homophobia, homosexual, gay, marriage, godwin, terrorist, hitler, nazi,
Godwin's Law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the reductio ad Hitlerum form.
The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued,[4] that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.
In case you're not familiar with Godwin's Law (which would make this discussion rather confusing for you):
Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1] is an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states: "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[2][3]
Godwin's Law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the reductio ad Hitlerum form.
The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued,[4] that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.
There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[2] than others invented later.[1] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress.
I posit the Post 911 Godwin: we can now accept "terrorist" as being the equivalent of "Hitler" or "Nazi", and calling someone a terrorist is indeed a Godwin.
I mention this because I was totally Post 911 Godwin'd today (see screenshot above). Apparently, if you call someone a "homophobe", the terrorists have won! And I really need to work on my beard.
When logic fails, call the other side names!
ReplyDeleteFrom a recent comment over there by { Lisa } :
ReplyDeleteEC,
From my stand point yes I am making this about christianity because I am a christian and it goes against what I believe. And? What exactly is your point? Are you christianaphobic? weather or not we say it is about religion you people (gays) will have something to say about us. Beetle never uses religion as the reason yet here you two are, ranting and raving about homophobics and spiders and such…
No matter what you say there is no study, no research, no proof that your lifestyle is good, beneficial or right.
Have a great day:)
Wow! Would she dare say that about any race these days?
and spiders! how dare i bring up spiders?! the analogy is officially dead.
ReplyDeletealso, i've done posts proving, using beetle/angie's own words in comments on other site, that beetle/angie is opposed to homosexuality because of her religion. she is aware that that is considered an unconvincing reason for most people and uses debunked science instead.
You know one arguement that she uses that kind of amuses me? The "not all gay people want gay marrige" thing. Now, if we ignore completely Gay Patriot (who I'm pretty sure is not even gay), there will always be people in a group that will help systems repress them. We see it all the time with women. Just because some women think that men should be allowed to rule their lives doesn't mean it's OK. Same with here. It's a bad comparison, because it simply points out flawed psychology in the person making it.
ReplyDeleteSo, unless 100% of a group wants something, we shouldn't give it to them? there are women who don't think women should have the right to vote (prairie muffins. shit you not.), so lisa shouldn't be able to vote? c'mon now.
ReplyDeleteWell, given some of what Lisa has said, I certainly wish she wouldn't vote, but that's not the point. Heh.
ReplyDeleteMaybe she views people who want rights to be terrorists in general? It certainly seems to put her into a state of panic and terror.
That's why I called her a homophobe: she clearly is one. She positively foams at the mouth at the mere mention of gay, she uses gay as an insult, assumes that only gays can be progay, and on and on and on.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if Lisa is ever rational about anything, but she certainly is NOT rational about gay.
Socialist and/or Communist is more worthy of being an alternate form of Godwin. It fell out of favor as a meaningless label to tag your enemies with when the McCarthy era ended, but it has recently been dug up from its well-deserved grave. Considering how historical it is, if it becomes widespread, we may need to just plain change Godwin's law to be any tangential comparison with "hated individual/group X". Same effect.
ReplyDeleteSee, I was thinking along the lines of the fact that Nazi Germany was done 60 years ago, and is fairly abstract for recent generations, but 911 is very recent and raw to people.
ReplyDeleteI am personally shocked at how quickly mccarthyism is making a comeback. to me, communism and socialism are archaic abstractions, but to millions of people, they are the new Godwin.
The saddest part about Lisa? She's parroting the exact same arguments used against interracial couples 40 years ago- and she is the white half of an interracial couple. Civil rights irony.
ReplyDelete