-
UKIP Comes Out Fighting
May 8, 2013 | 15 comments
-
What Will Britain Turn Into?
May 1, 2013 | 31 comments
-
His Queeg Moment
January 29, 2013 | 120 comments
-
High Marks for The Hobbit
January 10, 2013 | 23 comments
-
So, What to Do? Ask Lady Houston
January 9, 2013 | 39 comments
Another Perspective
Don’t Be Scared of Godwin’s So-Called Law
When political and other behavior is indeed Nazi like, there’s no reason to deny it.
The leftist, or at least mainly leftist, pseudo-intellectuals who infest certain portions of the Internet have become very fond recently of invoking something they call “Godwin’s Law.” This may be expressed more or less as follows: “Whoever first brings an analogy about Hitler or Nazism into an argument has lost that argument.”
In fact, this invocation of Godwin’s Law is rhetorical and intellectual junk, generally used in an attempt to intimidate and kill argument, and we would be a lot better off without it: try, if you’re an Australian Federalist, to point out that one of Hitler’s first acts on coming to power was to abolish the old German states and replace them with centrally-controlled regions under Nazi Party Gauleiters to make the national imposition of a Police State both possible and easy. “Godwin’s Law!” is the giggling reply.
Try mentioning to a euthanasia advocate that the Nazi extermination program started off as an exercise in medical euthanasia. And as for suggesting that Jews and Israel are in danger of a second holocaust if Muslim extremists have their way, just wait for: “Godwin’s Law!” “Godwin’s law!” repeated with a kind of witless assumption of superiority reminiscent of school playground chants.
It goes without saying that Nazi analogies can be, and are, frequently misused, often in a disgustingly dishonest way: “Climate-change denialism” is obviously intended by those who use it to be linked to Holocaust denialism, and the term Holocaust itself has been used tediously often to link Australian policies toward Aborigines with Auschwitz, but this does not alter the fact that there are occasions when such analogies are appropriate.
Obviously, with the growth of Jew-hatred we are seeing around the world today, references to Nazism are often not only impossible to avoid but are really the only appropriate ones, by way of either illustration or warning. Though I said above it is, for some reason, mainly leftists who invoke Godwin’s Law, there is also a ratbag anti-Semitic right, fortunately not very common in this country now, to whom Nazi analogies are also applicable.
However, there have been several instances recently of British universities refusing to admit Jewish students or to publish papers by Jews, citing as the reason opposition to Israel’s policies. A British judge has prohibited British Jews from sitting on a jury, in Malmö, Sweden, a surge in anti-Semitism has led Jewish residents, who arrived there as refugees before the war, to abandon the city and in Odense, Denmark, superintendent Olav Nielsen announced last year that he would no longer admit Jewish children to the local school. Other statistics show an increase in anti-Jewish hate-crimes all over Europe. How is one to talk of this kind of thing without Nazi analogies coming into it?
I think, also, that we are going to hear a lot more soon about a voluntary euthanasia program for the old in the not-too-distant future. A law signed some years ago commenced: “Full responsibility to enlarge the powers of certain specified doctors in such a way that they can grant those who are by all human standards incurably ill a merciful death after the most critical assessment possible of their medical condition” — and I would be breaking Godwin’s Law if I mentioned who signed it.
Personally, I don’t intend to be intimidated by chants of “Godwin’s Law” or any other infantile slogan, used to smother debate in a way reminiscent of something from George Orwell or, if you’ll excuse me saying so, a Nuremberg Rally. I have come up against echoes of Nazi thought-patterns and arguments many times and not only am I not going to be bullied into keeping silent about this, I believe every civilized person has a positive duty to speak up about it whenever appropriate. The same goes for Stalinist communism and the predictable parrot-cries of “McCarthyism!” or, more commonly in Australia today, “Reds under the beds!” They are simply forms of intellectual bullying. At best, they can smother the serious discussion of issues, at worst they can be used to conceal and/or justify genuinely murderous and totalitarian thought.
About the Author
Hal G.P. Colebatch’s “Immram,” Counterstrike, is being published by Australian publisher Imaginites.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (30) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Hal G.P. Colebatch
More Articles From Another Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/08/05/dont-be-scared-of-godwins-so-c
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
pending_unemployment| 8.5.10 @ 8:45AM
As a resident old fart on the internet, I do find the whole overuse of Godwin's Law to be quite annoying. Originally with Mike Godwin mentioned his rule in the early usenet days, it was to make a very specific point. He was saying that if a discussion had become so emotional, so energetic, and so off logical track that one person compared their opponent to Hitler or a Nazi, that they had obviously run out of facts and logical avenues with which to present their argument.
He was basically saying that it was akin to throwing a temper tantrum and going to play in their own yard.
It is possible, within the scope of the term, to still discuss the Nazi regime without invoking Godwin's Law- provided you are actually talking about the Nazi Regime and not executing a wild and emotionally charged accusation simply for the purpose of drawing attention away from one's inability to support their position.
So, Mr Colebatch can safely be assured he's not 'pulling a Godwin' in his argument... he's just right.
Harry the Horrible| 8.5.10 @ 10:11AM
IMHO, the reason Godwin's Law is applicable under most circumstances is that most folks don't a d@mn thing about Hitler, the Nazis, the NSDAP, their methods, politics, etc. What they "feel" they know about Nazism, Fascism, etc., mostly derives from entertainment, and "feelings," not actual study.
So, when most folks accuse someone being a Nazi or compare them to Hitler, that is evidence that they have abandoned rational thought (if they were ever using it at all...) , and that further discussion is futile.
However, if someone actually makes a rational comparison of policies to similar policies of the Nazis, they have not abandoned rational thought, and thus Godwin's Law does not apply.
Of course, unless their audience has similar knowledge, they're not really going to understand the argument or believe it if it contradicts their own strongly held beliefs.
Bob Miller| 8.5.10 @ 8:48AM
Not to mention that today's political/media/thug elite never hesitate to defame the good guys using any available epithet.
PolishKnight| 8.5.10 @ 9:22AM
If there's a companion to Godwin's law it has to be charges of anti-semitism. Once a charge of anti-semitism is made, all discussion ceases. Then the person who makes the charge ponders out loud: "Why won't people discuss this issue?!?! Oh, you will? You're an anti-semite! Anyone else?"
Bob Miller| 8.5.10 @ 3:03PM
The above comment is obsolete.
JimH| 8.5.10 @ 10:23AM
In the schoolyard Godwin's law is known as 'The one who smelt it dealt it'
WeeWillie| 8.5.10 @ 10:33AM
Hitler should fit well into contemporary American leftist society. He was an animal rights advocate, anti smoking, vegetarian who believed that the state should control private companies. He was an anti-Semite. On minus side he was somewhat of a sexual puritan. All in all, he could chat comfortably in a chic gathering.
William Selenke Cincinnati
Louis Jenkins| 8.5.10 @ 10:55AM
Okay, okay! I admit I'm one of the worst to use Godwin's law to shut down the Liberal Intelligentsia. Problem is, it doesn't work. They just get more foamed up and argue harder. So I'll stop, I promise. From here on out I'll use better words. Ahhem, "misled, errant, misguided, misinformed, allow me to correct your thoughts, etc." It's not working! Goodwin's law of denial!
james wilson| 8.5.10 @ 11:06AM
Thomas Szasz, a Jewish Austrian Psychiatrist, described clear thinking as requiring courage, not intelligence. You are debating a lack of courage.
WhiteBikerTrash| 8.5.10 @ 11:27AM
Ahh, the irony. You also bring up the term "McCarthyism!", after studying the history of those events, my conclusion is that "McCarthyism" is exactly what they did to McCarthy! and Nazi is what they are!!
Maryland Guy| 8.5.10 @ 11:41AM
"...we are going to hear a lot more soon about a voluntary euthanasia program for the old in the not-too-distant future. "
The future is here. As a health care professional, I recently received a solicitation for a seminar. The topic? "End-of-Life: Withholding or Withdrawing Treatments"
waitaminute| 8.5.10 @ 2:50PM
Soylent Green, Anyone?
Blackwatch| 8.5.10 @ 6:02PM
Euthanasia is the governments "best" solution to our entitlements crisis. Every retiree is drain on Social Security and Medicare.
So it will be your "civic duty" to die for the benefit of the state. Watch for popular media to start having characters discuss end of life issues and see what the "correct" slant is thought to be. My guess is it will go something like this:
Adult to crying teen ager: But Grandpa is old honey and in a lot of pain. He has had a good life. We should let go. The doctors can give him a shot and he will go to sleep. It doesn't hurt. And you know....grandpa wouldn't want to be a burden. he served his country in Korea. As a marine he would not want us to have to support him in this way.....
It will only be a few years before this takes place on House, Grey's Anatomy, Law & Order, etc.
Vern Crisler | 8.5.10 @ 1:38PM
I’ve heard of argumentum ad Hitlerum, but not of Godwin’s Law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum
Fortunately, the Wikipedia article linked to an article on Godwin’s Law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Seems to me the (humorous) point of Godwin’s law is not that one cannot use Hitler-analogies, but that the LONGER a political debate goes on, the greater the likelihood – approaching certainty -- that a Hitler analogy will be used.
I think we need something like that for creation/evolution debates. Only in this case, Darwinists can be counted to accuse creationists (of whatever variety) of being ignoramuses, Nazis, or what-have-you FROM THE VERY START.
I suggest we call it Mencken’s Law, in that Mencken’s most deranged writings usually involved a discussion of evolution or of William Jennings Bryan, cross-of-gold Democrat.
The probability of this happening at the beginning of creation/evolution discussion is very nearly a certainty, and it suggests a corollary, that the intellectual caliber of such a discussion seldom rises to the level of noticeability.
Therefore, over time the intellectual caliber of a Godwin’s Law discussion will achieve the same threshold of noticeability captured by Mencken’s Law.
Clinton nee Publius | 8.5.10 @ 3:15PM
A better solution would be to craft a program of policies, markets and institutions that were/are self-sustaining and self-regulating so that the proponents of government corruption and regulation have no opportunity to corrupt free-market enterprise.
Who cares who has the better argument? Our ship is sinking. We can talk about the gigantic hole and who did it or we can contrive a permanent solution so that we never even have to have the argument again.
Jeff Perren | 8.5.10 @ 10:03PM
I would welcome such a program immensely, but it's not clear to me how you'd even advance it (beyond the tepid level occurring now in some quarters) without having the better argument, and many of them.
Ultimately, it's violence, sheer emotional appeals, or reason. There's no other fourth alternative. Violence doesn't generally create or even encourage the growth of freedom and emotional appeals have no staying power.
Logical debate is the only viable solution, isn't it?
fuck| 8.5.10 @ 5:02PM
Where I live now, there is a large group of Russian immigrants. About 4/5ths of them are refugees from the communist blocks. When we get to talking politics, every one of them tell me that the Democrats scare them. Some of them are saying that it might be better going back to Russia now that it’s more free over there. They say that the Democrats and the liberals are doing almost the same thing that the communists were doing early in the formation of the communist regime. The rhetoric is also similar and it does frighten them. One told me it was like jumping from one sinking ship to another. Another stated that what the liberals think is helping is really pulling everyone down. This is from people that have lived through socialist hell and don’t want to live through it again.
I'm going to have to explain to them how close to Godwin's Law that they are cruising and help them find a way to understand that the liberal progressive Democrats only have their welfare in mind when they tell them how to live their lives...
duck| 8.5.10 @ 5:20PM
f--k
Ooooops, sorry............
Sigmund| 8.5.10 @ 11:34PM
The Strange Case of Professor Obama and Herr Hussein is a real life drama playing out in the aftermath of the Presidential election of 2008. It is about the dilemma of the American citizen who sees strange dissonances between the new found Messiah, Professor Obama, and the vicious Herr Hussein. It is a vivid portrayal of a split personality, split in the sense that within the same person there is both an apparently good and an evil personality each being quite distinct from the other. In mainstream culture the very phrase “Obama and Hussein” will come to mean a person who’s fine words are vastly different in moral character from his actions.
After drinking a potion of Saul Alinsky's, Jeremiah Wright's, Rahm Emanuel's, David Axelrod's, Bill Ayers', Adolf Hitler's, King George III, King Louis XVI and his own creation, Professor Obama is transformed into the cruel, remorseless, pathological, misanthropic, pyromaniac Herr Hussein, representing the hidden side of his dual nature brought to the fore. As Professor Obama he has many friends and a pleasing personality, but as Herr Hussein he becomes more and more dictatorial, more and more scape goating, makes ever longer enemies lists, encourages demonization and dehumanizing of political opponents and becomes ever more fascist like as time goes by as Herr Hussein grows in dominance. After taking this potion repetitively, he no longer needs to rely upon it to unleash his inner fascist demons.
Deborah D | 8.7.10 @ 5:11AM
I think those who do not see this present regime as a threat to the nation and our future, truly have their heads somewhere or have their eyes closed. Obama is fiddling while Rome burns, he's lighting the match. It's those clueless Americans and those who wish to remain clueless that are fiddling while America burns. Someone needs to light a match under their noses so they can smell the sulphur.
Deborah D | 8.7.10 @ 5:12AM
Should have been "Obama isn't fiddling" ... sorry.
S.L. Toddard| 8.7.10 @ 5:34PM
It is 1939 all over again!!! Everybody panic!!!!
Darragh| 8.9.10 @ 6:57PM
Another rather interesting fact is that Hitler was very much obsessed w/ animals rights--a great deal of animal rights legislation was passed in 1930s Germany. When Hitler viewed films of humans being attacked by animals, he showed no emotion...but when animals were attacked by humans, the converse reaction occurred. this is not so much re Obama as where our society is headed.
RonL| 8.9.10 @ 10:44PM
Godwin's Law is "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
This was an assault on hyperbole not on use of Nazi analogy where reasonable.
Justin| 8.11.10 @ 2:11AM
Comparisons to Hitler are often poor arguments because they take the form 'Hitler favoured x, therefore x is bad.' Hitler enjoyed classical music and was an artist. This doesn't mean that classical music is evil and that anyone with a paintbrush is a Nazi! There are good arguments both for and against euthanasia, but 'the Nazis did it' is not one of them. It's just not relevant to the discussion. Similarly, we shouldn't need to point to the Holocaust to show that antisemitism is wrong- it would still be wrong even if the Holocaust never happened.
Adult toys | 7.4.11 @ 3:36AM
l like the space.support.
thank you.