Comment by eprime | Hacker News Reader

Comment by eprime | Hacker News Reader

I have heard from several fellow HackerNews readers (in other forums) that Godwins Law doesn't apply anymore mainly because of their opposition to Trump, and their own or their allies behaviour in breaking this law. It seems to imply that because we live in the current year, the present day, that previous laws no longer have validity, because of the false assumption that the present day has more importance than any other time, ever. (This assumption ignores history, tellingly). That, and they consider that in Trumps case the comparisons can actually have validity.

The other reasoning given from our fellow peers that I have heard sounds like that this law was made during the era of quiet bulletin boards, made up of people with a shared mind set, with a shared sense of humour, and the Internet now has changed beyond recognition. Therefore any laws made about the internet back then have no validity.

I would like to suggest that when you consider something no longer valid it could give you pause to think about your reasonings for doing so.

What does it even mean for it to apply or not?

It was never a rule against making comparisons to Hitler, it was an observation that people will do it.

Your people that are arguing it doesn't apply should be saying it's more true than ever or something.

1. Godwin's Law says that as a discussion continues, the probability of a Hitler reference approaches one. It doesn't say anything about the aptness of a Hitler reference. It certainly does not say that you should not make a Hitler reference, or the one who does loses the debate. The only way you could "break" Godwin's Law is to refuse to make Hitler references.

2. Mike Godwin himself says that comparing Trump to Hitler is justifiable. https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/12/14/...

3. Usually when I see comparisons of Trump to Hitler, and discussions of whether that comparison is defensible, there's rarely any discussion of how the "present day" changes anything. Godwin does make the point that in 2015, we now have the capability to question poor arguments more effectively. But I've seen basically no arguments that the world is fundamentally different from the past, just that Trump is a fundamentally different demagogue from those we've seen since 1946.

WaPo, funded by Bezos, who has plenty to lose from a Trump presidency will obviously do anything he can to tout that Trump = Hitler.

OK, so you're saying that Mike Godwin's integrity has been compromised and he's been influenced by Bezos to denounce Trump? Why did we trust him in the first place -- why should we care about Godwin's Law at all if it comes from a man so easily swayed to the interests of the rich?

(Or are you claiming that Mike Godwin doesn't actually mean the things that the Washington Post published under his name?)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com