"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
This observation is frequently used to bring discussion to a halt:
http://xkcd.com/261/
One way to get around this problem is to use an alternative regime for purposes of comparison, eg. to liken the excesses of a small-town mayor to the enormities of Pol Pot. However, it since all fascist regimes are functionally analogous to Nazi Germany, shouldn't all such comparisons be subject to Godwin's Law?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI think most people treat Godwin's Law as referring implicitly to all indefensible political regimes.
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
This observation is frequently used to bring discussion to a halt:
http://xkcd.com/261/
One way to get around this problem is to use an alternative regime for purposes of comparison, eg. to liken the excesses of a small-town mayor to t ...[text shortened]... onally analogous to Nazi Germany, shouldn't all such comparisons be subject to Godwin's Law?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThe assumption in Godwin's law is that all comparisons to the Nazis, or Hitler, are either unjustified or overkill. It seems to me that it is most frequently invoked by people who are too lazy to deflect the comparison by other means.
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
This observation is frequently used to bring discussion to a halt:
http://xkcd.com/261/
One way to get around this problem is to use an alternative regime for purposes of comparison, eg. to liken the excesses of a small-town mayor to t ...[text shortened]... onally analogous to Nazi Germany, shouldn't all such comparisons be subject to Godwin's Law?
Perhaps a new law is called for (Penfold's law?) which states that: As online discussions involving comparisons to Hitler grow longer, the probability of Godwin's law being invoked approaches 1.
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettWho is Penfold?
The assumption in Godwin's law is that all comparisons to the Nazis, or Hitler, are either unjustified or overkill. It seems to me that it is most frequently invoked by people who are too lazy to deflect the comparison by other means.
Perhaps a new law is called for (Penfold's law?) which states that: As online discussions involving comparisons to Hitler grow longer, the probability of Godwin's law being invoked approaches 1.
Incidentally, as anything grows longer, the possibility of all possible outcomes approaches one.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageFrom my perspecitve, Godwin's Law is a lazy man's way of deflecting any comparison to despotic regimes like the Nazis.
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
This observation is frequently used to bring discussion to a halt:
http://xkcd.com/261/
One way to get around this problem is to use an alternative regime for purposes of comparison, eg. to liken the excesses of a small-town mayor to t ...[text shortened]... onally analogous to Nazi Germany, shouldn't all such comparisons be subject to Godwin's Law?
History should be used to learn about where we are headed, since there is nothing new under the sun. Without it, we are doomed to repeat it, as often is the case.
Originally posted by whodeyIt's not like we actually learn anything from history anyway.
From my perspecitve, Godwin's Law is a lazy man's way of deflecting any comparison to despotic regimes like the Nazis.
History should be used to learn about where we are headed, since there is nothing new under the sun. Without it, we are doomed to repeat it, as often is the case.
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI would think that as online discussion grows longer, the probability that any topic X will be brought up approaches 1. This is a version of the infinite number of monkeys hypothesis.
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
This observation is frequently used to bring discussion to a halt:
http://xkcd.com/261/
One way to get around this problem is to use an alternative regime for purposes of comparison, eg. to liken the excesses of a small-town mayor to t ...[text shortened]... onally analogous to Nazi Germany, shouldn't all such comparisons be subject to Godwin's Law?
It would be more interesting if the probability approached 0.587 for instance - THAT would be truly fascinating.
EDIT: sorry, sh76 already pointed this out.