tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post8800922927526427180..comments2023-04-03T19:10:54.088-04:00Comments on Critiques Of Libertarianism: Now why would they want that?Mike Hubenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01371469964446567690noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-84729298625458614612009-07-24T22:59:54.035-04:002009-07-24T22:59:54.035-04:00My reaction to "this" what? I have no ...My reaction to "this" what? I have no reaction to Godwin's Law: I am reacting to an idiotic discussion of it.<br /><br />Godwin's Law is a pretty good heuristic. That means that while it is usually accurate, there are exceptions. Those exceptions can be recognized with the knowledge you suggest.Mike Hubenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01371469964446567690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-48531315183476290572009-07-24T22:38:11.615-04:002009-07-24T22:38:11.615-04:00I think your reaction to this is misguided, Mike. ...I think your reaction to this is misguided, Mike. I don't think Godwin's Law needs to be "repealed." I would favor amending it a little, though. It developed and became so popular because Nazi analogies became both extraordinarily overused, and, in most cases, misused. That's why the ADL gripes about the issue--they think this sort of thing tends to cheapen the real horror of Nazism.<br /><br />I'm a longtime vet of internet debates. What I'd prefer to see, and what I've always argued for, is a more responsible use of Nazi analogies. It used to be one of my hobbies to go around the internet and correct the misinformation underlying the most common uses of these analogies. I wrote long, detailed pieces on the subject, and tried to make the exercise educational. This wasn't for the benefit of those misusing the analogies--most of them were simply beyond help--but for those more normal readers who may have been misled by them. This takes time and knowledge, but I found it much more useful than simply invoking Godwin's Law, as though that, alone, dealt with the matter.<br /><br />Rational discourse <i>isn't</i> always over when Nazism is invoked. Though that's admittedly far more often the case than not, the practice of automatically bringing dialogue to a close upon such an invocation does the opposite of what the ADL fears--it puts the horrors of Nazism on an unreachable pedestal by suggesting the fascists were so awful that <i>nothing</i> can compare to them. That's not just a dangerous proposition, it's demonstrably false.<br /><br />--j. of j. & Jennclassicliberalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08774368616512375256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-2606470151128308982009-07-21T19:26:41.115-04:002009-07-21T19:26:41.115-04:00Godwin's Law:
(1) If a discussion goes on long...Godwin's Law:<br />(1) If a discussion goes on long enough, EVENTUALLY a Hitler/Nazi analogy will be made.<br /><br />(Of course, it's one of the only anologies that pretty much almost everyone will understand. Why avoid it?)<br /><br />(2) An observation that when a Hitler/Nazi analogy is invoked, meaningful argument is over.<br /><br />(I disagree with that. I've been in several discussions where after the Hitler/Nazi analogy has been encountered, and countered, a meaningful discussion has continued.)<br /><br />With that said, I'm a bit amused over the tendency of Libertarians (but also of Conservatives and Communists) to subscribe to conspiracy theories about why their attempts to apply their ideologies fail and isn't especially appreciated by the common people.<br /><br />How about facing reality? If a scientist repeatedly do an experiment and fail everytime, he abandons his hypothesis. I wish political ideologists and economical theorists would have the humility to do the same.Starman1976https://www.blogger.com/profile/06569990826555377942noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-34487464684228644752009-07-21T13:47:17.593-04:002009-07-21T13:47:17.593-04:00In other words, you still don't have an exampl...In other words, you still don't have an example of a featured main article analogous to all those scaremongering Time cover stories. Instead, you have a brief topical opinion piece from 2005 pointing out - correctly - that Godwin's Law gets invoked inconsistently. A piece which ends with a joke you didn't get.<br /><br />The "market" in question is the <i>intellectual</i> market - aka <i>the marketplace of ideas</i> - and <i>Godwin's Law</i> is the "regulation" being discussed.Glenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14661650090485723755noreply@blogger.com