History Main / GodwinsLaw

George Orwell said something similar in his 1946 essay, "[[http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&sqi=2&ved=0CBwQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmla.stanford.edu%2FPolitics_%26_English_language.pdf&rct=j&q=orwell%20politics%20and%20the%20english%20language&ei=0gCjTKX8NYP4swOkobH6Bg&usg=AFQjCNHLldoScj4lgGsrdciEwPo7hl2skA&cad=rja Politics and the English Language]]", where he noted the new definition of fascism had pretty much become "anything you don't agree with". There's also [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQFU1y928dw a very catchy tune]] on the subject, as there is with most things.

Events in the ''Literature/HarryPotter'' fandom have led [[http://www.journalfen.net/community/fandom_wank/ Fandom_Wank]] to coin the [[http://www.journalfen.net/community/fandom_wank/1119229.html?thread=165134333#t165134333 Pacific Theater Corollary]], in which someone invokes the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the same way.

Showcased on ''Series/{{QI}}'' as "Godwin's Rule", giving an example of Hitler's love of animals (and disgust of fox hunting) as a fallacious reason to keep fox hunting legal, though this wiki considers that a wholly separate logical fallacy: HitlerAteSugar.

Occasionally Stalin is referenced, often by [[GenreSavvy people who are aware of]] Godwin's Law but want to convey a similar message; in this case, this might slip into the CommieNazis trope. Some people will be topical and use {{Osama bin Laden}} or slavery (especially America's brand of it) as the canonical ultimate evil. However, any of these can also be seen to have violated Godwin's Law, since the point remains: comparing your argument to a clear and non-debatable atrocity is simply bad debating, since it implies that the opposition has no redeeming qualities whatsoever, and is obviously insensitive to real-life victims and their descendants.

Showcased on ''{{QI}}'' as "Godwin's Rule", giving an example of Hitler's love of animals (and disgust of fox hunting) as a fallacious reason to keep fox hunting legal, though this wiki considers that a wholly separate logical fallacy: HitlerAteSugar.

Ironically, Dawkins said it was a stupid rule. Which [[SarcasmMode doesn't have anything]] to do with the fact he used the argument against the Pope, claiming the [[TakeThat Catholic Church]] [[ArtisticLicenseHistory supported the Nazis]].

-->"After a rather influential message by M Sipher in 1997 the term 'true fan' has taken on a whole new meaning among some [=TransFans=]. It's a sort of twist on Godwin's Law where anybody who accuses somebody of not being a true fan automatically loses any argument, and is often discounted as a buffoon afterwards."

Ironically Dawkins said it was a stupid rule. Which [[SarcasmMode doesn't have anything]] to do with the fact he used the argument against the Pope, claiming the Catholic Church [[ArtisticLicenseHistory supported the Na]][[TakeThat zis]].

->''"You wanna know [[HitlerAteSugar who else]] used laws to stop debates? [[AdolfHitler HITLER]]!"''

->As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving [[ThoseWackyNazis Nazis]] or [[AdolfHitler Hitler]] approaches one.

Heavily overlaps with {{demonization}} and can be seen as its modern, secular adaptation. See also AbominationAccusationAttack. Not to be confused with GodwinsLawOfTimeTravel. It ''might'' be justified when seriously discussing [[WouldBeRudeToSayGenocide genocide]], since the Holocaust is pretty much the TropeCodifier that most other genocides are measured against. The word was even first coined in reference to it.

A more recent subvariant on Godwin's Law doesn't involve Hitler (or even other genocidal dictators), but invokes PaedoHunt to draw a quick and emotional reaction by dragging the subject or accusation of pedophilia into a discussion ''entirely'' unrelated to it.

For example, a post on how the UnitedStates should emulate Japan's gun laws will get a comment screaming about whether the US should allow sexualization of underage girls too, never mind that the topics have ''nothing to do with each other'' and it ''is'' possible for a country to have both strict gun controls and strict laws against sexualizing children. A similar example would be someone, in reply to something citing Amsterdam as a good case for legalizing [[TheStoner certain]] [[MushroomSamba plants]], commenting "The Netherlands has a registered political party of pedophiles, should we have that too?" never mind that drug legalization and the party have nothing to do with each other and that said party is not taken seriously as a political party by anyone but its own membership. A more direct form is simple AdHominem and AbominationAccusationAttack - proclaiming someone one is arguing with to be a pedophile with ''no'' evidence to back the accusation, or with very flimsy evidence ("Your avatar is from ''Series/{{Glee}}''!"). The [[BritishNewspapers Daily Mail]] is ''notorious'' for both forms of this, as well, to generate clicks on stories and paper sales.

As Godwin's Law doesn't qualify if the discussion is actually about Nazis or genocide or similar, this subvariant doesn't qualify if the subject can even ''tangentially'' be related to pedophilia, pedophiles, underage sex, depictions of it in fiction, or anything similar, or if the person one is arguing with/fighting is actually a real pedophile, in which a mention of or comparison to pedophiles or pedophilia is valid and justified.

Similar to Godwin's Law, such a comment should be taken as a loss of the debate by whomever was the first to play the "pedo card."

There is one situation where Godwin's Law, where played, can be used to win an argument by default, as in these specific and unique circumstances it can stifle and discredit critical opinion. Any criticism of actions taken by the State of Israel, however minor, however legitimate, tends to be met by floods of accusations that the person making the argument is being self-evidently anti-Semitic and even behaving like a Nazi or acting to carry on where Hitler left off (especially disgraceful because there ''are'' certain anti-Israel figures who want to carry on where Hitler left off). The more vocal supporters of Israel, including Christian Zionists (some of whom, hypocritically, are themselves descendants of anti-Semites), use this argument shamelessly and frequently, using the power of the Holocaust to shame opponents of today's Israeli state into silence. (Having said that, some critics of Israel have turned the tables on them by comparing ''them'' to the Nazis in their treatment of the Palestinians.)

There is one situation where Godwin's Law, where played, can be used to win an argument by default, as in these specific and unique circumstances it can stifle and discredit critical opinion. Any criticism of actions taken by the State of Israel, however minor, however legitimate, tends to be met by floods of accusations that the person making the argument is being self-evidently anti-Semitic and even behaving like a Nazi or acting to carry on where Hitler left off. The more vocal supporters of Israel, including Christian Zionists, use this argument shamelessly and frequently, using the power of the Holocaust to shame opponents of today's Israeli state into silence. (Having said that, some critics of Israel have turned the tables on them by comparing ''them'' to the Nazis in their treatment of the Palestinians.)

There is one situation where Godwin's Law, where played, can be used to win an argument by default, as in these specific and unique circumstances it can stifle and discredit critical opinion. Any criticism of actions taken by the State of Israel, however minor, however legitimate, tends to be met by floods of accusations that the person making the argument is being self-evidently anti-Semitic and even behaving like a Nazi or acting to carry on where Hitler left off. The more vocal supporters of Israel, including Christian Zionists, use this argument shamelessly and frequently, using the power of the Holocaust to shame opponents of today's Israeli state into silence.

Ironically Dawkins said it was a stupid rule. Which I'm sure [[SarcasmMode doesn't have anything]] to do with the fact he used the argument against the Pope, claiming the Catholic Church [[ArtisticLicenseHistory supported the Na]][[TakeThat zis]].

A good example of this can be found in one of the debates between Bill O'Reilly and Richard Dawkins. O'Reilly makes the argument that society needs religion to be moral because Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao were all Atheists.

The usage of Godwin's Law also has "Henderson's Law" as a corollary, referring to an observation by Joel Henderson that while Mike Godwin specifically stated this to pertain to "gratuitous Hitler-comparisons", Godwin's Law has been frivolously thrown at ''any'' comparison no matter how accurate or on-point. Case example: Jon Stewart of ''Series/TheDailyShow'' [[http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=114018&title=A-Relatively-Closer-Look---Hitler-Reference criticizing comparisons to Hitler.]]

Recent events in the ''Literature/HarryPotter'' fandom have led [[http://www.journalfen.net/community/fandom_wank/ Fandom_Wank]] to coin the [[http://www.journalfen.net/community/fandom_wank/1119229.html?thread=165134333#t165134333 Pacific Theater Corollary]], in which someone invokes the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the same way.

----

For example, a post on how the UnitedStates should emulate Japan's gun laws will get a comment screaming about whether the US should allow sexualization of underage girls too, never mind that the topics have ''nothing to do with each other'' and it ''is'' possible for a country to have both strict gun controls and strict laws against sexualizing children. A similar example would be someone, in reply to something citing Amsterdam as a good case for legalizing [[TheStoner certain]] [[MushroomSamba plants]], commenting "The Netherlands has a registered political party of pedophiles, should we have that too?" never mind that drug legalization and the party have nothing to do with each other and that said party is not taken seriously as a political party by anyone but its own membership. A more direct form is simple AdHominem and AbominationAccusationAttack - proclaiming someone one is arguing with to be a pedophile with ''no'' evidence to back the accusation, or with very flimsy evidence ("Your avatar is from ''Series/{{Glee}}''!"). The [[BritishNewspapers DailyMail]] is ''notorious'' for both forms of this, as well, to generate clicks on stories and paper sales.

[[caption-width-right:270:There are some things stupid arguments can't solve. For everything else, there's [[HitlerAteSugar The Hitler Card. ]]

[[quoteright:270:[[MagicTheGathering http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/hitlercard2.jpg]]]]
[[caption-width-right:270:There are some things stupid arguments can't solve. For everything else, there's TheHitlerCard. ]]

For example, a post on how the UnitedStates should emulate Japan's gun laws will get a comment screaming about whether the US should allow sexualization of underage girls too, never mind that the topics have ''nothing to do with each other'' and it ''is'' possible for a country to have both strict gun controls and strict laws against sexualizing children. A similar example would be someone, in reply to something citing Amsterdam as a good case for legalizing [[TheStoner certain]] [[MushroomSamba plants]], commenting "The Netherlands has a registered political party of pedophiles, should we have that too?" never mind that drug legalization and the party have nothing to do with each other and that said party is not taken seriously as a political party by anyone but its own membership. A more direct form is simple AdHominem and AbominationAccusationAttack - proclaiming someone one is arguing with to be a pedophile with ''no'' evidence to back the accusation, or with very flimsy evidence ("Your avatar is from {{Glee}}!"). The [[BritishNewspapers DailyMail]] is ''notorious'' for both forms of this, as well, to generate clicks on stories and paper sales.

A more recent subvariant on GodwinsLaw doesn't involve Hitler (or even other genocidal dictators), but invokes PaedoHunt to draw a quick and emotional reaction by dragging the subject or accusation of pedophilia into a discussion ''entirely'' unrelated to it.

As GodwinsLaw doesn't qualify if the discussion is actually about Nazis or genocide or similar, this subvariant doesn't qualify if the subject can even ''tangentially'' be related to pedophilia, pedophiles, underage sex, depictions of it in fiction, or anything similar, or if the person one is arguing with/fighting is actually a real pedophile, in which a mention of or comparison to pedophiles or pedophilia is valid and justified.

Similar to GodwinsLaw, such a comment should be taken as a loss of the debate by whomever was the first to play the "pedo card."

->"Any off-topic mention of Hitler or Nazis will cause the thread it is mentioned in to come to an irrelevant and off-topic end very soon; every thread on {{UseNet}} has a constantly-increasing probability to contain such a mention."

->''"You wanna know [[HitlerAteSugar who else]] ShapedLikeItself used laws to stop debates? [[AdolfHitler HITLER]]!"''

->''"You wanna know [[HitlerAteSugar who else]] [[ShapedLikeItself used laws to stop debates]]? [[AdolfHitler HITLER]]!"''