The mis-application of Godwin’s “Law” (AKA Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies) throughout the blogosphere has necessitated the formulation of a radical new policy by the the Bunker’s Governance and Dialectics Working Group.

First, a bit of background.

Godwin’s “Law” was first brought to my attention when it was invoked by RJ, one of my favourite sparring partners. In the midst of an exchange on media bias, I had flippantly referred to a leading US TV network as “Foxischer Beobachter.” This invocation of the Nazi era, I was promptly and gleefully informed, violated “Godwin’s Law”, and thus I had automatically “lost” the argument.

I was chagrined, of course (I thought my allusion was kinda funny) but acquiescent, and immediately set out to determine who the heck this “Godwin” party-pooper was, and where he got off declaring me a loser.

You all probably knew this, but it was new to me. Mike Godwin is an American Usenet junkie and attorney (and newly hired legal council for Wikipedia) who got tired of people comparing anyone and anything that annoyed them with Hitler, Naziism, or Fascism. As a satirical comment on that tendency, he wrote his well-known formula in 1990:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches One.

Fair enough, and a very apt and witty comment on bad argument. Like so many clever ideas, however - Christianity comes to mind - Godwin’s “Law” has been kidnapped and put to use in a way he never intended: as a way of shutting down discussion, rather than improving it.

Mike Godwin has repeatetedly explained, with growing exasperation, that his satirical “law” doesn’t mean that references or comparisons to Hitler or the Nazis are necessarily inappropriate or incorrect. Sometimes those comparisons ARE appropriate: Godwin’s spoint was that (a) comparisons to Hitler and Nazis are often a cheap and intellectually lazy way to make a point, and (b) inappropriate overuse weakens the impact of a metaphor. In essence, what he was trying to say was: avoid bad, excessive metaphors, and only use them when they’re right.

The problem is, there seem to be a lot of sincere but simple folks out there who apparently think this is an actual “law” of the Internet, or something: that reference to Hitler, Nazis or Fascism automatically invalidates an argment, and the referrer consequently and immediately “loses”.

Nope. If there’s validity to a metaphor - if it illuminates, explains or reveals some aspect of the issue under discussion - then it’s a useful metaphor, whether it involves Nazis or not. If it’s a bad metaphor- just a clumsy attempt to villify - then it’s bad, whether it involves Nazis or not.

Argument by metaphor is always tricky. It assumes that the other person/people you’re in discussion with is willing to try to understand and respond to the points of comparison, because they’re interested in understanding your argument. That often isn’t the case among bloggers, and metaphors are easy to dismiss because one need only pretend to miss the point and focus on some irrelevant aspect of metaphor. (e.g., The American occupation is nothing like the Vietnam war, because they have a different kind of palm tree in Vietnam).

Among folks like - well, let’s not get personal - the citation of Godwin’s “Law” has simply become a way to shut down discussion that’s going in a particular direction you don’t like. For examples, folks of a particular bent will invoke Godwin’s law when Saddam Hussein (an antisemitic, brutal dictator with a propensity for invading neightbours) is compared to Hitler. Folks with a different bent will invoke it when George Bush (a man no qualms about subverting the machines of state to his own purposes) is compared to Hitler. Curiously, it seems everyone wants to compare SOMEBODY to Hitler: but of course Godwin only gets called into play when the OTHER guys do it.

Well, that’s silly. A good metaphor is good metaphor, and a bad metaphor is a bad metaphor, and we trust our readers to be able to tell the difference.

The Bunker’s Governance and Dialectics Working Group (Chair, Lily Cheung, Secretary TreeHugger) have therefore proposed the following policy statement for the consideration of the People’s Governance Plenary, Policy and Procedures Division:

1) That Stageleft, the Blog, and its environs, allies and associates are henceforth unilaterally and permanently declared to be Godwin-Free. This means that no reference to Nazis, Adolph Hitler, fascism or the Third Reich, shall, in and of itself, invalidate any argument.

2) All such references shall be assessed by the readership on their own merits, like any other metaphor, and accorded no more and no less rhetorical value than is appropriate, given their aptness, relevance, and wit.

3) Good metaphors will be given sober consideration, whatever their content: bad metaphors will be ignored, derided, or deconstructed, whatever their content.

4) Anyone attempting to invoke Godwin’s “Law” on Stageleft shall be gently referred to this Post. Any subsequent invocations of Godwin’s “Law” by the same person shall be punishable by the following steps, in this order:

Step One: Slightly more pointed reference to this Post.
Step Two: Mild mockery.
Step Three: Moderate mockery.
Step Four: Blistering, full-strength sarcasm.
Step Five: Silent annoyance by folks smarter than the offender.

5) Any Friend of Stageleft (which includes anyone reading this) of any political stripe is hereby declared exempt from Godwin’s “Law”, and is granted unlimited permission to use metaphors involving Hitler and Nazis freely, on any website, blog, chatroom, or Internet-based medium, provided the aforementioned metaphor shall be appropriate, apt, insightful, revelatory of some aspect of truth relating to the issue under discussion, and hopefully witty. Tell them we told you it was okay.

Thank you for your cooperation. Have a nice day.