New rule: Godwin's Law for DemocraticUnderground.

[TheWraith]

All right, we need a new consensus rule. Godwin's Law is an ancient legend of the internet: the idea that the first person in an argument who invokes the Nazis automatically loses. We need an equivalent here.

In arguments over why someone doesn't like X Democrat, the person who invokes the "DLC" automatically forfeits. Period. This ridiculous collective myth of the evil, all-powerful DLC is too often used as an intellectual crutch for bad arguments. If you can't find a better reason to dislike a particular politician than that, you need to reexamine your opinion, or at the very least stay out of the discussion. This applies also to synonyms, like "Republican lite" or "corporatist." Example: in a thread about Hillary Clinton, an invalid response would be anything using the aforementioned words. A valid response would be "I don't like her because of her waffling on the issue of torture," or "I don't like her because she attacked Kerry for his botched joke." See how easy it is?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

1. Wisely Stated.

[valerief]

2. You're gonna drive out all the trolls with talk like that. nt

[nashville_brook]

85. those damn anti-corporate trolls! who let THEM in?

[rpgamerd00d]

3. We don't need your Nazi rules, Adolf!

:rofl:

j/k

[LSK]

4. maybe you should tell Randi

Shes on their case too right now.

[quinnox]

5. or uses the word "corporatists"

that is the other boogeyman word Duers like to use for potential presidential candidates they don't like.

Edit : lol, sorry I didn't notice you had that covered!

[The Magistrate]

6. An Excellent Idea, Sir

An old uncle of mine had about the same view of Communists as some seem to have of the DLC: whatever he did not like, they were damn sure behind; they could be found everywhere, influencing everything for the worst, the cause of everything bad and wrong in the whole damn country, which, oddly enough, he used to speak a lot of "taking back" from them damn commies....

[Stinky The Clown]

29. Hey Magistrate ... don't slough that off as a canard ......

That planter's wart I had removed in '74 was biopsied and found to be communist. There was a little hammer and sickle inside it.

True story.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

47. Well, speaking as a lifelong Communist...

...I gotta say, he was right. We did it - the bad stuff. All of it. And we'll do it again!

[0rganism]

7. fools rush in (imho, what we need is a way to unrec this thread)

Godwin's Law itself has nothing to do with "losing the argument". Rather, it is an expression of probabilities. Formally, "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

Whether or not such comparisons are inappropriate is another matter entirely. The notion that the thread ends when the comparison occurs, and the person who brought up the comparison loses any outstanding arguments, is an optional convention.

And worse yet, you and others in the thread propose to extend the topics to cover your arbitrary pet peeves. DLC, corporatists, communists, what next? How about Hugo Chavez, universal healthcare, Cesar Chavez, Social Security, or anything Cheney?

I don't like it. In fact, the more I think about it, the less I like it. In the limit set, we wouldn't discuss anything without some neo-Godwinist zealot cluttering up the thread with invocations of "the Law".

[Freeusfromthechurch]

17. I agree with you 0rganism. Outstanding reply and good point.

[stevedeshazer]

36. 0rganism, it seems to me that your clarification begs the question:

If Godwin's Law is defined as you wrote (and I don't doubt that it is if you say so):

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

Then doesn't it follow that any pejorative could be substituted for 'Nazi' or 'Hitler' or for that matter, 'Gordo' or 'Pea Packer' or 'Flip-Flopper' or 'Republican Senator from Oregon'?

These are the things that keep me awake at night, man. :crazy:

[Viva_La_Revolution]

49. hey Steve... Speaking of the Pea-packing-flip-flopper...

I had a conversation about him at work today. I was supposed to be thrilled that he was now saying that Iraq is a mess. Like he wasn't saying the opposite last month. :eyes:

[stevedeshazer]

58. This sudden mass lovefest for Gordo has me amazed!

It's a 49-state phenomenon, in my opinion. Everyone in Oregon in the Pea-Packer era knows he's a political opportunist.

Like you, I'm not thrilled. I'm skeptical...at best.

[0rganism]

82. Gordo has about 18 months to convince Oregon moderates he's the reincarnation of Wayne Morse

or at least Mark Hatfield in disguise.

In the meantime, the pea-packer has the obligation to do whatever he can to keep up the tax breaks for his ultra-rich buddies who will put his campaign funding over the top; perhaps in memory of Sen. Morse he will pull a 23-hour filibuster to do so? One can only imagine the costumed tightrope act Gordo will perform in the interests of convincing the Oregon voters that he's a progressive libertarian independent fiscal-conservative environmentally-conscious business-friendly warrior-pacifist with a tough-on-terror attitude and the courage to diss his lame-duck 30%-popular president. The main danger, at least in the early part of the performance, is that he will be upstaged by the usual parade of local media whores, doing their intricate backflips and contortionary back-bends in honor of his mighty moderateness.

[0rganism]

59. nazi comparisons are "special"...

...which is basically the reason Godwin's Law exists in the first place. :silly:

One would be, I think, hard-pressed to find a pejorative as hyperbolic or widely (ab)used as the variants of "nazi" and "hitler" associatives. We likely would be surprised if somone outside the sphere of political discourse started referring to Gordo by way of insult, or comparing some other aspect of a discussion to the republican senator from Oregon, it's fairly uncommon except in isolated instances. DLCers get wider localized use (e.g. "you're another damned DLCer!"), but like Gordo and unlike the nazis, it's not over-the-top the way comparisons to hitler and/or nazism usually are, and you wouldn't find it on places other than DU and a few other liberal hives.

Conventionally, everyone on a typical net forum knows at least something about the nazis and hitler, and with a few exceptions has similar connotations. The same cannot be said for stuff like Gordo or DLC, which is yet another reason why Wraith's proposal is so freakin' bogus. By extending a law that refers only to the inevitability of a very special set of circumstances, one flirts with the utterly absurd. The classic is "death and taxes", right? We don't go saying, "death, taxes, and a Yale MBA" unless we're in rarefied company; hence, it is much harder to generalize on such points.

here's another question you can ponder in the wee hours: does any reference to Godwin's law (e.g. Wraith's OP) implicitly reference comparison to nazism, hence satisfy the condition, or must the reference be explicit? That is, can one implicitly compare the use of DLC as pejorative to use of nazis as pejorative without implicitly comparing the DLC to the nazis?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

42. Neo-Godwinist zealot.

:thumbsup:

[TechBear_Seattle]

8. Godwin's Law has nothing to do with "winning" or "losing"

It describes an inevitability.

[bananas]

19. Damn net-nazis don't even know Godwin's Law!

How predictable.

[Zodiak]

53. The same can be said for Occam's razor

As for my opinion on the OP, I am against it. The vast majority of senatorial members of that organization (DLC) have terrible voting records for progressives, and artifically ignoring that fact is counter-intuitive for effective informational and debating purposes.

In effect, it is another plea to stifle the debate. It should be ignored.

People have a right to argue who the "leadership" of our own party should be and what type of agenda we should set. For those of us who wish for the party's behavior to change with respect to its treatment of corporations and workers, we should continue to use those terms where appropriate. I know I will.

This is the result of my research on voting records (as I see politics)

Harkin (Iowa) 82.75862069
Boxer (California) 82.75862069
Feingold (Wisconsin) 82.75862069
Kennedy (Massacheusetts) 77.5862069
Corzine (New Jersey) now Gov. 76.66666667
Lautenberg (New Jersey) 75.86206897
Durbin (Illinois) 75.86206897
Akaka (Hawaii) 75.86206897
Sarbanes (Maryland) 72.4137931
Kerry (Massacheusetts) DLC 70.68965517
Leahy (Vermont) 70.68965517
Levin (Michigan) 68.96551724
Mikulski (Maryland) 68.96551724
Reed (Rhode Island) 68.96551724
Biden (Deleware) 67.24137931
Dodd (Connecticut) 65.51724138
Wyden (Oregon) 65.51724138
Dayton (Minnesota) 65.51724138
Obama (Illinois) 63.79310345
Bayh (Indiana) DLC 60.34482759
Murray (Washington) 60.34482759
Schumer (New York) DLC 58.6206896
Inouye (Hawaii) DLC 56.89655172
Bingaman (New Mexico) 56.89655172
Dorgan (North Dakota) DLC 55.17241379
Reid (Nevada) 55.17241379
Byrd (West Virginia) 55.17241379
Clinton (New York) DLC 53.44827586
Menendez (New Jersey) DLC 50
Cantwell (Washington) DLC 48.27586207
Stabenow (Michigan) DLC 46.55172414
Kohl (Wisconsin) DLC 44.82758621
Feinstein (California) DLC 44.82758621
Leiberman (Connecticut) DLC 44.82758621
Rockefeller (West Virginia) 41.37931034
Conrad (North Dakota) DLC 41.37931034
Baucus (Montana) DLC 39.65517241
Carper (Deleware) DLC 34.48275862
Johnson (South Dakota) DLC 31.03448276
Lincoln (Arkansas) DLC 31.03448276
Salazar (Colorado) DLC 24.13793103
Pryor (Arkansas) DLC 22.4137931
Nelson (Florida) DLC 20.68965517
Landrieu (Louisianna) DLC 17.24137931
Nelson (Nebraska) DLC 3.448275862


...it is hard to ignore that the DLC is clustered almost entirely on the bottom. They disparage liberals. They take corporate money and hide their donor list and members lists. They do not like Howard Dean or grassroots politics at all, but are quick to take the microphone to speak for the whole party. Then there is the war issue....

I am sorry, I am against any group that ostensibly wishes to diminish my voice and has made a >50% habit of voting "yea" on Republican legislation and controversial nominations in the last 6 years. We are talking about radical Republican legislation.

[TahitiNut]

45. You're right. It's predictive, not prescriptive.

No matter how much you tell folks this, they'll contintue to misstate Godwin's Law over and over again. It's like any 'natural' law ... it's based on observation. Sadly, however, once people get the myth stuck in their head, it's almost impossible to dislodge it.

[LiviaOlivia]

9. I support Free Speech. And 1990 is hardly ancient.

Whether a Nazi comparison is legitimate or not one would hope the poster backs up their argument with facts. But some are saying siding with corporations over basic human rights is breaking Godwin's law? Good. Break it. Piss on it. Hear that Hilary and friends?

I'll call a fascist a fascist. Live free or die.



from Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is a mainstay of Internet culture, an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states:

Godwin's Law
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.<1>

Godwin's Law

Godwin's Law does not dispute whether, in a particular instance, a reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be apt. It is precisely because such a reference or comparison may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin argues in his book, Cyber Rights: Defending Free Speech in the Digital Age, that overuse of the Hitler/Nazi comparison should be avoided, as it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

Although in one of its early forms Godwin's Law referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions,<2> the law is now applied to any threaded online discussion: electronic mailing lists, message boards, chat rooms, and more recently blog comment threads and wiki discussion pages.

[nashville_brook]

13. fascism is corporatism embedded in government

as Mussolini said:

Anti-individualistic, the fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal will of man as a historic entity.

kinda like accepting the DU'er insofar as they toe the line...

[Pab Sungenis]

30. There is a corollary, too.

The corollary is the same as the text of Godwin's Law, but with "Heinlein" substituted for "Hitler."

There, now we've satisfied both Godwin's law and the corollary, so this thread can die a peaceful death.

[Bucky]

10. Can we hold the same for mentioning Rove's ever present string pulling on the media?

Or for that matter, can we do the same for actual nazi comparisons? The phrase "bushitler" will never be clever.

[nashville_brook]

11. eh, corporatism is literally killing americans -- just look at healthcare

corporations are not citizens and politicians who treat them as such do so at their peril with a large slice of the DEM pie.

i think it's fine for DU'ers to stand against corporatism and stand up for regulation that puts OUR interests before corporate money.

[OzarkDem]

78. Agree, its not an abstract concept

its real, something that is influencing our government and society today. Like it or no, it has to be debated.

[LoZoccolo]

12. Or you could just put 900+ people on ignore for breaking any law you see fit like I did.

It's your time to be managed by you.

(I took everyone off after the election, but some people have made it on since then.)

[nashville_brook]

84. sounds like the OP'er would rather shut down discussion

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. Godwin's law corollary.

When Person B shouts "Godwin's law, you lose the argument" when Person A compared someone to Hitler, and it was an apt comparison (e.g. slaughtering hundreds of thousands of human beings), then person B automatically loses the argument.

[Solon]

15. Godwin's law only says that the longer an internet discussion continues...

the chances of the Nazis and/or Hitler being invoked in the argument approaches 1. It does NOT say whether the person who made the Nazi and/or Hitler comparison loses the argument, its neutral, and depends on context.

For example, I could compare Pinochet to Hitler, for he WAS a Nazi scumbag, may he burn in the river of fire in Tartarus for eternity. Obviously, I'm not wrong. :)

[Nye Bevan]

16. What are you, some kind of DLC shill?

I see their evil agents *everywhere* on this board. ;-)

[hootinholler]

26. Some of 'em even have an avatar n/t

[Elidor]

18. You seem to be saying...

That people who criticize DLC members do so solely for the presence of those three letters and have no true idea of the pro-business, anti-progressive policies driving the organization behind the name.

What's the matter? Are you ashamed of the DLC? You don't want people mentioning it in arguments anymore? Here's a thought: when politicians like Hillary and Rahm stop supporting DLC policies, their membership in that organization will cease to be of relevance to the discussion.

Kinda cute to see so many of you here together in one thread, though. :hi: Perhaps I should leave you alone to enjoy yourselves and your new resolution to disallow the term DLC. And good luck with that, by the way.

[annabanana]

25. I'm with you.

Clearly, corporate influence doesn't ever affect anyone but Republicans. :sarcasm:

[porkrind]

64. I was just about to say the same thing

Thanks for the post, you're spot on.

[HughMoran]

68. "used as an intellectual crutch for bad arguments"

You totally missed the point - I guess this is the point - oh, well.

[Elidor]

76. I got the point just fine

I just don't believe in the OP's truthiness.

[me b zola]

75. You said it much better then I could have...

...thanks :hi:

[elocs]

20. I have thought for a long time that a type of Godwin's Law applies here.

That is, if a thread goes on long enough and posters get pissed enough, then sooner or later somebody will accuse somebody else of being a freeper or a RWer and then others will chime in with agreement. I wish I had a nickel for evey time I have seen that happen here. When it comes to an argument or debate and the only thing somebody has left is to accuse somebody else of being a Republican, then they just lost the argument.

[More Than A Feeling]

21. I've got an idea: How about we let Skinner make the rules

regarding what we can and cannot talk about, and leave the self-censorship to the politicians?

[HughMoran]

70. Yeah, why have reasoned arguments?

When all we have to do is "follow the rules"...

"used as an intellectual crutch for bad arguments"

[More Than A Feeling]

77. Face it, some Democratic politicians have lost the trust of some people here at DU

When that happens, its very hard to get it back, and hectoring people about their mistrust isn't going to change that. Once burned, twice shy, dontcha know?

[Elidor]

79. So far you seem incapable of reasoned arguments

All you've done in this thread is throw out your little quote about intellectual crutches...like an intellectual crutch. Can you formulate a coherent argument? I wonder.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

22. Voting against someone because they are a DLCer

is a valid case. The DLC stands for certain things that aren't considered progressive or liberal, and most people here know what the DLC is. Some support it, and some don't.

Invoking Godwin's Law (which doesn't even describe the situation here) to DLC is akin to telling some of us who are anti-DLC to shut up.

[ulysses]

23. nice one-way "rule"

:eyes:

[Kelly Rupert]

24. I completely agree. Your quest may be quixotic, but it is admirable.

[Guaranteed]

27. I agree. I think we need to be much more specific as to the weakness

and ineffectiveness of DLC-type arguments and platforms. We should put more effort into making their shortcomings clear.

[ulysses]

31. heh!

I can do that. :)

[scarletwoman]

43. Excellent!

:D

sw

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LoZoccolo]

32. I think it's funny that people are vehemently defending the shortcut to thinking...

...that the OP is pointing out.

Let me broad-brush, dangit! I'll break the rules before I'm silenced from my simplemindedness!

[scarletwoman]

35. Do you have any idea of how many thousands of words have been posted on DU over the years

explaining precisely what the DLC and "corporatist" stand for? Those who have done the work, and have posted over and over again to explain -- with research, links, and careful analysis -- why these are held to be negative influences in our political system may be forgiven if they do not attach long explicatory essays to every post in which they invoke those terms.

Those who already know what these mean will understand. Those who do not understand are free to ask questions. And those who would argue that these things are not negative are free to make their case.

What else is needed in an open discussion forum?

sw

[LoZoccolo]

46. Yeah but the rest are usually knee-jerk.

People don't even read a lot of the stuff posted here before they go off.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2035218

[scarletwoman]

51. Okay, I read that whole thread. It does nothing to refute my point.

Whether people have a "knee-jerk" reaction to the DLC or not, they are reacting based on a particular conceptualization that they already have internalized.

The core concept itself is not invalidated by those who may invoke it in shorthand. And in view of the recent derogatory comments made about Dean just after the Nov. 2006 elections by DLCers James Carville and Rahm Emmanuel, your 2005 "made-up" statement was actually quite prescient.

sw

[LoZoccolo]

52. "they are reacting based on a particular conceptualization that they already have internalized"

Right. And? As I bring up in the thread, people in the novel 1984 have an internalized reaction to Big Brother. Republicans had an internalized reaction to Zell Miller during the 2004 Republican National Convention. It's the value and applicability of that reaction that's in question.

[scarletwoman]

56. And what? My post to which you replied attempted to explain that lots of DUers have very good

reasons to distrust/dislike the DLC, and that there have been thousands of words expended over the years that have provided exhaustive reasons why this is so.

Therefore, someone like me (for example) who has spent lots of time and energy in researching the DLC for many years, will find myself in agreement with others who "knee-jerk" react to the DLC because I have done the homework.

And if a poster who brings up a reference to the DLC has done so in a cogent manner -- that is, consistent with what I already know through my research to be true -- then I don't need that poster to run through the entire body of research to support her or his point. The arguments against the DLC are already part of my knowledge base, which relies on EMPIRICAL data.

Your invocation of 1984 and Zell Miller are examples of EMOTIONAL reaction -- not at all applicable to my argument.

sw

[ulysses]

33. LoZo's right, it's a shortcut. I propose the use of "corporatist Quislings"

:D

[scarletwoman]

37. I've always been fond of the term "Vichy Democrats", myself.

:D

sw

[ReadTomPaine]

39. Some of the people supporting the OP should really know better.

This is the kind of thinking one scrapes off the bottom of one's shoe.

[scarletwoman]

41. But what I scrape off from the bottom of my shoe I would hardly grace with the term "thinking". (nt)

[ulysses]

48. Neville Chamberlain also provides a good reference.

:D

[Warren Stupidity]

62. Corporate Greedhead Wing of the War Party?

[JVS]

65. Pigdogs!

[Swamp Rat]

34. HA! Nice try, but NO DICE!

:D I seeeeee you! ;)

[ComerPerro]

38. you obviously don't understand what the DLC is about, or what people mean when they say one is DLC

It means corporate, and very right leaning

[ReadTomPaine]

40. Sorry, but I prefer these "rules"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1857274

[JeffR]

44. Alrighty then

The DLC still sux ass. And I'm grateful that they aren't all-powerful. I'd be more grateful still if the organization collapsed and its brain-trust was panhandling for spare change on K Street.

[tabasco]

50. I support this post but I believe there is a core group that is not

fully committed to ending rule by corporations. They are part of the problem and we must get rid of them.

[w4rma]

54. Nope. Nazis exist (usually in the closet). And the DLC leadership are corporatists.

This is a political forum and I'm going to talk real world politics.

[bvar22]

55. Ashamed of the DLC ?

Ashamed of your favorite candidate's romance with the DLC?


Even the DLC is ashamed of the DLC.
They stopped publishing their membership roster last year.

If I was shilling for a candidate who was on the payroll of an organization whose STATED purpose was to INCREASE the influence of Corporate money in the Democratic Party....I would be ashamed too.
I certainly wouldn't want anybody talking about it.



The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[Selatius]

57. Sorry, but waffling on torture is not "Republican lite"; it's just plain immoral.

To claim you are a moral senator and then take an ambiguous position on the fundamental issue of torture is not what I would deem moral by any stretch of the imagination, especially when it comes to upholding the ideals of liberty.

[Recursion]

60. To be pedantic, that's not Godwin's law

Godwin's law is that as the length of a discussion thread increases, the probability of one party being compared by another to Hitler approaches 1. A popular corollary is that the thread is at that point over and whoever invoked the comparison has "lost". The main interest of Godwin's law is that it establishes an upper bound on the length of meaningful online debate.

[MH1]

61. Excellent post, and 2 very good reasons

to dislike Hillary.

You're right, it's very easy.

[struggle4progress]

63. Yeah. Let's have a rule against discussing people's political affiliations.

That would make DU a calmer, more restful place to visit, wouldn't it? Even better, we could have a rule against discussing politics at all or against saying anything negative about anyone. Then DU could be a cool cultural oasis, full of good vibes ...

[HughMoran]

67. "used as an intellectual crutch for bad arguments"

Did you miss the point?

[struggle4progress]

73. "... the person who invokes the 'DLC' automatically forfeits. Period ..."

It's a proposal to rule out criticisms based on DLC affiliation. The DLC actually exists, it's rather influential, and it pushes a corporatist agenda, generally wrapped in some nice blather which, while not always wrong, is usually vacuous.

If you think you can provide a nice bright-line test, that we can all agree upon, enabling everybody to decide exactly what constitutes a "bad argument" and exactly how to identify those pesky "intellectual crutches for bad arguments," you're certainly welcome to do so. That would indeed be a welcome innovation. Until you can do that, I will say I did not miss that particular point but rather dismissed as meaningless noise.

[HughMoran]

66. I think that's a great idea.

I wish it were as easy as pointing out how easy it would be.

Political site = reactionary posters

[Sapphocrat]

69. Oh, does that mean my avatar automatically disqualifies me from all debate? n/t

[Jcrowley]

A few problems here

One is that by saying "We need" you are functioning in a declarative sense and so your follow-up that consensus need be built upon your thesis would not be consensus at all rather it would be agreement with your thesis.

Another is that you simply have it wrong when discussing Godwin's Law as has been pointed out by other posters.

Lastly, this is a thinly veiled defense of the DLC and a propagandistic technique to marginalize folks who cast aspersions upon candidates that are affiliated with the DLC.

The DLC is quite powerful though not all-powerful and will become less powerful as the years pass since their agenda is transparent and does not serve the will of the people.

Interesting to note is that nowhere is it stated as to why we need a new consensus rule.

Interesting thought experiment:

1) "Let's build consensus"

or

2) "We need a rule"

Beware of thought herding.

[bicentennial_baby]

74. "Beware of thought herding."

:thumbsup:

[lonestarnot]

71. She didn't look very good attacking Kerry like that now that you mention it.

[Dorian Gray]

72. Hee....

I like it! :)

[followthemoney]

80. No thanks. I don't want to play your way, right wing Dems.

You right wingers don't belong here, anyway. Go back to the Republican Party where you belong.

[OneBlueSky]

81. "I second that emotion" . . . Smokey Robinson . . . n/t

.

[mhatrw]

83. Both "rules" are idiotic.

Sometimes creeping fascistic totalitarianism is actually the problem, and the Nazi comparison is valid.

Very often the every increasing influence of giant corporations in the Democratic party is the problem, and the DLC is a valid target.

Everything in moderation, especially moderation.