I should have referenced the definition of Godwin’s law. It says that all internet arguments ultimately degenerate into referencing Hitler. My point was not co

I should have referenced the definition of Godwin’s law. It says that all internet arguments ultimately degenerate into referencing Hitler. My point was not complaining about Godwin’s law, or about slippery slopes. My point was almost the opposite: the tendency to trot out ultimate, extreme ends in every disagreement. Hitler for Godwin, dystopia for others. It’s not a persuasive argument in either framing. “You’re destroying civilization” is the rhetoric of someone who, like the author of the linked piece, can’t actually articulate why someone’s actions are wrong. Seriously, the piece never gets there. It’s a lot of legitimate, honest hurt tied up with “dystopia” as if that makes the position unassailable. So apologies for being unclear, hope that’s a more cogent representation of my distaste for this style of argument.