It is also a bad sign if you invoke TWAITW. If you check the law, as stated on Wikipedia, it does not cover my post:
“As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.”
The Reductio ad Hitlerum attempts to refute a view because it has been held by Hitler.
You can sort of make your case that it is covered by one of the Corollaries:
Godwin’s law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one’s opponent) with Nazis.
except for the proposed amendment:
Adam Gopnik has proposed an amendment to Godwin’s Law. Called ‘Gopnik’s Amendment’, he argues that comparisons to the Nazis is justified if the individual or association embrace a world-view that contains the three characteristics of nationalism, militarism, and hatred of otherness (that includes but is not limited to anti-Semitism).
Which is exactly what I was doing (well, one out of three, so not exactly).
As discussed there, pointing out that it has this feature isn’t always the worst argument in the world. If you have a coherent reason why this argument is different from other moral arguments that require Godwin’s Law violations for their persuasiveness, then the conversation can go forward.
EDIT: (Parent was edited while I was replying.) If “using Jews and Nazis as your example because replacing them with Venusians and Neptunians would fail to be persuasive” isn’t technically “Godwin’s Law”, then fine, but it’s still a feature that correlates with really bad moral arguments, unless there’s a relevant difference here.
It is also a bad sign if you invoke TWAITW. If you check the law, as stated on Wikipedia, it does not cover my post:
You can sort of make your case that it is covered by one of the Corollaries:
except for the proposed amendment:
Which is exactly what I was doing (well, one out of three, so not exactly).
As discussed there, pointing out that it has this feature isn’t always the worst argument in the world. If you have a coherent reason why this argument is different from other moral arguments that require Godwin’s Law violations for their persuasiveness, then the conversation can go forward.
EDIT: (Parent was edited while I was replying.) If “using Jews and Nazis as your example because replacing them with Venusians and Neptunians would fail to be persuasive” isn’t technically “Godwin’s Law”, then fine, but it’s still a feature that correlates with really bad moral arguments, unless there’s a relevant difference here.