godwin's law question

[Listener]

Inspired by this thread:

When you invoke Hitler in a newsgroup/forum, Godwin's Law applies.  Is there a similar law for the "oh, hey, look, interesting discussion well-reasoned opinion BUSH IS AN EVIL MONKEY ZOMG!!!"' effect?

(Not saying that's what happened in that thread; everyone is behaving alarmingly civilized-ly up there... but it was on my mind...)

[wintermute]

Well, if someone said "Bush is a Nazi", that would be Goodwinned. But claiming that Bush is evil is rhetorically the same as claiming that Hitler was evil, though somewhat more controversial. If someone believes that Bush is an evil monkey, there surely isn't any problem whith that stating that belief, so long as they can back it up without resorting to ad hominems.

[Listener]

Well, I'm thinking more along the lines of people are having a discussion about something like t-shirt slogans, someone references a funny Bush shirt they saw, and someone else says "Bush is an evil monkey" or similar and begins parroting back the generic democratic talking points without contributing anything to the original discussion (ie, "yeah, I saw that one, and I also saw this great one of Bush drawn as a monkey and flinging poo... it was hilarious").

[stePH]

Well, if someone said "Bush is a Nazi", that would be Goodwinned. But claiming that Bush is evil is rhetorically the same as claiming that Hitler was evil, though somewhat more controversial. If someone believes that Bush is an evil monkey, there surely isn't any problem whith that stating that belief, so long as they can back it up without resorting to ad hominems.

At risk of dragging this thread down, I'm reminded of something i saw posted to a newsgroup years ago, where somebody asked "what's the difference between Saddam and Hitler?"

(google, google)

One "Rat and Swan" posted the following in reply:

Ok... let's see.....

I guess the first way to do this is to describe Hitler's early years,
his start, rise to power, methods, etc...

Hitler fought in the first World War, with a somewhat indifferent record
as a courier. He was AWOL during a large part of his stint in the
service.

Saddam was not in Vietnam, but his father's connections got him a slot
in the texas National Guard where hw was AWOL for a large part of his
stint in the Guard.

Hitler was a failure in every attempt he made to make a living. He was a
failed artist, tried his hand at selling books, was living in a flop
house and giving fiery right wing speeches and was trading on  his
status as a veteran when some NSDAP party organisers found him and
convinced hom to work for them. They felt they could control him.

Saddam was a failure at business. He worked in his father's oil
companies and every time they failed, his family's business associates
bought him out. He was a hard drinker and partyer who spent much of his
early life in a cocaine and alcohol fog. When he found religion he began
to work on his father's bid for the Presidency and became active in the
Republican party. They felt they could control him.

Hitler's first run for the office failed, and when he finally was
elected it was with less than a majority. Votors were intimidated,
ballots were destroyed or found to be "in error", polls were prematurely
closed, etc. von Hindenburg felt he had to accept this man as chancellor
but he placed many people around him in order to control him. Strangely,
while Adolf was seen as rather ordinary in intellgence, even somewhat
dim, he was far more powerful than people thought even if the method of
his coming to power was highly suspect.

Saddam's first run for the Presidency was a success but it was with less
than a majority. Votors were intimidated, dropped from the rolls,
ballots were destroyed or found to be in error, polls were prematurely
closed, the Supreme Court finally had to step in and override the will
of the state. The Republican Party had run this man as candidate but had
many people in position around him in order to control him. Strangely,
while Saddam was seen as rather ordinary in intelligence, even somewhat
dim, he was far more powerful than  people thought, even if his method
of coming to power was highly suspect.

Within the first year of coming to power, Hitler was tested when a
landmark government building was destroyed by fire. Inquiries found a
foreign national to be "responsible" although wild eyed conspiracy buffs
think the Reichstag Fire was planned (or at least no secret) to the
Party. Shortly after the fire, all inquiries into the nature of the
catastrophe were summarily ended and an Enabling Act was set in place
sweeping away the German constitutional protections and imposing a
secret organization of police spies over the people.

Within the first year of Saddam's rise to power he was tested when a
landmark and a government building were struck by airliners and
destroyed by fire. Inquiries found several foreign nationals to be
responsible (although wild eyed conspiracy buffs think the 9/11 attacks
were planned, or at least no secret) Shortly after the attacks all
inquiries into the nature of the catastrophe were summarily ended and
the PATRIOT Act was set in place sweeping away the Constitutional
protections and imposing the Department of Homeland security, a secret
organisation of spies and police over the people.

After the Enabling act, a series of events caused the German people to
be led into attacking another country with the end of regime change and
to bring the people there into the German hegemony. "We have no
terretorial ambitions outside of the area." Hitler said of Sudetenland,
Poland, Czechoslovakia... and the world watched as he continued, in the
name of reuniting Germany in freedom, to annex countries and impose his
government upon them.

Following the PATRIOT Act, a series of events caused Saddam's people to
be led into attacking another country with the end of regime change and
to bring the people there into the hegemony of Hussein's land. "We have
no terretorial ambitions in the middle east" he said "The oil is for the
Iraqi people" ...

And the world watches.

So, as you see... saddam Hussein and Hitler are one and the same.

Wait.... uh......

Well, I found it an interesting read ... wonder how much of it is accurate and how much is Bush-bashing?

[wintermute]

Well, I found it an interesting read ... wonder how much of it is accurate and how much is Bush-bashing?

The facts are mostly correct, but it requires some straining to match them up so neatly with Hitler's biography. For example, many (a majority?) of rational, sober historians believe that the Reichstag was burnt down by Nazis to create a reason to attack communists. Not a single rational, sober believes that Bush had anything to with 9/11, beyond knowing that Islamic fundamentalists might, possibly use passenger aircraft as weapons.

But, yeah. AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard, couldn't find oil in Texas, lost the popular vote, invaded Iraq... none of these points (in broad strokes, at least) is in doubt.

[birdless]

Nor has he attempted racial genocide.

I mean, c'mon... with this logic, you can compare Lincoln and Hitler... I'm not a Bush fan, but it's just a bit aggrandizing to compare him to Hitler... or anti-aggrandizing... however that works out... you know what I mean.

edit: that "aggrandize" thing

[wintermute]

Nor has he attempted racial genocide.

I mean, c'mon... with this logic, you can compare Lincoln and Hitler... I'm not a Bush fan, but it's just a bit aggrandizing to compare him to Hitler... or anti-aggrandizing... however that works out... you know what I mean.

edit: that "aggrandize" thing

Agreed. Ignoring that whole "holocaust" thing is a pretty serious error or omission on that comparison list.

[Tango Alpha Delta]

Well, if someone said "Bush is a Nazi", that would be Goodwinned. But claiming that Bush is evil is rhetorically the same as claiming that Hitler was evil, though somewhat more controversial. If someone believes that Bush is an evil monkey, there surely isn't any problem whith that stating that belief, so long as they can back it up without resorting to ad hominems.

Crikey... Bush ain't even ad hominoid!



(Sorry; that's as far as I could get in the thread without losing all civility.  )

[Tango Alpha Delta]

Okay... I've composed myself.  Basically, I'm with Birdless on the "aggrandizing" thingy.  It ain't Charlie McCarthy that's evil... but I've got my eye on Edgar Bergen.


(Google that, b*tches!)



((Okay, I haven't composed myself.  I'm just taking it out on you lot before going to Cub Scouts.  *sigh*))

[stePH]

Okay... I've composed myself.  Basically, I'm with Birdless on the "aggrandizing" thingy.  It ain't Charlie McCarthy that's evil... but I've got my eye on Edgar Bergen.


(Google that, b*tches!)

No need.  I know exactly what you're talking about.

[Russell Nash]

Okay... I've composed myself.  Basically, I'm with Birdless on the "aggrandizing" thingy.  It ain't Charlie McCarthy that's evil... but I've got my eye on Edgar Bergen.


(Google that, b*tches!)

No need.  I know exactly what you're talking about.

Was an easy one.  Candice said Charlie was the evil one.

[stePH]

[Darwinist]

Okay... I've composed myself.  Basically, I'm with Birdless on the "aggrandizing" thingy.  It ain't Charlie McCarthy that's evil... but I've got my eye on Edgar Bergen.

I wouldn't be so sure.  Remember the Twilight Zone episode "The Dummy"?  Willie the dummy was the bad half of that duo. 

[stePH]

Okay... I've composed myself.  Basically, I'm with Birdless on the "aggrandizing" thingy.  It ain't Charlie McCarthy that's evil... but I've got my eye on Edgar Bergen.

I wouldn't be so sure.  Remember the Twilight Zone episode "The Dummy"? 

No, but I vaguely remember a movie from the '70s called Magic.

[Russell Nash]

Okay... I've composed myself.  Basically, I'm with Birdless on the "aggrandizing" thingy.  It ain't Charlie McCarthy that's evil... but I've got my eye on Edgar Bergen.

I wouldn't be so sure.  Remember the Twilight Zone episode "The Dummy"? 

No, but I vaguely remember a movie from the '70s called Magic.

They also rehashed that trope on Buffy.

[stePH]

Inspired by this thread:

When you invoke Hitler in a newsgroup/forum, Godwin's Law applies. 

Just now noticed that your link goes to Urban Dictionary, which I find eminently worthy of the scorn and derision that some people undeservedly heap upon Wikipedia.

[Darwinist]

Okay... I've composed myself.  Basically, I'm with Birdless on the "aggrandizing" thingy.  It ain't Charlie McCarthy that's evil... but I've got my eye on Edgar Bergen.

I wouldn't be so sure.  Remember the Twilight Zone episode "The Dummy"? 

No, but I vaguely remember a movie from the '70s called Magic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dummy