going. Read the story, and then get an ad. Alright stop it. I'm not going to say anything else. Now you're just being silly. STOP LOOKING AT ME! I'm done! comments (24) active | buy ad ADVERTISEMENT Godwin's Law, which is popularly understood as "the first person in an argument to refer to Hitler or the Nazis loses the argument", isn't a law like "murder is a crime" is a law. It's more like Newton's Laws--not something that can be "invoked" or "violated", but an observation of the surrounding world. The Law is actually stated thusly: As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. Unfortunately, a lot of people on the 'net try to invoke Godwin's Law in order to, by default, win an argument. This isn't what Godwin's Law is about. As we all well understand, Hitler was a mind-numbingly disturbed individual. He had a great military record, kept every single one of his campaign promise and was a rabid anti-smoker, but had the audacity to order the death of every Jew, gypsy, homosexual and cripple, partially out of personal vendettas. This is not a person that anyone really wants to be compared to, because when you hear "Hitler", you probably think "psychotic mass-murderer". He's, of course, not the only person in history to do it. Pol Pot, Pinochet and Stalin also come to mind fairly readily and I'm sure Kuro5hin's readership can think of more. Godwin noticed that most people--politicians especially--have a flawed argumentative style. Rather than attempt to prove their point, they try vilify their opponent, in order to seem like the lesser of two evils. A fantastic example of this was the Conservative Party's campaign in the recent Canadian election. Rather than focus on why the Conservatives would make the best governing party for this Parliament, they focused on why the incumbent party, the Liberal Party, would be the worst. This is what's known as a negative campaign and it doesn't always appeal to logic or rationality, but to emotion. Both Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore make extravagant use of this argumentative technique. They try to get their listeners/viewers outraged by the actions or inactions of [insert popular figure here] without, really, explaining why said action or inaction is actually a bad thing. Think "shock and awe", though perhaps "shock and appall" would be better. The problem with this technique is that it works. Most people are easily swayed by their emotions, because they aren't critical thinkers. When Godwin first wrote his Law, he was really just appealing to the pride of the denizens of Usenet--geeks, nerds and hackers. He was trying to say "you have more coherent thought processes than most of the world, why not use them?" By stating that the first person to mention Hitler in a debate loses, he wasn't trying to impose a win/lose condition for Usenet debates. He was trying to make those who make a comparison to Hitler realise what they're doing. And what are they doing? Well, they certainly aren't thinking critically, and by not thinking critically in a debate, people tend to make themselves appear foolish. The first person to compare their opponent to Hitler in a debate may very well win the debate, from a popular point of view, but they've used poor argumentative techniques to do it and that isn't something that geeks or nerds are known for. Godwin's Law isn't about "winning" or "losing" a debate. It's about promoting critical thinking and proving your point. Comparing one's opponent to Hitler/Pinochet/Pol Pot/Stalin does nothing for the argument, but rather admits that you don't have anything more to say. However, it isn't gracious to rub this in someone's face, which is, really, what's occurring when someone invokes Godwin's Law. Not only is it ungracious, but it, too, demonstrates that you've also run out of things to say. Thus, I submit my Corollary: Following a demonstration of Godwin's Law in action, the first person to refer to Godwin's Law also loses. This doesn't mean the other person wins. It means you both lose. Neither of you is, any longer, participating in a useful debate (there's another corollary along the same lines) and you should both back off and give up before you succeed in making yourselves look like bigger asses.

Poll

Should we amend Godwin's Law? Yes, please. 24% No, it's fine the way it stands. 26% You mentioned Hitler, you lose anyway!!!!11one 49% Votes: 83 Results | Other Polls

Related Links

Kuro5hin thusly Also by jargonCCNA