Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

This has been a thought on my mind for quite a while now and I feel like I need to get it off my chest.

Does anyone else feel like Godwin's Law is going more harm than good. And when I say Godwin's Law, I mean people who shout "GODWINS LAW!!!!1!" to every single parallel to Nazi Germany pointed out, regardless of how valid the parallel is. I understand the intent behind it, as everyone calling every politician they don't like Hitler would get tiring, but you can make a parallel between the rise of Nazism and current political happenings without calling someone Hitler.

They say "Those who do no learn from History are doomed to repeat it" and I believe that wholeheartedly, but it seems like any and every lesson we can take from Nazi Germany is being thrown in the trash because every time anyone points out similar political moves, similar discrimination tactics, or similar anything, it gets disregarded. This is bad, because if there is anything in recent history we should be taking lessons from, and trying our hardest to prevent from happening again, it's Nazi Germany.

This has got me worried that eventually, somewhere in the world, another populist is going to show up and start a repeat of history and no one is going to stop it because anyone pulling parallels are going to be shut down and called a fear-mongerer.

Does anyone else feel like the constant shut down of any discussion that brings up Nazism is just dooming us to a repeat of history. I know that another Nazi Germany is unlikely to ever occur, but does it peeve anyone else that people are so eager to throw away any and all lessons we can take from that time?

If you can't express how someone's actions are bad or detrimental and instead must call them a nazi or hitler in order to win your argument, you're doing a bad job and deserve the shut down.

How hard is it to say, "identity politics and a rise of military focus coupled with a growing extreme of what feels like a cult of personality is bad" instead of going "This guy is wearing brown, just like HITLER! Wake up sheeple!"

[They say “Those who do no learn from History are doomed to repeat it” and I believe that wholeheartedly, but it seems like any and every lesson we can take from Nazi Germany is being thrown in the trash because every time anyone points out similar political moves, similar discrimination tactics, or similar anything, it gets disregarded.]

Actually, I think the "doomed to repeat it" saying is more likely to cause Nazi-ish problems.

What it has essentially become is a justification for preemptive military action, based on the the rise of the Nazis. In order to avoid the mistake of appeasing totalitarianism in the 1930s, the United States and its western allies adopted the Containment Policy (Korea), which then evolved into the "Domino Theory" (Vietnam), which then morphed into Preemption (2003 Iraq War).

At the risk of vastly oversimplifying over a half-century of Western foreign policy and military actions, those three wars represents a trend where West is increasingly willing to start shooting based on the idea that waiting to do so could result in another Hitler-type figure.

After the experience of the Iraq War, I believe this thinking has peaked in West for now. However, the concept of "If we don't act against this threat, then this guy could turn into another Hitler" is still out there and, I believe, could be the justification for the creation of an expansionist military state.

And in the end, the different points we're bringing up are symptoms of a larger problem: a general ignorance of history, and the consequent inability to identify historical precedents (knowing history, being able to define what is Nazi-like) and how to apply lessons from those precedents to contemporary issues in a meaningful way. Sounds kind of weird, but while most people know what a Nazi is, few could probably describe the operations and structure of the Nazi regime in a historically-literate way.

People are using political shorthand to describe things ("That's very Nazi-like") without having a good grasp of what the shorthand stands for and how such analogies might apply to the modern world. This opens populations up to not only making errors in regards to supporting solutions to policy problems, but being manipulated by propaganda into supporting the very thing they believe they are opposing.

How hard is it to say, “identity politics and a rise of military focus coupled with a growing extreme of what feels like a cult of personality is bad”

That's what I'm talking about. People say that, and point to Nazi Germany as an example of where that leads when people don't think it's bad then gets shut down with "Godwin's Law"

@Colonel Sander Regarding the first half of your post, I'm not talking about people calling this dictator "The Next Hitler" I'm talking about taking the specifics of how the Nazi's came into power and learning from that how to prevent a populist extremist political group from taking over a country. It's not about identifying the next Hitler, in fact, Hitler himself has little to do with it. I'm talking more of the Nazi Party itself, the ideologies and politics that grew and took over a country in the first place.

Regarding "Jumping the Gun to stop the Next Hitler" While going too far is bad, doing nothing is just as bad if not worse. My Knowledge of the Korean War is very little, but the Vietnam War had more to do with competition against communism than stopping a dictator, and all know the real reason for the Iraq War.

And in the end, the different points we’re bringing up are symptoms of a larger problem: a general ignorance of history, and the consequent inability to identify historical precedents (knowing history, being able to define what is Nazi-like) and how to apply lessons from those precedents to contemporary issues in a meaningful way. Sounds kind of weird, but while most people know what a Nazi is, few could probably describe the operations and structure of the Nazi regime in a historically-literate way.

The problem is that the people who do know what they are talking about are also shut down because of Godwin's Law. I've seen people with an educated and well thought out argument comparing a Populist demonizing a group of people to gain power to how the Nazi Party did the same against the Jews and got downvoted with every reply being "L I T E R A L L Y H I T L E R" The problem is not the lack of educated people behind the discussions but the meme killing all discussion.

People are using political shorthand to describe things (“That’s very Nazi-like”) without having a good grasp of what the shorthand stands for and how such analogies might apply to the modern world. This opens populations up to not only making errors in regards to supporting solutions to policy problems, but being manipulated by propaganda into supporting the very thing they believe they are opposing.

Again, not what I'm talking about, I'm not talking about people spreading propganda but the people who see a legit parallel getting grouped in with the people spreading propganda

The funny thing is, Godwin's Law isn't even a real fallacy. Someone just declared that if you say Hitler in an argument you automatically lose. I really wish the internet would stop taking these pop-political science laws and theories seriously.

No, it won't. The rise of Nazi Germany required a lot of very specific factors, ranging from the bitterness over WW1 and rivalry with France, over to the economic state of Germany, over to everyone in Europe being so shellshocked by WW1 that they'd rather do appeasement than risk another war, over to antisemitism peaking.

Fascism itself isn't likely to pop up in the US because of the ideological climate--most of the right would hate it for the tight government control over the economy and most of the left would hate it for its intense nationalism and imperialistic nature. It's doubtful anyone directly advocating actual fascist doctrine in US politics would get anywhere, much like anyone advocating full socialism.

The big problem is people don't know what actual fascist doctrine is (generally, a centrally controlled economy with tight government controls over various civil liberties with a heavy emphasis on national and/or ethnic identity). They ascribe fascism to things (gun control, banning certain ethnic groups, etc.) they disagree with because fascism is evil and no one would really support such an evil ideology.

you can make a parallel between the rise of Nazism and current political happenings

I honestly don't think you can. There's been no major war that's devastated the country and we're still licking our wounds from, we haven't had a centuries long rivalry with Mexico or China we want to even the score with, our government system isn't build on a house of cards with little checks and balances in place, we don't have soaring inflation and economic depression that's hit most voters for years, and our current leader isn't a weak-willed national hero who's slowly slipping toward death due to old age.

People say that…

Arguments are rarely that nuanced. Usually, it's along the lines of "Trump's trying to deport Mexicans, just like Hitler tried to with Jews!"

comparing a Populist demonizing a group of people to gain power to how the Nazi Party did the same against the Jews

Weird how they go to the Nazi Party and not the Know Nothing Party, which gained ground in the 1850s with its anti-Catholic and anti-immigration (mainly from Ireland and other catholic countries) stance, or the People's Party that sought to wrest control from the "eastern elite" and put it back in the hands of the rural voters (sound familiar?). Or the Occupy Movement, which decried the 1% and banks as having all the power.

It's a basic fact that politics and political parties use "us vs them" tactics. It's tried and true throughout human history going at least back to Rome and the Populares and Optimates. I'll only start breaking out the Nazi parallels when they try to ban an entire ethnic/religious group or put them in camps--I mean, the next time we put them in camps.

@Tchefuncte Bonaparte
Godwin's Law is mostly pointing out a strawman argument, where the actual thing being debated is compared to fascism in an attempt to weaken it and make it easier to attack, despite fascism not being the thing being debated.

But there are no right wing populist extremist groups. We have some absolutely toothless attempts at some right wing populism, and even these parties have no chances of winning. People are cucked beyond belief. Out of all the things you could be worrying about, a new Hitler is the least probable scenario.

@Ryumaru Borike

You haven't explained to me why this is an issue in your reply however, nor have you refuted my point, nor even offered a real retort.

My response to your point that godwins law is somehow destroying the ability to debate was "If you need to use nazi's/hitler as the crux of your argument, you are bad at arguing"

And your response was, "Arguments that compare people to nazi's/hitler get mocked as bad and shut down"

So i'm going to rephrase it a bit, and hope you pick up what im laying down. There are many more groups and many more bad people and many more worse countries to pick from then just Nazi Germany and Rome. There is a plethora of more fitting analogies that don't require nearly as much logical leaps to draw parallels to, and xTSGx pointed out a handful in their post above.

Using nazi's in an argument is lazy, plain and simple. It denotes laziness because nobody in the modern age is going to claim to be a nazi or defend a nazi. So therefore, calling someone a nazi, is calling someone indefensible, and implying anyone who would stand with them are nazi sympathizers.

Its a cheap tactic designed to make weak arguments stronger. Because instead of arguing why something is bad via its own merits, you have to use the merits of a historical villainous entity to attempt to equate the two. It's like when people try to argue for certain laws to be upheld or repealed, and instead of arguing in their own words they link some article or deposition to do it for them. Essentially, nazism is a crutch so that you don't have to prove something is bad, you just have to claim it has parallels with something else that is bad, which is blatantly easy to do.

Here, i'll do it right now, and i'll use hitler for my basis here since, as you claim, it shouldn't matter. Animal Rights activists like to orginize themselves into groups and stage demonstrations against animal cruelty. Nazi Germany had extensive animal rights laws and hitler was a firm anti-vivisectionist. Therefore, animal rights activists shouldn't be listened to, because they have disturbing parallels to Hitler and Nazi Germany.

Whereas a more apt description of the situation would simply be, "Animal Rights activists have a troubling amount of organization and demonstrations, that can cause problems for people who don't agree with their message."

If someone's behaving like a Nazi then it shouldn't have to be explained why behaving like a Nazi is a bad thing.

And yet, that's not what the criticism is used for. In a solid 99% of cases, it's used as a means to easily vilify people who hold a perfectly​ legal and subjective view that differs from the other person. Often it involves highly vague comparisons, such as a raise in funding for certain programs, a general view on immigration, and what social programs are important, things that multiple leaders both good and bad have agreed or disagreed with, and then claiming only the nazis.have ever agreed with tour oppositions stance, so that you don't actually need to argue against the stance itself.

Whether it's government oversight or stricter immigration, national pride or identity politics, freedom of speech or animal rights, every issue nowadays needs to be measured by how close someones views are to hitlers. It's becoming one of the most used comparisons in the entirety of discussion itself.

But sure, it's not the over abundance of hitler comparisons that's making people tune out people who compare others to hitler. It's the joke people use for there being so much hitler comparisons.

Don't blame the problem, blame the meme about the problem.

You haven’t explained to me why this is an issue in your reply however, nor have you refuted my point, nor even offered a real retort.

You were the one who missed my point originally, I was not talking about people who call their opponents Hitler, I'm talking about people using the lessons from specific events of that time being shut down for even referring to that time at all, regardless of how valid their argument is.

My response to your point that godwins law is somehow destroying the ability to debate was “If you need to use nazi’s/hitler as the crux of your argument, you are bad at arguing”

Even if they make a completely valid point? Even if they point to the political propaganda used by the Nazi's and how they came to power as the crux of how a political party can demonize a group of people and use a collected hatred of them to grab power? This is what I'm talking about, the idea that it doesn't matter how valid or relevant the argument is, people think "You referenced Nazi's, you are an idiot" This is the logic I'm arguing against because it is throwing away important lessons in history just because people misuse it.

I'm not talking about Animal Rights activists who compare animal cruelty to the holocaust, I'm not talking about people who call Trump, Putin or whoever "The Next Hitler" I'm talking about people who know what they fuck they are talking about, taking specific actions the Nazi Party did in order to gain power, and pointing to how other groups are employing similar tactics, and showing what the actions those people are doing can lead to

The people who call Trump Hitler because he's against Arab immigration are idiots, yes, and they should be called out for using Hitler as an emotional crutch to their argument. They are not who I am talking about. I'm talking about people who actually make an thought out and valid comparison getting grouped in with the people calling Trump Hitler, and how any reference to Nazism in debate at all is taboo, even if it's valid and justified

Godwin's Law is a thing because comparisons to Nazis/Hitler/the Third Reich are usually hyperbolic false equivocations. Let's say a politician advocates for a stronger military. Hitler increased and improved the German military when he came into power. Someone who is against military build up could make a well thought out and convincing argument against the politician or make a technically correct but dishonest comparison to Hitler. The comparison is dishonest because it comes with the implication that if someone is like Hitler in one tangential way, then they must also hate Jews, wants establish an authoritarian regime, and wants to take over the world. Hitler tried to reduce tobacco consumption in Germany. Does that mean people for higher tobacco taxes necessarily want to exterminate "inferior" races? Obviously not.

I don't see how calling people out on these fallacy ridden non-arguments would cause a fascist take over of the government.

If you're talking about a situation in which a desperate and downtrodden people put all power in the hands of a charismatic and strong leader, who then uses this power to pursue their own insane agendas.

Then yes. But it won't be because of godwin's law. Shit like that happened before hitler, it happened after him, it will to continue to happen, regardless of whether or not people draw parallels between nazi germany and other countries.

If anything the disregard for the intent of godwin's law is what is making nazis thrive.

The first assumption these days is that those called nazis are merely those who disgree with the hard left.

Actual nazis end up getting lumped together with large parts of the political spectrum they once had nothing in common with and they can use the opportunity to spread their ideology to those who otherwise would have nothing to do with them.

Gonna be honest, with all this propoganda talk, im getting a strong impression this is about the orc posting meme rustling some jimmies.

Godwin's Law: "It's okay to make an analogy or comparison to anything except Hitler."

This is a thought that's been with me for a while now that just boils up whenever I see someone misusing Godwin's Law. An IRC (not KYMIRC) discussion is what rustled my jimmies and made me make this thread.

@LogicalPhallusy @Greyblades

I'm not talking about people who call any political opponent Hitler, I'm talking about people who make well-thought out and valid parallels getting shut down.

I feel like without the transcript of the original IRC discussion, no one here is going to even get what I'm talking about. Yes, those idiots who make base-line comparisons or call any opponent Hitler deserve to get Godwin's Law thrown at them. I'm not arguing that Godwin's Law is baseless or without merit, just that it's used against all mentions of Hitler and not just fallacious mentions of Hitler. I guess making this thread when I was peeved probably wasn't the best idea.

To summarize the original discussion (and probably miss out on a lot of points because the guy who made them clearly knew more than I did about the subject), he did not even refer to Trump, or even imply he believed another Holocaust was going to happen, or anything even remotely like it. He wasn't even really talking about America as a whole, just what he observed locally (he said he lived near the border, but not where exactly)

He was making parallels to how a sector of the Right Wing party here in America has, for the past few years, has successfully soured public opinion towards Mexican Immigrants, used propaganda and misused statistics to make people believe that they are the major reason for our failing economy and that they are all drug dealers/rapists, and how the politicians used this to gain support and win elections by creating a bogey-man the politicians can exploit.

He drew parallels to the Nazi Party because for those not well versed in History, it is the most well known, well understood and easily understandable comparison he could make without going into more obscure history @TripleA9000 He was simply pointing out that when politicians gain power by piggy-backing on the public's bogey-man, it's possible for those people to support extreme actions against them simply because they're "the enemy"

He at no point compared the two in terms of severity or consequence, did not even imply that the people against immigration are Nazi-like, or that immigration policy will lead to a holocaust-like event. He never called Trump Hitler, the Right Nazi's, nor the Mexican Wall a holocaust, he simply made a historical comparison to highlight a point about using a bogey-man to gain power. He was talking about a specific phenomenon that happened in Nazi Germany and is still happening now, using the strongest and most well know example to make his case.

No one even bothered to refute or discuss with him. They all acted like he was calling Trump Hitler, kept saying "Godwin's Law" and "L I T E R A L L Y H I T L E R" until the man just left. Note that these people were, moments before, talking about The Paris withdrawal pretty maturely before the topic shifted, so it's not like he was trying to speak to idiots here, but he still got shut down for making even a reference to Nazi Germany. (and if you ask, this was a music-listening IRC, we just got on the topic of History and Politics for some reason)

This is what I'm talking about. I'm missing a lot of detail about the discussion and simplified it significantly, as he made references to specific phrases and tactics used by both parties, but that's basically what I'm trying to discuss. This is not the only time I've seen people get shut down for non-fallacious references to Nazi Germany. Whether or not you agree with the man and his points is irrelevant, I'm not here to start a discussion about that topic. I just believed that he made a non-fallacious argument at the very least, should have been argued against instead of memed into silence.

So to anyone thinking I'm defending Ultra-leftists calling anyone moderate or right Hitler, people saying "Hitler opposed this, or did this one thing, so it must make anyone who does the same Hitler", people saying any demonetization of a people is like the Holocaust, or anyone who just screams "HITLER!" to silence discussion, I'm not. I'm not questioning the validity of Godwin's Law, I'm questioning its overuse. 99% of the time when Hitler is brought up, Godwin's Law is valid, I'm just arguing for the 1% of time it's not.

Interesting perspective, but the thing that Godwin's law is mainly trying to point out the irrationality of calling any groups you don't like 'hitler!!!!!" or "nazi!!!!!!". I think it personally, and I think Godwin himself would agree, godwin's law shouldn't apply when the person is a legitimate Nazi[I.E., Just for the sake of example, Richard Spencer]. but It doesn't apply to say:

-Religious People
-Veganism
-People who correct your shit grammar
-Feminists
-Men's Rights Activists.
-All White People
-All Black People
-Anyone you dislike that have no real relations with Nazism.

I do personally fear that due to neo-nazi members of the alt right we might see a day where a legitimate nazi holds power again, but I hope if we do as you suggest, learn from history that dictatorship, especially in what he did, is a bad thing, than we don't have much to worry about.

The appeals to Hitler are just your typical imbecile using loaded language to influence those around him. It's not worth taking seriously unless specific Hitlerian behavior can be demonstrated and verified. Until that happens (spoiler: it never will), you should feel safe writing it off as nonsense.