Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1] is an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states:[2][3]
"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Godwin's Law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the reductio ad Hitlerum form.
The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued[4] that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact. Although in one of its early forms Godwin's Law referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions,[5] the law is now applied to any threaded online discussion: electronic mailing lists, message boards, chat rooms, and more recently blog comment threads and wiki talk pages.
Contents |
There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[2] than others invented later.[1] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle itself is frequently referred to as Godwin's Law. It is considered poor form to raise such a comparison arbitrarily with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized codicil that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin's law will be unsuccessful (this is sometimes referred to as "Quirk's Exception").[6]
Godwin's Law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Hitler or Nazis or their actions. It does not apply to discussions directly addressing genocide, propaganda, or other mainstays of the Nazi regime. Whether it applies to humorous use or references to oneself is open to interpretation, because although mentioning and trivializing Nazism in an online discussion, this would not be a fallacious attack against a debate opponent.
However, Godwin's Law itself can be abused, as a distraction or diversion, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent's argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate. A 2005 Reason magazine article argued that Godwin's Law is often misused to ridicule even valid comparisons.[7]
Godwin has stated that he introduced Godwin's Law in 1990 as an experiment in memetics.[3]
Linking by implication the fallacy of reductio ad Hitlerum to online discussion length had been done prior to 1990 by a poster named Richard Sexton in 1989: "You can tell when a USENET discussion is getting old when one of the participants drags out Hitler and the Nazis."[8] Godwin's Law does not, however, claim to articulate a fallacy; it is instead framed as a memetic tool to reduce the incidence of inappropriate hyperbolic comparisons. "Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust," Godwin has written. It has not been established whether Sexton's quip had any influence on Godwin's law, though Sexton continues, citing an apparent joke by Godwin, to claim Godwin borrowed the idea from Sexton and named it.[9]
In some countries such as Poland, due to Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles which caused the death of over 2 million Polish citizens, actual comparison of someone to Hitler or Nazi is very rare during an online discussion. Using a "nazi analogy" is not only considered to be an inadequate hyperbole, it is also considered to be a sign of one's total lack of historic knowledge. Instead, in democratic countries severely affected by Nazi war crimes, as an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving the Soviet Union or Stalin approaches one.
In Scotland where there is much debate on the country's constitutional future, it has been suggested that the law be extended to references to the Mel Gibson movie, Braveheart.[10]
In Germany, there's a popular extension called "Schmidt's Addentum" which roughly translates: "Godwin's law is especially true but loses impact in discussions about genocide, WWII and current oppressive, imperialistic and/or militarist nations like China, Russia or the USA. Plus, native citizens of these countries will always bring up Godwin's law to avoid unpleasant comparisons."
While Godwin's Law initially was best known in Usenet, it has clearly spread to other forms of online communication. In 2007, Slashdot noted that Godwin's law affected an ongoing, highly public dispute between Linux founder Linus Torvalds and the GNOME project.[11] A May 2007 issue of Randall Munroe's webcomic xkcd anachronistically portrays Allied officers trying to discuss Axis military tactics, but being interrupted by Godwin's Law.[12] Similarly, a November 2007 issue of Jeph Jacques's webcomic Questionable Content, entitled "Godwin Wars", referenced (and contrasted) Godwin's law and the reductio ad Hitlerum.[13] In its October 2007 issue and on its website, Wired published a "Geekipedia" piece that includes an entry for "Godwin's law" among "people, place, ideas, and trends you need to know now".[14]
The concept appears to have entered the public consciousness more broadly, as well. In 2005, the aphorism was the subject of a question in the British television quiz show University Challenge.[15] By 2007, The Economist had declared that "a good rule in most discussions is that the first person to call the other a Nazi automatically loses the argument."[16] And in October 2007, the "Last Page" columnist in The Smithsonian stated that when an adversary uses an inappropriate Hitler or Nazi comparison, "you have only to say 'Godwin's Law' and a trapdoor falls open, plunging your rival into a pool of hungry crocodiles."[17]
On October 20, 2008 Rachel Maddow, on The Rachel Maddow Show, proposed a corollary to Godwin's law that as the time a liberal candidate is believed to be winning an election or argument increases, the probability that they will be labeled communist or socialist approaches 1.
As Godwin's Law has become more and more popular, its use in daily arguments increased. The rising use of Godwin's Law led to the implementation of the Dodds Corollary. The Dodds Corollary states:
"When debating a particular subject, if a comparison or implied connection is drawn between the opponent's argument and Hitler and the Nazi Party, the maker of that statement is automatically discredited and the debate is automatically lost by the person or group who referenced the connection to Hitler or the Nazis."