Almost all invocations of Godwin's Law are attempts to escape a losing argument rather than objections to a comparison.
Godwin's law observes that comparisons to Hitler become likelier as a discussion lengthens. Berg's addition is about its use: because invoking it appears to be a procedural objection rather than a substantive one, it lets a participant exit without conceding. The general form covers every rule of discourse, which is why tone objections and accusations of bad faith arrive disproportionately from the side that is losing.
In practice
- A debate halted on a point of procedure was halted by whoever had least to gain from continuing.
- A rule intended to improve argument becomes a device for ending one, and its correct application is indistinguishable from its abuse.
- Possible explanations
- The proposed explanation is procedural cover: invoking a rule about comparisons looks like an objection to form rather than a concession on substance, so it offers an exit that costs nothing.
- In its favour
- The structural point is sound, since a rule that ends discussion is useful to whoever is losing it, and Godwin himself has objected to his law being used this way.
- Against it
- The prevalence figure is rhetorical, no one has counted how invocations divide between evasion and genuine objection, and some historical comparisons are in fact inapt, which is what the original law noticed.
- Standing
- From Berg's numbered set, first codified on his blog in 2005. The ninety-nine per cent figure is rhetorical. The structural point is sound and general: any meta-rule about how to argue can be deployed as a move within an argument, and doing so is hard to distinguish from applying it in good faith.
- Subject
- Communication & Media
- Essay
- The folk laws of argument and attention