Talk:Godwin's Law

From RationalWiki

Never heard of it...love it...guilty of it.--PalMD^-Talk 09:52, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

Now I understand why Ed Poor thought he had won an argument with me. Actually I only compared him to Margaret Thatcher, but it's the same thing.--CatWatcher 09:57, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

I have no problem comparing fascists with other fascists.--PalMD^-Talk 10:00, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

and actually, at the time I was pointing out that in attempting to ban everyone who rocked the boat, CP would be left with a tightly-knit set of people who all agreed with one another, but whom, in the long run, like Thatcher would be ignored as irrelevant.--CatWatcher 10:10, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

Man, the way this site treats conservative ideas is worse than the way Hitler treated the Jews. human^{be in} 01:31, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Invoking Hitler to purposefully activate Godwin's Law is not kosher. Tmtoulouse 01:33, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

ROTFLKJHF:OUIRHGHSFDUHGUKHUOKHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHFHJ1!!!!!1111!!!111oneoneoneone!!!!1one!11!11 I'd eat that salt. human^{be in} 01:42, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Wait, I thought the law said that whoever first compared their opponent to nazis/hitler in an argument loses? Or is that yet another one? Or just me misunderstanding and making up a new law? human 06:46, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Doesn't the probability of any sort of comparison approach 1 as a discussion continues?

Never mind, I read the whole thing and what I thought the Law was is at the end, kind of as a corollary. human 18:21, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

I've grown to hate this law because so many Bush apologists use it as a shield. It doesn't matter if Bush blatantly uses 9/11 in exactly the same way as Hitler used the Reichstag, or if Republicans use hatred of communists, gays and liberals to build support (they left out the Jews and Gypsies this time), or even if Bush suspends Habeas Corpus, Posse Comitatus and builds detention centers and raises his own private army... you can't compare him to Hitler!!! Garble 18:42, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

If Godwin's Law is the only defense someone has, they're in trouble... human 19:05, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

As I understand it, you're allowed to use it where the comparison is justified. It's just if you start shrieking "NAZI!!! NAZI!!!" that you've lost the argument. Writing out a step-by-step comparison of Hitler and Bush might get past the law. Wazza (Yes, that Wazza)^{Bring a little light into my dim and dull existence} 17:43, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Star Trek Corollary

I wonder if there's a corollary to this law: "As the number of episodes in any Star Trek series grows, the probability of a storyline involving Nazis approaches one."--SpinyNorman 17:22, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, it's funny, anyway. human 17:38, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

There's been at least one ST episode about Nazis, so I'd guess so. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 17:40, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

How about a more general "As the number of episodes of any show (which can figure out a way to do so) increases, the probability of the old 'if you could go back and kill baby Adolf' plot canard being milked approaches one" (I know, it lacks a certain concisity!) human 17:43, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

I like the original iteration better :-). And it's SO TRUE. I know they did it in ST:TOS, I don't know about TNG, but I know it was in Enterprise too...-caius (orator) 17:47, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

From what I can tell it happened in the original series, in Voyager, and in Enterprise. They used allegorical references a lot in DS9, but had the good sense to hold back :-). --SpinyNorman 17:02, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Hmmm...

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

Can be reworded as

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of someone referencing the subject of Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

It follows that

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of someone referencing any unrelated or tangentially related subject approaches one.

Similarly,

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of discussion of any unrelated or tangentially related x subject approaches one.

From this we can conclude that

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of discussion of any unrelated or tangentially related x subject approaches one.

Where x subject can be Nazis, Hitler, unicorns, spaghetti, or any other topic. The converse of all of this is

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of discussion of any unrelated or tangentially related x subject approaches one, and the probability of the original subject remaining the main subject of discussion approaches zero.

This could be applied to any discussion, therefore

As a discussion grows longer, the probability of discussion of any unrelated or tangentially related x subject approaches one, and the probability of the original subject remaining the main subject of discussion approaches zero.^{— Unsigned, by: 24.5.253.99 / welcome this user / contribs}

Wrong. As my Philosophy 101 teacher used to write on my paper DNF--does not follow. Specifically, here:As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of someone referencing any unrelated or tangentially related subject approaches one. Does not follow from previous assertions. Nice try. Thanks for playing. PFoster 23:17, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

[edit] jsp

As with 'The pound in your pocket' and other quotes the original version and the (often pithier)colloquial rephrasing coexist.

Perhaps '...Hitler, the Nazis or any contemporary very unpleasant character' with the point being that the reference is a non sequiteur/has ad hominen overtones.

^{— Unsigned, by: 82.198.250.5 / talk / contribs} 18:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)