Are Hitler comparisons always automatically wrong?

Question

I'm sure I remember reading somewhere about a law of online conversation / forum posting which stated something like the longer threads got, the more likely a Hitler comparison was, and in the case of a Hitler comparison arising the person making it has always lost, automatically. Does anybody know if that is the case, and if there are any analogies in R&S? (e.g. it always ends up with Pascals wager or evolution...)? Is that what "drinking questions" are?

Answer 1

Yes, at least according to Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies:
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

There are huuge numbers "analogies in R&S" contravening Godwin's Law... Just Y!A Search: < Hitler >, < Nazi >, etc... Personally, I have *never* invoked Godwin as an objection.

No... "drinking questions" are just *tediously repetitive* and *much answered* (i.e. searchable) questions we fail to see much need is answering for the 93,964,268.624,873rd time (though some may still choose to reiterate yet again.)

Answer 2

there's Godwin's law:
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

another variant (considerably different) is:

"if you mention Hitler or Nazis in a post, you've automatically ended whatever discussion you were taking part in"

the page in the link below discusses the law in style and to the point. Yes, it is a bit like the drinking game, but it's also different. Just search for "pascal's wager drinking game" if you want to know about that, the question "which questions are drinking questions"? has almost become a drinking question in itself.

Answer 3

It always ends up at evolution versus creationism. And why do the people making the Hitler comparison automatically have to be wrong. It's not like it couldn't happen again.

Answer 4

It depends on which side of the poltical fence you are on. A few years ago, the liberals used to compare the warhawk Republicans to Hitler's Nazis.

They cried foul and so the Libs stopped, but then a few months later Bill O'reilly started comparing the Libs to Nazis, followed by Glenn Beck and Neil Bortz.

Of course it was considered free speech then.

Answer 5

No.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/32944.html

Answer 6

That would be Godwin's Law. Whoever first compares something to Hitler or the Nazis in an online argument that has nothing to do with them automatically loses and the argument is over.

Answer 7

I don't know what your talking about exactly, but I do believe that Hitler comparisons are foolish and tend to make the asker/answerer sound uninformed and uneducated. Nothing in the US could ever be adequately equated to Hitler and I think it's an insult to those who had to endure his regime as well as those who fought him. Not sure if this answers the question.

Answer 8

Hitler comparisons are always offensive. But sometimes, they fit. Check these out:

The Nazification of America
http://proliberty.com/observer/20030314.htm

The Nazification of America
http://www.new-enlightenment.com/nazification_step4.htm

And these are two separate websites!

Answer 9

Nope, especially not in a discussion about the Bible. Hitler and the Biblical God are very similar, torturing, slaughtering, and barbecuing millions. He made it quite clear that he was doing the Lord's work - following God's Biblical instructions to kill people.

Answer 10

hitler was a crowning acheivement of many evil things ...the lessons should be learned well and compared to modern situations imo ...