Godwin’s Nazi Analogy Rule, also known as Godwin’s Law, states that as an online discussion gets longer, the likelihood of a Nazi comparison increases. Comparing someone or an action to the Nazis is a serious accusation, but it can be valid in discussions of modern German history, dictatorships, and genocides. However, using a Nazi comparison to invalidate the opposition usually backfires and suggests that the person has run out of material to argue. Some internet communities interpret Godwin’s rule as an indication that the discussion is over when Nazis enter the conversation, but individual members decide whether to continue or terminate the discussion.
Godwin’s Nazi Analogy Rule, sometimes also known as Godwin’s Law, is a theory put forward by Mike Godwin in 1990. Godwin noted that long-running Internet discussions tended to turn into mud-slinging contests by the end. The longer a thread got, the more likely a Nazi comparison was drawn into the discussion. Godwin’s Rule states that: “As an online discussion gets longer, the likelihood of a confrontation involving Nazis or Hitler approaches that.”
There are several implications for Godwin’s rule. Many online discussions involve intense personal beliefs and values, which sometimes collide quite dramatically. As the discussion continues, it tends to become less rational, especially after most of both sides’ valid arguments have been presented. On a hot button issue with no “right” answer, opponents may start trading insults to each other because they get angry and frustrated.
Comparing someone, or an action, to the Nazis is a serious accusation. The German Nationalsozialismus party dominated Germany from the 1920s to the 1940s. In 1921, Adolf Hitler was elected head of the Nazi Party. In much of the world, Hitler and the Nazis are equated with the ultimate evil, due to their actions in World War II, which included the rounding up of millions of Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, and other “undesirables” in the name of ethnic purity. The Nazis are associated with dictatorship, totalitarianism and strict order.
There are situations where taking up the Nazi Party or Hitler is entirely legitimate. Any discussion of modern German history, for example, should include a discussion of the Nazis. Conversations about dictatorships and genocides are also situations where a Nazi analogy is valid. However, when Nazis are brought up because a conversation isn’t going well, it suggests that the other side may have won the argument. It also weakens valid comparisons.
Often, an example of Godwin’s rule accompanies the hyperbole. The idea is to invalidate the opposition by comparing it to the Nazi party. However, this can backfire, and usually does. Unless the comparison holds, the person who raised the Nazis or Hitler is considered the loser. In a rational discussion or debate on or off the Internet, resorting to a Nazi confrontation is usually a strong indicator that you have run out of material to argue or back up your claims.
Many Internet communities have interpreted Godwin’s rule to mean that when Nazis enter a conversation, the discussion is over. In some cases, someone may invoke Godwin’s rule to end a conversation before it gets worse. However, sometimes a discussion should continue, even if Godwin’s Rule was illustrated by a Nazi reference. Individual discussion members decide whether a conversation will be continued or terminated with an instance of Godwin’s rule.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
