5 ms·
The article (if not the actual test) appears to make the comon mistake of misinterpreting the second half of Godwin's Law. People often read it as saying that o
by breadbox 11y ago
The article (if not the actual test) appears to make the comon mistake of misinterpreting the second half of Godwin's Law. People often read it as saying that once Nazis are invoked, the conversation ends. What Godwin's Law actually states is that the useful part of the conversation ends. Conversation of course continues, if anything more heatedly than before, but it can be safely ignored by all third parties as having no useful substance.
At least that's how people seemed to understand Godwin's Law back in the Usenet days.
(Of course, the dynamic would be different nowadays, when Godwin's Law has been part of the "received wisdom" for decades.)
- chias 11y agoI have not heard of Godwin's Law implying that (useful?) conversation after the comparison ceases, but rather simply as: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1". I've never liked Godwin's Law much, because it's trivial. Another way of stating the identical concept is: "it is not impossible to make a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler". The version you describe would at least have some non-trivial component to it, but e.g. on its Wikipedia page I don't see any reference to usefulness of subsequent conversation.