I read about Godwin's Law today in the Tribune, and I hadn't heard of it before. My understanding of it is that, given enough time, any online discussion will produce a comparison involving Nazism or Hitler. The rule is...whoever mentions the Nazis first, loses.

It's an interesting concept, but I wonder why it only applies to the Internet. It happens in political arenas, in the media, as well as in every day conversations, too.

That sounds spurious to me. Given sufficient time any discussion will eventually mention everything.

To Kalleh.

This sounds very much like one of those "laws" that are made up by humourists rather than based on any kind of factual evidence. It's an amusing concept rather than anything else.

To Richard

I always enjoy new variations on the (decidedly specious) infinite number of monkeys theme.

quote:

I always enjoy new variations on the (decidedly specious) infinite number of monkeys theme.

True. But the thing that always occurs to me when I hear this is, "who's going to check their output?" And how accurate does it have to be? Who sets the standards?

"To be or not to be, that is the problem" might pass muster - but "To be or not to be, that is the aardvark" probably wouldn't.

Mike Godwin was one of the first people I took notice of online, in those hoary old pre-web days of Usenet (ca.1989). He coined the term and the concept of Godwin's Law, which is also the name of his blog. Godwin is an attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). Godwin's Law evolved from observations of those early days of the online experience and is certainly still relevant these days.

quote:

Godwin's Law evolved from observations of those early days of the online experience and is certainly still relevant these days

Boy howdy! Back in the Arpanet/csnet days the MTTG (mean time to Godwin) was about 8 posts in some groups.

Ah yes, this is an old classic. Godwin's law is still applicable today, however only in certain contexts. I've always interpreted this law as applying to flame wars more than regular discussions, but depending on the forum, every topic devolves into flame wars. This forum really hasn't had a full on flame war since I've been here.

The corollary is that the person who brings up Hitler loses.

We've had the odd spot of grouchiness but never anything remotely resembling a flame war. We like to keep it that way.

I love debate but hate argument. This is why I enjoy this forum and the reason why I have left others.

quote:

I've always interpreted this law as applying to flame wars more than regular discussions, but depending on the forum, every topic devolves into flame wars.

Good point, Sean. I was on one forum that had a vicious flamewar, and sure enough...Hitler came up. Interesting. While I agree with Bob and Richard in their skepticism of the law, I do think Hitler comes up during fights, flamewars and the like. The operative word here is "always," I guess. Very few things happen "always" or "never," as I used to tell my students for taking exams (especially in nursing or medicine).

My original question was why should it just apply to the Internet? I have heard Hitler's name come up in situations other than the Internet. In fact, haven't I just recently heard a speaker refer to Nazism?

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
My original question was why should it just apply to the Internet?

.
I agree, Kalleh. The Hitler/Nazism paradigm is of no importance. The point of Godwin's Law is that "Godwin argues in his book, Cyber Rights: Defending Free Speech in the Digital Age, that hyperbolic overuse of the Hitler/Nazi comparison should be avoided, as it robs the valid comparisons of their impact."
In other words, as in any other topic, overusage leads to abuse and diminishes the usefulness of the analogy or comparison under discussion. So, we can use Hitler/Nazism when appropriate, but not too much.