Tim Worstall is the latest blogger to display the Jude image that I have shown here a couple of times during the ID cards debate. It is a powerful and thought provoking image that makes a point; what happens when an efficient identity database is used inappropriately. One of Tim’s commenters suggested that it was a Godwin violation. For those who haven’t come across it, Godwin’s law is a Usenet convention that is used to determine when a discussion thread has reached its natural end.
Godwin’s Law (also Godwin’s Rule of Nazi analogies) is an adage in Internet culture that was originated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states that:
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.
Although the law does not specifically mention it, there is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made, the thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.
Interesting idea, but utter horseshit. The Internet has become inundated with silly, anal conventions often referred to as “netiquette”. In some cases, generally accepted guidelines that everybody follows is sensible. However, too many rules and regulations stifle free expression and people new to the net find themselves unduly criticized for not being aware of these “rules”.
I take a slightly different approach – I say what I want to say in the manner in which I choose to express myself. Others can accept it or not as they see fit. They are free to disagree with me and equally free to challenge and debate. But – if they expect me to abide by these silly, juvenile “rules” they are in for a disappointment. The application of Godwin’s law in discussions is puerile nonsense. If I want to draw comparisons with the current ID cards debate and what happened in Germany during the nineteen thirties, I damn well will – and those who wish to invoke Godwin’s law are invited politely to put his rule where the imagination best determines.
And just to underline the point that I don’t give a flying fig for Godwin’s law, here it is again:
And [http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/3068/jude29sl.jpg here]’s a hi-res version for anyone who would like one.
Blimey ! No one told me that there were rules. 🙂
”’Longrider replies: Oh, yeah – just stick two fingers up to ’em, that’s what I do.”’
As a discussion (online or otherwise) grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving anything (including Nazis or Hitler) approaches 1.
The proper question should be whether the bit of history involving the Nazis contributes anything to the debate on the proposed National Identity Scheme (NIdS).
Given Nazi-ism concerns the subjugation of a people by the state, that compulsory registration can be a part of this, and especially that there are some other police-statist happenings in the UK, I think the history does have some relevance.
However, overplaying the Nazi angle risks being somewhat counter-productive. This is primarily because that argument is one of “slippery slope”. In addition to mentioning the possibility of the UK turning into a police state, to contribute usefully to argument (at least for my logic), one must also show that the risk of this happening is sufficiently great: ie probability versus possibility.
If people bang on about the Nazis all the time and every time, it will become viewed as crying wolf. Given the massive undesirability of my home country becoming a police state, I would rather this particular historical contribution was used more sparingly.
Best regards
”’Longrider replies: My displeasure with the use of Godwin’s law is that ignores context – as you indeed point out. In the light of the current debate, it is relevant as it illustrates what can happen because it already has happened in a civilised society. It isn’t the whole argument by any means, it is a relevant part, though. And, frankly, we should never forget.”’
”’This post is primarily about silly Internet conventions whereby people try to impose “rules” on others. Rules only work if we consent to them – I do not consent in this case.”’