LBO = flame city? (was RE: Survivor!)

Matt Cramer cramer at unix01.voicenet.com
Thu Oct 26 10:58:04 PDT 2000


On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, martin schiller wrote:


> Matt Cramer said on 10/26/00 7:33 AM
>
> >Godwin's Law states that as the length of any USENET discussion thread,
> >and the number of parties participating in that thread, grows, the
> >probability that one party will mention Hitler or Nazis appraoches one. A
> >corollary to Godwin's Law says that no matter what the argument is about,
> >or who has produced the better argument, whoever mentions Hitler or Nazis
> >is automagically wrong.
>
> How does the recent "Political Twilight Zone" post fit this model?

It doesn't. If one is discussing the politics of WWII, then obviously Nazis are a legitimate topic. Godwin's Law is only concerned with Hitler and Nazi references when they are used as ad hominem, and is the meter by which to judge the insults versus valid points.

For example, if the recent Survivor! thread, Godwin's Law could have been invoked if someone would have said "yeah well the NAZIs believe in utilitarian individualism and you do to, so you are just like Hitler". Or in the recent gun control thread had I said "yeah well the NAZIs believed in gun control, you fascists".

Whether or not the insult has anything to do with historical accuracy of the Nazis or Hitler is of little importance. The west tends to consider Nazis vile disgusting creatures and to call someone a Nazi is considered "as low as you can go".

Chris mentioned it while commenting on the flames he received which I interpreted as 'the flames were fairly nasty and I'm surprised they didn't reach the epitome of nasty', i.e. proving Godwin's Law. I.e., "yeah well if we look at Hitler then we know what kind of effects YOUR attitude has".

I wouldn't expect people here to invoke Godwin's Law any more than the people at dc-stuff (although it is joked about there, people tend to have more creative ad hominems). On some highly public battleground that tends to attract simple-minded nutters, such as alt.atheism, you'll see it all the time.

On dc-stuff, which has little support for Clintonism and the Democratic Party, "liberal" is considered an insult - it is associated with gun grabbing, the drug war, anti-crypto, anti-hacker, anti-free-speech, pro-police state, etc. policies. It is a far more substantive insult than the one Godwin's Law lampoons. It is comparable to the way LBO likes to use "libertarian" as an insult.

Matt

-- Matt Cramer <cramer at voicenet.com> http://www.voicenet.com/~cramer/ The technology that extends our senses is increasingly difficult to distinguish from the technology that creates our senses.

-Richard Thieme



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list