History Main / GodwinsLaw

Godwin's Law, also known as "Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies," is an "Internet law" describing the tendency of [[{{GIFT}} people on the Internet]] to say outrageous things to win arguments. Originated by Richard Sexton, it's named after Mike Godwin, longtime attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (and at one time for [[Wiki/{{Wikipedia}} the Wikimedia Foundation]] as well), who popularized the law in 1990 in this form:

-->--'''Creator/GeorgeOrwell''', "Politics and the English Language", 1946

In the end, it's a simple observation, by now generally accepted across the Internet: whoever is the first to [[{{Derailing}} play the "Hitler card"]] has lost not only the argument, but whatever trace of respect they may have had. If you have to resort to comparing your adversary to the most infamous mass-murdering dictator in history, that generally means you've run out of ''better'' arguments. Thus, once such a comparison is made, the thread can be presumed finished. The original "Godwin's Law" only spoke of Internet users' tendency to make frivolous Nazi comparisons, but the utter failure of those comparisons to work is now also enshrined in "Internet law".

->''"The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies 'something not desirable.'"''

Godwin's Law, also known as "Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies," is an "Internet law" describing the tendency of [[{{GIFT}} people on the Internet]] to say outrageous things to win arguments. Originated by Richard Sexton, it's named after Mike Godwin, longtime attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (and at one time for [[Wiki/{{Wikipedia}} the Wikimedia Foundation]] as well), who popularised the law in 1990 in this form:

Godwin based this on his observation of behaviour on Website/{{Usenet}}. [[http://www.cs.uu.nl/wais/html/na-dir/net-legends-faq/part2.html Net.Legends FAQ]]s "Usenet Rule #4" later reformulated it to read:

* Referencing other mass-murdering dictators, often Communists like UsefulNotes/JosephStalin, UsefulNotes/MaoZedong, or [[UsefulNotes/{{Cambodia}} Pol Pot]]. This doesn't even really avoid a Nazi comparison because the thinking is the same that leads to the CommieNazis trope. In fact, the invocation of a Communist leader in this sense is ''itself'' worthy of a Nazi comparison, given how right-wing extremists are very prone to comparing their opponents to evil Communists in a technique known as "[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red-baiting red-baiting]]". If you don't want Communists, you could try terrorists like al-Qaeda or Daesh.

* You can't just use Godwin's Law to shut down an actual pertinent comparison to Hitler. In some cases, discussion of Hitler and Nazism is absolutely necessary, especially where people [[ANaziByAnyOtherName clearly seem to like its worst policies]]; [[Series/LastWeekTonightWithJohnOliver John Oliver]] once noted the need for a "reverse Godwin's Law" (in discussing how American conservatives were refusing to address the fact that neo-Nazis were openly supporting them) stating that if you ''fail'' to address Hitler or Nazism when you need to, you ''lose'' the debate. This is especially true when discussing [[WouldBeRudeToSayGenocide genocide]], as UsefulNotes/TheHolocaust is generally considered the standard against which to measure other genocides.

The trope has [[OlderThanTheyThink even before the Nazis took power]] albeit taking a different form. Prior to UsefulNotes/WorldWarII, the go-to villains were generally [[Literature/TheBible Biblical]], such as the NephariousPharaoh (often thought to be UsefulNotes/RamsesII) from the Literature/BookOfExodus, and Pontius Pilate and Judas Iscariot from Literature/TheFourGospels. UsefulNotes/AttilaTheHun was also often used, leading to the appellation of the Germans as "Huns" during UsefulNotes/WorldWarI for their [[TheHorde supposed savagery]]. But it shifted to Hitler almost as soon as the Nazis had been defeated; Creator/GeorgeOrwell observed the phenomenon as early as 1946 in his essay "[[http://www.literaturecollection.com/a/orwell/454/ Politics and the English Language]]", and ethical philosopher Leo Strauss coined the term ''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum reductio ad Hitlerum]]'' to refer to it in 1953. Mike Godwin just observed how it went down on the Internet.

The trope is OlderThanTheyThink, not surprisingly given [[HumansAreBastards human nature]]. Prior to UsefulNotes/WorldWarII, the go-to villains were generally [[Literature/TheBible Biblical]], such as the NephariousPharaoh (often thought to be UsefulNotes/RamsesII) from the Literature/BookOfExodus, and Pontius Pilate and Judas Iscariot from Literature/TheFourGospels. UsefulNotes/AttilaTheHun was also often used, leading to the appellation of the Germans as "Huns" during UsefulNotes/WorldWarI for their [[TheHorde supposed savagery]]. But it shifted to Hitler almost as soon as the Nazis had been defeated; Creator/GeorgeOrwell observed the phenomenon as early as 1946 in his essay "[[http://www.literaturecollection.com/a/orwell/454/ Politics and the English Language]]", and ethical philosopher Leo Strauss coined the term ''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum reductio ad Hitlerum]]'' to refer to it in 1953. Mike Godwin just observed how it went down on the Internet.

* Straining for a "legitimate" comparison to Nazi ideology, which tends to fail because HitlerAteSugar; something isn't wrong because the Nazis did it, but rather the Nazis are evil because some of the things they did were evil.

'''Godwin's Law''', also known as "Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies," is an "Internet law" describing the tendency of [[{{GIFT}} people on the Internet]] to say outrageous things to win arguments. Originated by Richard Sexton, it's named after Mike Godwin, longtime attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (and at one time for [[Wiki/{{Wikipedia}} the Wikimedia Foundation]] as well), who popularised the law in 1990 in this form:

The trope is OlderThanTheyThink, not unsurprisingly given [[HumansAreBastards human nature]]. Prior to UsefulNotes/WorldWarII, the go-to villains were generally [[Literature/TheBible Biblical]], such as the NephariousPharaoh (often thought to be UsefulNotes/RamsesII) from the Literature/BookOfExodus, and Pontius Pilate and Judas Iscariot from Literature/TheFourGospels. UsefulNotes/AttilaTheHun was also often used, leading to the appellation of the Germans as "Huns" during UsefulNotes/WorldWarI for their [[TheHorde supposed savagery]]. But it shifted to Hitler almost as soon as the Nazis had been defeated; Creator/GeorgeOrwell observed the phenomenon as early as 1946 in his essay "[[http://www.literaturecollection.com/a/orwell/454/ Politics and the English Language]]", and ethical philosopher Leo Strauss coined the term ''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum reductio ad Hitlerum]]'' to refer to it in 1953. Mike Godwin just observed how it went down on the Internet.

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

Note that there's an important distinction -- the comparison to Nazis must be ''frivolous''. The law is not supposed to apply to serious discussions of [[http://xkcd.com/261/ Nazi Germany or its policies]] on the Internet; Mike Godwin has long lamented frivolous ''invocation'' of his "law" to stifle such discussion, and has [[ICantBelieveImSayingThis also lamented having to even clarify this aspect of the law]]. This led to the creation of a corollary known as "Henderson's Law", an observation by Joel Henderson that the Internet's awareness of the law has resulted in its invocation at any comparison to Hitler or Nazis, no matter how accurate or on-point.

* You also can't use Godwin's Law just because Hitler happened to be mentioned. It ties in with [[TheScottishTrope the idea that you can't mention Hitler's name because he's so evil]] (and you can't invoke Hitler's desire to be remembered forever as a reason to never mention him again).

A real invocation of Godwin's Law is really an accusation of poor debating, as it amounts to comparing your opponent to an atrocity so evil as to be non-debatable, which is not only ''very'' rarely a fair comparison, but also is very insensitive to real-life victims and their descendants. Usually, it's seen as an act of desperation, in the sense that you've run out of better arguments, but for some people, it reflects a sincere belief (for instance, theists often claim that all morality comes from religion, so if you don't believe in God there's nothing stopping you from being as bad as Hitler -- even though whether Hitler himself [[HitlerAteSugar was really an atheist]] is a complicated question).

See also {{Demonization}} (the broad rhetorical device) and AbominationAccusationAttack. Not to be confused with GodwinsLawOfTimeTravel, which







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 UsefulNotes/TheHolocaust is pretty much the TropeCodifier that most other genocides are measured against. And of course, there are neo-Nazis and [[ANaziByAnyOtherName other such groups]] that use Nazi symbolism, make racist arguments, and openly compare ''themselves'' to the Third Reich, in which case the comparison can probably be conceded as a fair one.

Mike Godwin ''himself'' has actually penned articles in major news outlets in attempts to clarify when comparisons to Nazism are and/or are not appropriate in current political debate, [[ICantBelieveImSayingThis and lamented the need for him to write those articles as well]].

Also known as "Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies". Originated by Richard Sexton, and popularized by Mike Godwin of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (and of [[Wiki/{{Wikipedia}} the Wikimedia Foundation]] until 2010) in 1990 in the form:

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

Reformulated in the [[http://www.cs.uu.nl/wais/html/na-dir/net-legends-faq/part2.html Net.Legends FAQ]]s "Usenet Rule #4":

->"Any off-topic mention of [[UsefulNotes/AdolfHitler 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 Website/{{Usenet}} has a constantly-increasing probability to contain such a mention."

It is generally accepted that [[{{Derailing}} whoever is the first to play the "Hitler card"]] has lost the argument as well as any trace of respect, as having to resort to comparing your adversary to the most infamous mass-murdering dictator in history generally means you've run out of ''better'' arguments. Thus, 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 is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law.

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'' criticizing comparisons to Hitler.

Note that the Law is not supposed to apply to serious discussions of [[http://xkcd.com/261/ Nazi Germany or its policies]], but rather describes the logical fallacy of Hitler/Nazi comparisons. The most common forms of this are [[HitlerAteSugar "The Nazis supported X, therefore X is bad/The Nazis opposed X, therefore X is good"]]. Whether using "Nazi" as a random insult falls under the Law is a matter of debate. Unfortunately, this has become so popular as to come full-circle, making any discussion of totalitarian regimes susceptible to "HAY GODWIN'S LAW HURR".

As Quirk's Exception points out, attempting to invoke Godwin's Law ''intentionally'' in order to force-terminate a thread rarely works. All the same, shouting "Hitler!" is a fun way to express your opinion that a thread should be put to rest. Of course, it's also helping Hitler indirectly, as his greatest expressed wish was to be remembered forever, which means that you're [[SelfDemonstratingArticle just as bad as Hitler, you horrible Nazi bastard]]. However, this corollary ''is not'' in the law itself. Likewise, trying to bait your opponent into breaking the law is poor form too. Sometimes commenters will try to get around mentioning Hitler's name directly (e.g. "You know who ELSE got rejected in art school? THAT'S RIGHT."), but this is really no better.

Events in the ''Literature/HarryPotter'' fandom have led [[FanWank Fandom Wank]] to coin the Pacific Theater Corollary, in which someone invokes the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the same way.

Occasionally UsefulNotes/JosefStalin or other communist leaders/regimes are referenced, often by [[WrongGenreSavvy 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. Use of communist regimes, rather than Nazi Germany in these types of arguments is commonly referred to as ''[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red-baiting red-baiting]]''.
The Greek political party [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dawn_(political_party) Golden Dawn]] has also been used for the same purpose, though it is still mostly used in European parliaments and it is very likely that the only reason why is because only they know what it means. Some people will be topical and use terrorism or {{slavery|IsASpecialKindOfEvil}} 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. 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 (this is pretty common in many atheist vs. theist debates — it could almost be a trope of its own, though here it is part of HollywoodAtheist).

Pre-Mike Godwin and its prevalence on the Internet, the spoken and written word version of this was called ''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum reductio ad Hitlerum]]'' or ''argumentum ad Hitlerum'', coined by ethical philosopher Leo Strauss in 1953. It means pretty much the same as Godwin's Law: [[HitlerAteSugar "A view is not refuted by the fact that it happens to have been shared by Adolph Hitler."]]

Creator/GeorgeOrwell said something similar in his 1946 essay, "[[http://www.literaturecollection.com/a/orwell/454/ 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.

This trope is (perhaps not surprisingly, given [[HumansAreBastards human nature]]) OlderThanTheyThink. Prior to UsefulNotes/WorldWarII, the go-to villains were generally [[Literature/TheBible Biblical]], such as the NephariousPharaoh (often thought to be UsefulNotes/RamsesII) from the Literature/BookOfExodus, and Pontius Pilate and Judas Iscariot from Literature/TheFourGospels. UsefulNotes/AttilaTheHun was also sometimes invoked for this trope. For instance, during the First World War, the invading Germans received the appellation "Huns" due to their [[TheHorde supposed savagery]].

Showcased on the "Germany" episode of ''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.

The ''[[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxYgcM4ftiQ Internetiquette]]'' short of the fifth episode of the Flemish investigative journalism series ''Basta'' / ''neveneffecten'', also showcases those 2 laws ("After a comparison with the Nazis there will always be a stupid guy that will refer to Godwin's law" is the second one) together with plenty of other laws that are present on the internet when they deconstructed the inner workings of an internet discussion. The thing is, however, as of yet only available in Dutch.

Events in the ''Literature/HarryPotter'' fandom have led FandomWank to coin the Pacific Theater Corollary, in which someone invokes the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the same way.

Events in the ''Literature/HarryPotter'' fandom have led Fandom_Wank to coin the Pacific Theater Corollary, in which someone invokes the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the same way.

Note that the [[CaptainObvious Law is not supposed to apply to serious discussions of]] [[http://xkcd.com/261/ Nazi Germany or its policies]], but rather describes the logical fallacy of Hitler/Nazi comparisons. The most common forms of this are [[HitlerAteSugar "The Nazis supported X, therefore X is bad/The Nazis opposed X, therefore X is good"]]. Whether using "Nazi" as a random insult falls under the Law is a matter of debate. Unfortunately, this has become so popular as to come full-circle, making any discussion of totalitarian regimes susceptible to "HAY GODWIN'S LAW HURR".

This trope is (perhaps not surprisingly, given [[HumansAreBastards human nature]]) OlderThanTheyThink. Prior to UsefulNotes/WorldWarII, the go-to villains were generally [[Literature/TheBible Biblical]], such as the NephariousPharaoh (often thought to be UsefulNotes/RamsesII) from the Literature/BookOfExodus, and Pontius Pilate and Judas Iscariot from Literature/TheFourGospels. UsefulNotes/AttilaTheHun was also sometimes invoked for this trope. For instance, during the First World War, the invading Germans received the appellation "Huns" due to their supposed savagery.

The Greek political party [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dawn_(political_party) Golden Dawn]] has also been used for the same purpose, though it is still mostly used in European parliaments and it is very likely that the only reason why is because only they know what it means. Some people will be topical and use terrorism or {{slavery|IsASpecialKindOfEvil}} 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.
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 (this is pretty common in many atheist vs. theist debates-it could almost be a trope of its own, though here it is part of HollywoodAtheist).

The [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxYgcM4ftiQ ''Internetiquette'']] short of the fifth episode of the Flemish investigative journalism series ''Basta'' / ''neveneffecten'', also showcases those 2 laws ("After a comparison with the Nazis there will always be a stupid guy that will refer to Godwin's law" is the second one) together with plenty of other laws that are present on the internet when they deconstructed the inner workings of an internet discussion. The thing is however as of yet only available in Dutch.

This trope is (perhaps not surprisingly, given [[HumansAreBastards human nature]]) OlderThanTheyThink. Prior to UsefulNotes/WorldWarII, the go-to villains were generally [[Literature/TheBible Biblical]], such as the NephariousPharaoh (often thought to be UsefulNotes/RamsesII) from the Literature/BookOfExodus, and Pontius Pilate and Judas Iscariot from the New Testament. UsefulNotes/AttilaTheHun was also sometimes invoked for this trope--for instance, during the First World War, the invading Germans received the appellation "Huns" due to their supposed savagery.

[[quoteright:350:https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/495px_godwin.jpg]]

%%
%% Due to the nature of this trope, finding an image will be very difficult.
%% DO NOT add an image to this page without discussion in Image Pickin'.
%% IP thread for reference: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=1497241279076130400
%%
%%

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://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/xrdazj/a-relatively-closer-look---hitler-reference criticizing comparisons to Hitler.]]

This trope is (perhaps not surprisingly, given [[HumansAreBastards human nature]]) OlderThanTheyThink. Prior to UsefulNotes/WorldWarII, the go-to villains were generally [[Literature/TheBible Biblical]], such as the NephariousPharaoh (often thought to be UsefulNotes/RamsesII) from the Literature/BookOfExodus, and Pontius Pilate and Judas Iscariot from the New Testament.

Occasionally UsefulNotes/JosefStalin is referenced, often by [[WrongGenreSavvy 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. The Greek political party [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dawn_(political_party) Golden Dawn]] has also been used for the same purpose, though it is still mostly used in European parliaments and it is very likely that the only reason why is because only they know what it means. Some people will be topical and use terrorism or {{slavery|IsASpecialKindOfEvil}} 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.

Mike Godwin ''himself'' has actually penned articles in major news outlets in attempts to clarify when comparisons to Nazism are and/or are not appropriate in current political debate, and lamented the need for him to write those articles as well.

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 UsefulNotes/TheHolocaust is pretty much the TropeCodifier that most other genocides are measured against.

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 (this is pretty common in many atheist vs. theist debates-it could almost be a trope of its own, though here it is part of HollywoodAtheist).[[note]]It should be noted that Stalin was more like a victim of capitalist propaganda and RedScare, and none of his supposed "crimes" were proven.[[/note]]

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 (this is pretty common in many atheist vs. theist debates-it could almost be a trope of its own, though here it is part of HollywoodAtheist).[[note]]It should be noted there are actual Marxists who refer to themselves as Stalinists who consider him a victim of capitalist propaganda and deny his crimes, the most noteworthy/infamous being The Espresso Stalinist. Stalin apologetics is unfortunately common in comparison with equivalent defenses for Hitler or the Nazis, as it hasn't gotten the same opprobrium (at least in some countries).[[/note]]