Many people too often invoke Godwin's Law inappropriately. This thread will deal with Godwin's Law Nazis (see wut i did thur?) and encourage all of you to post your own pseudo-fallacious assertions here.
For those unfamiliar with the adage, Godwin's Law was an assertion made by attorney and author Mike Godwin stating that: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
Many people have taken this and applied it to any online conversation where a Nazi or Hitler comparison was made so as to either rebut or even end an argument. Unfortunately, online uses of Nazi or Hitler analogies have come to be seen by many people as a sign that someone has lost the debate.
Firstly, it's not an actual law of logic, such as the law of non-contradiction or the law of the excluded middle. It's simply a tongue-in-cheek observation that, given enough time, in any online conversation (regardless of the topic or scope) someone will inevitably make a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis. That's it. The fact that people treat it as an actual law of some sort speaks to their lack of critical and analytical skills when it comes to rules of thought and argument. Call anything a "law" and get enough people to invoke it and many will unquestioningly accept it as a formal fallacy of sorts. For this reason I shall make my own law:
Some analogies are good and others not so much, but a mere mention of Nazis or Hitler without any context does not inform us as to whether or not their use was appropriate. The inappropriate use of Godwin's Law is in a way committing the same error that a person's ad hominem use of Hitler or Nazi comparisons is doing: they're trying to stop the debate by erecting a type of distraction and thereby censor the other person, insinuating that all they were doing was engaging in pure hyperbole.
If Godwin's Law should teach us anything at all it is that, firstly, we should become aware of the temptation to abuse clichéd analogies that may actually make our argument lose impact and, secondly, that such overused analogies can trivialize the severity of the analogue itself.
Godwin help us if I should find another misuse of this on these forums.
Please post your own pseudo-fallacy pet peeves!
For those unfamiliar with the adage, Godwin's Law was an assertion made by attorney and author Mike Godwin stating that: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
Many people have taken this and applied it to any online conversation where a Nazi or Hitler comparison was made so as to either rebut or even end an argument. Unfortunately, online uses of Nazi or Hitler analogies have come to be seen by many people as a sign that someone has lost the debate.
Firstly, it's not an actual law of logic, such as the law of non-contradiction or the law of the excluded middle. It's simply a tongue-in-cheek observation that, given enough time, in any online conversation (regardless of the topic or scope) someone will inevitably make a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis. That's it. The fact that people treat it as an actual law of some sort speaks to their lack of critical and analytical skills when it comes to rules of thought and argument. Call anything a "law" and get enough people to invoke it and many will unquestioningly accept it as a formal fallacy of sorts. For this reason I shall make my own law:
- Pooler's Law will describe the following: "As an online discussion grows longer and a Hitler or Nazi comparison is made, the probability of someone foolishlyand smuglyinvoking Godwin's Law to undermine or end an argument and claim victory approaches 1."
Some analogies are good and others not so much, but a mere mention of Nazis or Hitler without any context does not inform us as to whether or not their use was appropriate. The inappropriate use of Godwin's Law is in a way committing the same error that a person's ad hominem use of Hitler or Nazi comparisons is doing: they're trying to stop the debate by erecting a type of distraction and thereby censor the other person, insinuating that all they were doing was engaging in pure hyperbole.
If Godwin's Law should teach us anything at all it is that, firstly, we should become aware of the temptation to abuse clichéd analogies that may actually make our argument lose impact and, secondly, that such overused analogies can trivialize the severity of the analogue itself.
Godwin help us if I should find another misuse of this on these forums.
Please post your own pseudo-fallacy pet peeves!
