Journal Journal: Godwin's Law - "law" or cop-out? 24
It wasn't until a recent email conversation with Cory Doctorow, started by a
Here, I outline a fictional debate between Cory and I, using various extracts from our conversations and comments, which I hope gives a fair indication of Cory's viewpoint:
Me: As an Irish citizen living in the US - I have decided that it is time to leave this country - it is starting to look, smell, and act as Germany did during the 1930s.
Cory: It's a shame that [you] violated Godwin's Law, as it gives those who would distract us from the real issue here a handy red herring to toss into the fray, i.e., pointless arguments about the appropriateness of a comparison to Nazi Germany.
Me: I think the comparison with *1930s* Germany is apt, although a comparison with 1940s Germany would not be, you can't invoke Godwin's law when the conversation *really is* about Nazi Germany
;-) Cory: The point for me of G's law is not its aptness -- I happen to agree that it is an apt analogy, and I speak as someone who lost a significant fraction of his family in the death camps.
The point of G's law is that comparisons to Nazi Germany immediately end all discussion about the subject at hand and instead divert the whole debate to an argument about the aptness of the comparison.
Me: In some cases, however, a discussion about the aptness of the comparison is actually useful, and gets to the core of the issue.
Cory: My point is that Doctorow's Corollary To Godwin's Law is that anyone who wishes to be an effective rhetorician should completely expunge the notion of Nazi comparisons from his bag of tricks, because it creates a vulnerability to an attack that is otherwise neutralized ("My opponent is of such poor judgement and callous insensitivity that he believes it's appropriate to make comparisons to Nazi Germany!").
Me: Well, I am not so sure I agree with you there. *If* a comparison to Nazi Germany is pertinent then an effective rhetorician will be sufficiently skilled to counter this kind of ad hominem attack. They say that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, and what more important lesson for society than the events in Germany during the Nazi period.
Refusing to use such an important lesson of history in debate for fear of exposure to fallacious arguments seems like an unfortunate surrender of a powerful tool for those who wish to fight against fascism. For this reason - I have never been entirely comfortable with Godwin's Law.
Unfortunately this is where the debate must end as I still await Cory's response to my last comment.
I would be curious to hear some third-party opinions on this, since Godwin's Law is one of the Internet debate doctrines that never rang true for me.
Anyway, bottom line is that I now propose:
Clarke's Law: Anyone that invokes Godwin's Law in an argument automatically loses the meta-argument