Seriously. Ok, the Godwin's law itself is just an observation, but to automatically declare an argument invalid because one has evoked the nazis, or to force people to save up nazi comparisons so that they will have greater impact seems too authoritarian to me. I think that people should participate in, leave, or "declare victory" by whatever standards they want. Often when one evokes comparisons to nazis, an argument has become extremely heated and further argument is a mistake. Reductio ad nazium can be useful, however.
I would say not necessarily. The nazis are an extreme example, and pretty much everyone agrees that they were bad. Because of this, people often resort to comparisons to them since if one can establish something as nazi-like, it automatically discredits it. The question then, is whether the comparison made is valid. People who are highly emotional about their positions may resort to such extreme analogies because they see a debate in strictly black-and-white terms. That does not automatically mean that a position is invalid, however.
I find that the analogy is rarely apt and if the person put a little more thought into thier explanation, they'd either have a better analogy or a more articulate statement in general. The Nazi argument says to me that one is not not really trying.
Practically speaking, yes, most nazi analogy arguments are poor. But there seems to be a convention related to Godwin's Law that dictates an automatic response to such analogies. My point is that arguments can stand or fall on their own merits. To automatically invalidate an argument because a nazi analogy has been evoked only introduces the possibility of a fallacist's fallacy.
It is an easy way to sort out an idiot from a good debate. The automatic nature of it has more to do with how the meme has evolved, I would say. You'd really have to nail the analogy to get people to disregard Godwin.
I like how all these people try to use words to 'discredit' others. While they try real hard to be something they are not by churching up their 'words' of choice and not just saying what the fuck it is they want to say, In the first place. Gotta love the high class, Hundred dollar millionaires.
When this was first coined was in the early 90's when social boards were a fairly new thing. It was often done on news boards rather than social ones. It is not something that I encounter being "posted" very often as in cited as Godwin's Law.
I agree that is not a preferable form of debate and unfortunately it tends to rather shut down good debate. Perhaps that is the intended purpose of those who use it as someone always bites and the discussion goes down hill.
