Godwin's Law

[ZFBoxcar]

Godwin's Law (also Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is an adage in Internet culture that was originated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states that:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

There is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made in a thread the thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. In addition, whoever points out that Godwin's law applies to the thread is considered to have lost the battle, as it is considered poor form to invoke the law explicitly. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. Many people understand Godwin's Law to mean this, although (as is clear from the statement of the law above) this is not the original formulation.

Nevertheless, there is also a widely-recognized codicil that any intentional invocation of Godwin's Law for its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.

Godwin's Law is named after Mike Godwin, who was legal counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation in the early 1990s, when the law was first popularized. Richard Sexton maintains that the law is a formalization of his October 16, 1989 post

You can tell when a USENET discussion is getting old when one of the participents [sic] drags out Hitler and the Nazis.

Strictly speaking, however, this is not so, since the actual text of Godwin's Law does not state that such a reference or comparison makes a discussion "old," or, for that matter, that such a reference or comparison means that a discussion is over.

Finding the meme of Nazi comparisons on Usenet illogical and offensive, Godwin established the law as a counter-meme. The law's memetic function is not to end discussions (or even to classify them as "old"), but to make participants in a discussion more aware of whether a comparison to Nazis or Hitler is appropriate, or is simply a rhetorical overreach.

Many people have extended Godwin's Law to imply that the invoking of the Nazis as a debating tactic (in any argument not directly related to World War II or the Holocaust) automatically loses the argument, simply because these events were so horrible that any comparison to any event less serious than genocide or extinction is invalid and in poor taste.

Various additions and addenda to Godwin's Law have been proposed by Internet users, though the original reference to Nazis remains the most popular. Addenda to the law include:

Gordon's Restatement of Newman's Corollary to Godwin's Law:

Libertarianism (pro, con, and internal faction fights) is the primordial net.news discussion topic. Any time the debate shifts somewhere else, it must eventually return to this fuel source.

Morgan's Corollary to Godwin's Law:

As soon as such a comparison occurs, someone will start a Nazi-discussion thread on alt.censorship.

Sircar's Corollary:

If the Usenet discussion touches on homosexuality or Heinlein, Nazis or Hitler are mentioned within three days.

Case's Corollary:

If the subject is Heinlein or homosexuality, the probability of a Hitler/Nazi comparison being made becomes equal to one.

Van der Leun's Corollary:

As global connectivity improves, the probability of actual Nazis being on the Net approaches one.

Miller's Paradox:

As a network evolves, the number of Nazi comparisons not forestalled by citation to Godwin's Law converges to zero.

Enki's Corollary:

As an online discussion involving law grows, the probability of someone making a comparison involving the McDonald's coffee lawsuit approaches one.

NialScorva's Law:

Given enough time, all legal battles in the tech industry will invoke the DMCA.

Freiler's Maxim:

Those that incorrectly invoke Godwin as proof that they have won the debate have in fact run out of relevant points to make, and have, by invoking Godwin, admitted defeat.

Cawley's Corollary:

Given enough time, any thread on perl6-language will end up arguing the toss about Unicode operators.

Quiggin's subclause:

In an Australian policy debate, whenever anyone refers to North Korea (or Cuba) as the exemplar of a policy which was in fact in force under Robert Menzies, they shall be deemed to have lost the debate automatically.

Sparc's Corollary:

When the topic involves future developments, and as the discussion grows longer, the probability of a comment being made about how one's computer still not being able to vacuum one's house approaches one. After which the discussion probably ends in the posting of links to pictures of vacuum cleaners.

James' Corollary:

As an online discussion about same-sex marriage grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Britney Spears' marriage approaches one.

One common objection to Godwin's law is that sometimes using Hitler or the Nazis is a perfectly apt way of making a point. For instance, if one is debating the relative merits of a particular leader, and someone says something like, "He's a good leader, look at the way he's improved the economy", one could reply, "Just because he improved the economy doesn't make him a good leader. Even Hitler improved the economy." Some would view this as a perfectly acceptable comparison, although it is not universally accepted that Hitler did improve Germany's economy. One uses Hitler because he is a universally known leader and the example requires no explanation. Pretty much everyone would know exactly what you were talking about in the above example.

Godwin's standard answer to this objection is to note that Godwin's Law does not dispute whether, in a particular instance, a reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be apt. It is precisely because such a reference or comparison may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued, that hyperbolic overuse of the Hitler/Nazi comparison should be avoided. Avoiding such hyperbole, he argues, is a way of ensuring that when valid comparisons to Hitler or Nazis are made, such comparisons have the appropriate semantic impact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LOL, this is so true!

[Confed999]

Interesting... Cute...