3 ms·

Godwin's Law, rather than a criticism of childish comparisons to Hitler ("What do you mean I can't go to the dance with Timmy? You're literally Hitler!") has m

by jlgreco 13y ago

Godwin's Law, rather than a criticism of childish comparisons to Hitler ("What do you mean I can't go to the dance with Timmy? You're literally Hitler!") has mutated into an entire philosophy about the irrelevance of history. Under this philosophy no comparisons can be made to history because invariably one of the two situations is more extreme than the other (inviting cheap intellectually bankrupt "Do you REALLY think that Foo is as bad as Bar?!?" comments that exclude the possibility that a metaphor may not be implying exact equivalence, merely parallels. Think about it, if I call a friend "Benedict Arnold" for abandoning me at a bar, am I actually accusing him of treason? No, of course not.) or circumstances were different ("Yeah, but those were Bolivians. WE are Alabamans. These are not comparable.") Godwin's Law, despite its good intentions, has become a monster.

mikeash 13y ago
Note that the original Law wasn't even a criticism of anything, simply an observation that comparisons with Hitler became inevitable if a discussion went on long enough.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  True, though I think it is fair to say that it was formulated as a criticism.
chc 13y ago
This line of thinking predates Godwin's Law, as a misunderstanding of comparisons in general. If there is any difference between the things being compared, even if it is not relevant to the aspects in the comparison, people of this philosophy will declare the whole matter to be "apples and oranges." Of course, this makes the entire practice of comparing things pointless, because under that thinking, things can only be compared to themselves. On the other hand, I think people have an anti-Godwin reaction where they assume this is happening even when the comparison really is bad. To me, the value of Godwin's Law is to remind us that comparisons to Nazi Germany usually carry more emotional weight than actual insight, and when we encounter them, we need to ask ourselves whether the aspect of Nazi Germany being called out was integral to its evil or just incidental. A lot of so-called comparisons are just thinly disguised slander of the form, "Our government officials are drinking a lot of water these days. Do you know who else drank water? Hitler!"
- jlgreco 13y ago
  > To me, the value of Godwin's Law is to remind us that comparisons to Nazi Germany usually carry more emotional weight than actual insight, and when we encounter them, we need to ask ourselves whether the aspect of Nazi Germany being called out was integral to its evil or just incidental While it is important to keep this in mind, one must also always keep in mind that many valid comparisons to emotionally charged events will be made. Nearly everything in recent memory that is worth making comparisons to will have emotional baggage. Forcing people to tread lightly around issues that could have an emotional impact has a chilling effect on discussion, particularly when there is no similar weighting against comparisons to events with positive emotions. Compare someone to MLK or Churchhill and few eyebrows will be raised; compare someone to the relatively mild Khrushchev and you will have half a dozen objections within seconds. It is almost as if the meme of anti-bullying made the jump from schoolchildren to world leaders.

by jlgreco 13y ago

mikeash 13y ago

Note that the original Law wasn't even a criticism of anything, simply an observation that comparisons with Hitler became inevitable if a discussion went on long enough.

jlgreco 13y ago
True, though I think it is fair to say that it was formulated as a criticism.

chc 13y ago

This line of thinking predates Godwin's Law, as a misunderstanding of comparisons in general. If there is any difference between the things being compared, even if it is not relevant to the aspects in the comparison, people of this philosophy will declare the whole matter to be "apples and oranges." Of course, this makes the entire practice of comparing things pointless, because under that thinking, things can only be compared to themselves. On the other hand, I think people have an anti-Godwin reaction where they assume this is happening even when the comparison really is bad. To me, the value of Godwin's Law is to remind us that comparisons to Nazi Germany usually carry more emotional weight than actual insight, and when we encounter them, we need to ask ourselves whether the aspect of Nazi Germany being called out was integral to its evil or just incidental. A lot of so-called comparisons are just thinly disguised slander of the form, "Our government officials are drinking a lot of water these days. Do you know who else drank water? Hitler!"

jlgreco 13y ago
> To me, the value of Godwin's Law is to remind us that comparisons to Nazi Germany usually carry more emotional weight than actual insight, and when we encounter them, we need to ask ourselves whether the aspect of Nazi Germany being called out was integral to its evil or just incidental While it is important to keep this in mind, one must also always keep in mind that many valid comparisons to emotionally charged events will be made. Nearly everything in recent memory that is worth making comparisons to will have emotional baggage. Forcing people to tread lightly around issues that could have an emotional impact has a chilling effect on discussion, particularly when there is no similar weighting against comparisons to events with positive emotions. Compare someone to MLK or Churchhill and few eyebrows will be raised; compare someone to the relatively mild Khrushchev and you will have half a dozen objections within seconds. It is almost as if the meme of anti-bullying made the jump from schoolchildren to world leaders.