the most worthless thread in the world
- Thread starter xfer
- Start date
haha similar threads include the all-time favourite:
For the 3rd world assfaces who call themselves JUGULATOR and his girlfriend WITCHKING
For the 3rd world assfaces who call themselves JUGULATOR and his girlfriend WITCHKING
lizard
Member
that one was a classic...as well as the flame war between Ledmag and Azal before A's departure...lots of insults about haircuts and bathing habits...
FalseTodd
Skirt Wizard
Does anyone remember what the name of the Internet Law is about threads being officially over once "Nazi" or "Hitler" is invoked? I can't remember what it's called but it's some guy's name...
FalseTodd
Skirt Wizard
OK here it is:
I. The Basics
1. What is Godwin's Law?
Godwin's Law is a natural law of Usenet named after Mike Godwin
(godwin@eff.org) concerning Usenet "discussions". It reads, according to
the Jargon File:
As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison
involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
2. What does it mean?
It pretty much means exactly what it says - as a Usenet thread
goes on, the chances of somebody or something being compared to a Nazi
approach one.
3. Yes, but what does it *mean*?
Aah, now *there's* the real question.
...snip...
As a Usenet discussion gets longer it tends to get more heated; as
more heat enters the discussion, tensions get higher and people start to
insult each other over anything they can think of. Godwin's Law merely
notes that, eventually, those tensions eventually cause someone to find
the worst insults that come to mind - which will almost always include a
Nazi comparison.
4. That still doesn't answer my question. What does it *MEAN*?
The Law is generally used on Usenet as an indicator of whether a
thread has gone on too long, who's playing fair and who's just slinging
mud, and who finally gets to "win" the discussion. It has, over time,
become the closest thing to an impartial moderator that Usenet can get.
So, what this means in practical terms:
o If someone brings up Nazis in general conversation when it
wasn't necessary or germane without it necessarily being an
insult, it's probably about time for the thread to end.
o If someone brings up Nazis in general conversation when it
was vaguely related but is basically being used as an insult,
the speaker can be considered to be flaming and not debating.
o If someone brings up Nazis in any conversation that has been
going on too long for one of the parties, it can be used as
a fair excuse to end the thread and declare victory for the
other side.
5. So - *WHAT DOES IT MEAN*?
Fine, fine - it means that somebody's eventually going to say
something about the Nazis in any thread that lasts very long. When it
happens, the thread is going to start either degenerating into a long
flamewar over Nazi Germany or about Godwin's Law. Either way, the thread
is effectively over, and you can safely killfile the thread and move on.
I. The Basics
1. What is Godwin's Law?
Godwin's Law is a natural law of Usenet named after Mike Godwin
(godwin@eff.org) concerning Usenet "discussions". It reads, according to
the Jargon File:
As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison
involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
2. What does it mean?
It pretty much means exactly what it says - as a Usenet thread
goes on, the chances of somebody or something being compared to a Nazi
approach one.
3. Yes, but what does it *mean*?
Aah, now *there's* the real question.
...snip...
As a Usenet discussion gets longer it tends to get more heated; as
more heat enters the discussion, tensions get higher and people start to
insult each other over anything they can think of. Godwin's Law merely
notes that, eventually, those tensions eventually cause someone to find
the worst insults that come to mind - which will almost always include a
Nazi comparison.
4. That still doesn't answer my question. What does it *MEAN*?
The Law is generally used on Usenet as an indicator of whether a
thread has gone on too long, who's playing fair and who's just slinging
mud, and who finally gets to "win" the discussion. It has, over time,
become the closest thing to an impartial moderator that Usenet can get.
So, what this means in practical terms:
o If someone brings up Nazis in general conversation when it
wasn't necessary or germane without it necessarily being an
insult, it's probably about time for the thread to end.
o If someone brings up Nazis in general conversation when it
was vaguely related but is basically being used as an insult,
the speaker can be considered to be flaming and not debating.
o If someone brings up Nazis in any conversation that has been
going on too long for one of the parties, it can be used as
a fair excuse to end the thread and declare victory for the
other side.
5. So - *WHAT DOES IT MEAN*?
Fine, fine - it means that somebody's eventually going to say
something about the Nazis in any thread that lasts very long. When it
happens, the thread is going to start either degenerating into a long
flamewar over Nazi Germany or about Godwin's Law. Either way, the thread
is effectively over, and you can safely killfile the thread and move on.
Godwin's Law is actually the opposite of true.
It's not possible to argue without a common language and, in this postmodern world, without a common frame of reference.
Since we can no longer use "Satan" as the signifier for "evil/bad/undesirable", and we're all too savvy to use our current enemy-of-the-moment, we use "the Nazis". Sure, the Japanese were probably worse, the Soviets were probably worse, but everyone has more or less agreed that "Nazi" and "Hitler" would be the common language of negativity.
This actually PRESERVES threads, because it allows you to make actual, interactive arguments--which you couldn't do without a common frame of reference for negativity--without debating the terms themself and ruining the argument. If I try to use Iraq as a signifier for evil in a thread about putting cats to sleep, the thread will be derailed and ruined by people yelping that SADDAM WAS CREATED BY AMERICA and so on and so forth.
So, yeah, Godwin's Law is only true inasmuch as all threads on the internet tend to spiral out of control, anyway, regardless of Nazi content. I would be interested in hearing a BETTER solution for creating a common frame of reference than the Nazis.
It's not possible to argue without a common language and, in this postmodern world, without a common frame of reference.
Since we can no longer use "Satan" as the signifier for "evil/bad/undesirable", and we're all too savvy to use our current enemy-of-the-moment, we use "the Nazis". Sure, the Japanese were probably worse, the Soviets were probably worse, but everyone has more or less agreed that "Nazi" and "Hitler" would be the common language of negativity.
This actually PRESERVES threads, because it allows you to make actual, interactive arguments--which you couldn't do without a common frame of reference for negativity--without debating the terms themself and ruining the argument. If I try to use Iraq as a signifier for evil in a thread about putting cats to sleep, the thread will be derailed and ruined by people yelping that SADDAM WAS CREATED BY AMERICA and so on and so forth.
So, yeah, Godwin's Law is only true inasmuch as all threads on the internet tend to spiral out of control, anyway, regardless of Nazi content. I would be interested in hearing a BETTER solution for creating a common frame of reference than the Nazis.
avi
W3RK3R
xfer, the idea is that you should avoid referencing people/things/whatever to whatever your idea of absolute evil is b/c that argument means you are spewing bullshit.
how are you supposed to make qualitative arguments, then? a debate without firm notions of Desirable and Undesirable is totally meaningless.
FalseTodd
Skirt Wizard
I think a better solution would be one that is not so vitriolic! The problem with the invocation of nazism is that it's applied in totally absurd fashion. It's fine to call someone evil, but calling them "the greatest evil that most people can think of off the tops of their heads" is pretty ridiculous.
I think Godwin's law is right on. In most situations I hear people calling others "nazis" I think it could be replaced by "I disagree and you're a stupid fuck". I don't think there's much misunderstanding of the terminology there.
I think Godwin's law is right on. In most situations I hear people calling others "nazis" I think it could be replaced by "I disagree and you're a stupid fuck". I don't think there's much misunderstanding of the terminology there.
avi
W3RK3R
if you have to resort to calling someone a nazi to make your point, you're not doing a good job with arguing
But what I'm saying is that Naziism isn't just "the greatest evil" blah blah blah. It's the ONLY evil you can bring up without sparking a tangential and thread-destroying snipey argument.
I think just because there are people who misuse the term doesn't mean that the term should be banned from discourse, especially since I've yet to hear a workable alternative.
I think just because there are people who misuse the term doesn't mean that the term should be banned from discourse, especially since I've yet to hear a workable alternative.
avi
W3RK3R
avi
W3RK3R
you're missing the point. the central clause of godwin's law refers to what sam said and the "fuck you you fucking fuck" type of statement that goes hand-in-hand with calling someone a nazi online.
FalseTodd
Skirt Wizard
I think the search for an absolute frame of reference for an abstract concept like "evil" is dumb.
This thread is totally living up to its subject.
I don't think I'm missing the point. Godwin's law combines a couple of different arguments: that a thread dies when someone is name-called a Nazi, and that ANY thread in which Nazis are mentioned (when the thread's not specifically about Naziism) becomes dead.
The first, okay, whatever, that is probably true. But I'm arguing against the second assumption, which is definitely NOT true.
And Sam, you just proved exactly my point. Nowadays, you can't use the word "evil" without opening a ton of semantic cans of worms, because evil, today, is a debateable concept. But Naziism is the pure essence of negativity to essentially EVERYONE. Your statement is PRECISELY why I'm saying the use of Nazi analogies is necessary to keep an argument on track.
I don't think I'm missing the point. Godwin's law combines a couple of different arguments: that a thread dies when someone is name-called a Nazi, and that ANY thread in which Nazis are mentioned (when the thread's not specifically about Naziism) becomes dead.
The first, okay, whatever, that is probably true. But I'm arguing against the second assumption, which is definitely NOT true.
And Sam, you just proved exactly my point. Nowadays, you can't use the word "evil" without opening a ton of semantic cans of worms, because evil, today, is a debateable concept. But Naziism is the pure essence of negativity to essentially EVERYONE. Your statement is PRECISELY why I'm saying the use of Nazi analogies is necessary to keep an argument on track.
avi
W3RK3R
I'll say it again: if you have to talk about something abstract like evil in your argument and reference the nazis, chances are 99 to 1 that you are out of ideas and talking out your ass. hence, godwin's law.
FalseTodd
Skirt Wizard
Yes, but Godwin's law is specifically designed to go against the *inappropriate* use of nazi.
"If someone brings up Nazis in general conversation when it
wasn't necessary or germane..."
And I think there shouldn't be a pure essence of negativity to everyone. And this is where you and I will differ in our standard way.
The argument will stay on track if both parties are being honest about their moral/ethical/blahblah standards, and not just trying to "win". If it requires such a ridiculously high baseline to discuss than maybe it's not worth arguing with the other person.
"If someone brings up Nazis in general conversation when it
wasn't necessary or germane..."
And I think there shouldn't be a pure essence of negativity to everyone. And this is where you and I will differ in our standard way.
The argument will stay on track if both parties are being honest about their moral/ethical/blahblah standards, and not just trying to "win". If it requires such a ridiculously high baseline to discuss than maybe it's not worth arguing with the other person.
I can't really disagree with that because it's a matter of statistics--1 person arguing under my logic for every 99 people who are just flinging Nazi as an insult? Maybe, but who can say? is it 5 to 1, or 99 to 1, or 300 to 1?
So yeah, I can't disagree with that statement because it doesn't disagree with what I said.
So yeah, I can't disagree with that statement because it doesn't disagree with what I said.
