Comment on Suggestions

• Warl0k3@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Godwins law doesnt apply when discussing fascism, a clause of the rule since godwin first penned it.

  source

  • WoahWoah@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    It’s ironic to invoke Godwin’s Law to stifle conversation, given that its original purpose was to call attention to the degradation of language and thought that occurs when Nazi comparisons are overused and misapplied. By cheapening such comparisons, the law sought to maintain the weight and specificity of historical evils like the Holocaust, which lose their impact when these terms are used flippantly or with little regard for context. This phenomenon is akin to Orwell’s warning in 1984 about the dangers of language simplification, where words are stripped of their meaning and are ultimately used to obfuscate, rather than clarify, reality.

    Interestingly, even Godwin himself has noted that invoking the law to shut down discussions does little to foster meaningful dialogue. Instead, he argues that Nazi comparisons can be justified if they are “thought-out and historically informed” rather than “poorly reasoned, hyperbolic invocations” that trivialize both the history and severity of such terms. The overuse of these comparisons not only dilutes their impact but also reflects a broader trend of linguistic manipulation that mirrors Orwell’s Newspeak: a language designed to control thought by reducing complexity and nuance. When words are allowed to encompass everything, they ultimately mean nothing at all.

    This loss of linguistic precision can also be seen in modern political rhetoric, where phrases like “concentration camps” are debated not based on the context but on who is using them and against whom. This constant redefinition erases historical distinctions, blurs moral boundaries, and makes it easier for anyone to dismiss any accusation as mere hyperbole. In this context, we see a perverse evolution of Godwin’s Law where the very comparisons meant to be avoided are applied more liberally, often to dismiss, derail, or discredit rather than to enlighten.

    The deeper problem is that invoking Godwin’s Law as a rhetorical cudgel is itself a form of linguistic reductionism. Rather than encourage thoughtful argumentation, it often forces discussions into binary categories: acceptable or unacceptable, on the “right side” of history or not. Such polarization undermines the very principles of debate and inquiry that Godwin initially hoped to preserve. In the end, it’s not the Nazis who are being compared to everyone—it’s the chilling realization that our language is being systematically eroded, making it ever harder to speak with the precision, integrity, and weight that serious topics demand.

    source
  • Wogi@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Godwin always applies. Godwin himself said the comparison was sometimes appropriate, going as far as to say say the American Alt right should be compared to Nazis.

    source

    • Warl0k3@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I should have clarified - the practice by which declaring “godwin’s law” would call for an end to a discussion, because it had clearly devolved beyond the point that there was anything worthwhile to continue to extract from it, was explicitly excepted from applying to discussions of fascism, where the comparison was (indeed) frequently apt

      source
• ProgrammingSocks@pawb.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Godwin’s law was a lot more relevant when we didn’t have Hitler 2 in the middle east and a political party approximately half a step from openly being the neo-Nazi party.

  source