Godwin's Law
Godwin's Law /prov./ [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups.
I always thought it ill-behooves self-professed "geeks" to fall into this trap, and start sounding like muddy-brained bumpkin-infants, certain-about-everything, singing "La La La La La La La", with their fingers in their ears.
But then, that's my problem I guess, and all about my own image of what a "geek" "really is" or "ought to be".
There are indeed many things in the world that resemble the Nazis in all sorts of ways. However, not all of these resemblences are worth pointing out.
Suppose M(X) is some measurement of how bad X is (how much X restricts human freedom, how many people are killed by X, how much discrimination against unpopular ethnic groups is entailed by X, whatever), and M(N) is how bad the Nazis are according to this measurement. If you think A is an extremely bad thing, you may observe that M(A) is close to M(N), and you may be tempted to compare A to the Nazis. However, when you are in this situation, you can almost always find some B such that M(B) is even closer to M(A) than M(N) is. (For example, rather than comparing [2001-?? US Attorney General] John Ashcroft to Hitler, you can compare the post-9/11 detention of Muslim terrorism suspects to the Palmer raids.)
So if you post a message in which you compare A to the Nazis, it's usually a sign that you didn't bother to find B before sending your message, i.e., you're too lazy to compose a more substantial argument, i.e., your messages regarding A are not worth the effort of reading or replying to.
Corollaries to GodwinsLaw:
Are there any corollaries about the appearance of QuantumPhysics in philosophical, mystic, or cognitive discussions?
Americans seem to consider ‘Commie’ a pretty extreme insult, much more insulting that being called a ‘Fascist’ or ‘Nazi’ (Can some Americans confirm this perception ?). Whilst in Europeans the sensibility are reversed, being called a ‘Fascist’ or ‘Nazi’ is extremely insulting while being called a ‘Commie’ carries little weight.
As time has passed I've noticed a a tendency for 'Commie' to replace 'Fascist' as an adhominem. This could be a direct result of Goodwins law or a result of the increasing numbers the American public using the net. This suggests yet another Godwin corollary (YAGC).
- As the probability of Godwin’s Law being invoked approaches one the probability that ‘Commie’ will replace ‘Nazi’ tend towards one.
-- MartinSpamer
What was the difference between a ‘Commie’ and a ‘Nazi’? They look pretty similary with their red flags and all the blood on their hands.
I presume this is a rhetorical question ?
Additionally, no-one in America get called a "Commie" anymore. That was sooooo 30 years ago.
A Google of usenet suggest it is still common today, particularly amoungst certain groups.
An example pulled off of the PrimeDirective page:
What happens if you don't respect the PD? The Borg are Trek's most extreme example. The Borg parallel the Drexlerian concept of GreyGoo. They violate PD on two levels: they assimilate the resources of large-scale societies - of civilizations - and they assimilate the resources of small-scale societies - of organisms. They reproduce by dismembering organic societies and making use of the organs themselves.
How could this apply to us? Even though we might dig their technology - say what you like, the Borg have integrated some cool shit - most of us don't cheer on MicrosoftCorporation's Borgish business practices, . MS acquire companies, assimilate their staff and technologies, and leave nothing useful behind. You might profit a great deal by adopting MS technologies, but do the Borg really define the sort of world you want your kids to live in?
Still, the problem isn't only with MS. MS are just doing what Murdoch is doing, and what IBM did, and ATT before them, and Hearst before them and Standard Oil before them and so on back into the mists. The problem isn't with MS; they're playing by the rules quite a lot of the time and probably could have done what they did even if they played by the rules all the time. The problem is that MS, and our society, doesn't have a PD.
What form could a 21st century PrimeDirective take? -- LamontCranston
Do what you like, but don't disturb the others!
Oh come on. MS, IBM, ATT, Hearst are just companies full of people with spouses, kids, car troubles, dreams and fears just like thee and me. The Prime Directive is, and always has been, Do the best you know how to do.
And Stalin too put his pants on one leg at a time. "Do the best you know how to do" - you can use that line to justify any extreme. This cycle of monopoly, though far less extreme than Stalinism, is a form of tyranny. ChecksAndBalances are what America uses to stave off tyranny; in many parts of the world without such political features, tyranny prospers. Why not consider a similar control to prevent the tyranny of monopoly from prospering? Except that America has become the tyranny.
Then again you consider the page above in only its narrowest sense. The PrimeDirective is an ethical concept. It's one answer to the question, "what is evil?" There are many others, but the PD is unique in not invoking the authority of a deity or the tradition of a regime. It's generic.
Perhaps you don't feel you need an ethical system; or perhaps you don't feel that your society needs one. Many believe that free market success justifies any extreme. "Just earning a buck" is used to the same effect as "Just following orders". If that's your ethic, good luck to you. History suggests you'll need it. -- LamontCranston
If most men are evil, the notion of a PD is doomed. If most are not, it's unnecessary but might happen anyway.
Identifying Bill Gates and Stalin (or me and Stalin) seems a bit polemical, but perhaps one is just oversensitive this morning.
Even Stalin's regime included many good men. Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan likewise. The cells in a man's body may be healthy cells, and yet the man may do evil. So if men are good they stand to benefit by evolving a good society.
But read more closely, sensitive soul; no one identified BillGates or you with Stalin. The subject is more interesting than the StrawMan. You say a PD is not necessary; do you feel this about existing constitutional guarantees too, or is the PD not comparable with these? -- LamontCranston
For me, GodwinsLaw applies here - even if this is not a news group.
Well, the thread had stopped. But plainly GodwinsLaw doesn't apply when a thread is actually about Nazis - discussions of holocaust incidents and military campaigns occur on the net without such a thread-stopping effect. Since the PrimeDirective as described above is also directly concerned with Naziism, it might be fair to think that GodwinsLaw doesn't apply here. For example I think Cranston's last question above is a pretty good one. How is the PD different from the US BillOfRights?
[Of course no reply was forthcoming. Even when the participants know GodwinsLaw, GodwinsLaw still applies.]
[And now, the replies!]
The Prime Directive is not necessary because "most people are evil," but rather because "most people are good." Good people, because the foundation of their thinking is not primarily "how to cheat others," tend to believe that what they hear from others is essentially "true" and "well intentioned" because (on the whole) that's the nature of their own contribution.
Evil people discover that they can propagate the most outrageous assertions and never be questioned by good people. Eventually there will be good people who figure it all out and make a rule: "do not mess with the heads of those less sophisticated than you yourself are."
Once good people know the game, they have some defense, but the vulnerability is always there, especially in consensus-based social orders, where the bad guys can sell the big lie to the majority, who are less sophisticated than they are.
All human activity is free choice, force or fraud. Only those whom one treats with respect for their right to choice will choose to join you in the kind cooperative effort which leverages the creativity, productivity and eventual profound influence of all involved. The use of force or fraud isolates and is therefore ultimately self defeating. Refusal to either use force (other than self defense) or fraud or to allow its use in one's name confers a distinct advantage over those who do so. Although it is not unreasonable to infer that this puts one in a distinct minority, it is a minority with a potential analogous to the close association of mutually trusting cells in a complex organism which then finds itself competing quite well with germs. And one really doesn't need to consider the opinions of germs or impose any directives on them. Let them choose. -- JDSmith
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/09/20/germany.election/index.html
By it's own definition, shouldn't this discussion og Godwin's Law be considered over now. The Nazis were mentioned at least half a page above. Damn! And I just mentioned them again.
While I agree with the rule generally, what about discussions of the Ba'ath Socialist Party (An outgrowth of the Nazi Party formed in Damascus in 1941)?