Welcome to Gaia! ::

The Hitler Card/Godwin's Law

Godwin's law, coined by Mike Godwin in 1990, states that "as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

Basically, the longer an online debate progresses, no matter what it is about, the greater the chance that someone is going to try to make some kind of comparison to Hitler and the Nazis. While a comparison isn't necessarily invalid, more often than not, the comparison will be irrelevant and fallacious, and it will most likely make you look foolish.

In 2007, The Economist declared that "A good rule in most discussions is that the first person to call the other a Nazi automatically loses the argument."

Therefore, avoid at all costs!

For example: In a debate about vegetarianism:

Debater A: I think it is wrong to eat meat!

Debater B: I do not think it is wrong to eat meat. My teeth were designed to chew flesh and my digestive system processes meat, so I do not believe humans are meant to be vegetarians.

Debater A: KILLING ALL OF THOSE ANIMALS FOR FOOD IS JUST LIKE THE HOLOCAUST. JUST LIKE WHAT HITLER DID TO JEWS. MEAT EATERS ARE NO BETTER THAN NAZIS!

Related Fallacies: Association fallacy, Reductio ad Hitlerum

I would like to hazard the suggestion that there are some discussions where aspects of Nazism, Nazi Germany, and so on are relevant.

What would be important is realizing that an illogical or slanderous use of such terms and historical references is what invalidates an argument, not just simply a reference to Nazi's in and of itself.

Also, because a probability approaches 1 when the number of possibilities is extrapolated towards infinity is not the same as saying such things always will occur. Even at the extremes, there exists a small fraction of possibility that such things will not happen.

I would humbly suggest that Godwin's Law be downgraded to Godwin's Observation or even Godwin's Proposition. At best, given the information provided, it is a postulate.

Still, an interesting and amusing read.

I take Godwin's law with a pinch of salt. His argument essentially states that the longer a topic continues the more likely a certain subject (in this case nazism) is likely to crop up. I would say this is true of any subject (but i'm probably just being pendantic here).

It is a rare person indeed who does not have at least some idea of Hitler, Nazism and the Holocaust. As such, it should go without saying that when you want to compare something to a great evil you choose one that you know about and that you're sure everyone else will know about too.

This is in no way a defence of using Hitler to support an argument, indeed, Godwin and many 'amateur' debaters have made it taboo. Its a shame really; Nazism should be a ripe topic for debate and yet I find myself avoiding it on purpose, simply to avoid the definite downspiral in ordered discussion.

Oddly enough, Hitler was a vegetarian, which has nothing to do with this discussion but made me laugh a little when I read the example.

That aside, you've got a point. Too many online debates devolve until someone finally calls another person a Nazi or Hitler, and then it's all downhill from there.