In 1990, Mike Godwin famously wrote: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.”
Wikipedia goes on to explain the import of this law: “There is a tradition in many online discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically ‘lost’ whatever debate was in progress.”
But what about this guy? Where do we even begin with him?
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
14 Comments
1. jedrury:He is a like a mad cartoon character uttering the most heinous statements. So extreme as to be almost unbelievable; adding layer to layer so that at some point some courageous nation not bogged down by a resurgency of liberal “can’t we just all get along” political thought will take out him and his dangerous supporters.
We will wake soon from this five 1/2 year
slide away from reality and conclude that all that “crazy lying” Bush has been doing is right.
Unfortunately, regrettably, Bush will not be the one to take out this bad actor now that W has been sufficiently weakened by the assault by the mass media.
Jun 3, 2007 - 9:34 am 2. Jeffersonian:A 125 grain slug betwixt the eyes ain’t a bad start, if you ask me.
Jun 3, 2007 - 2:06 pm 3. triticale:I always figured that it should be the G-dwins Law. Whatever the issue, ultimately, G-d wins.
Jun 3, 2007 - 2:47 pm 4. Barrett:I fear we are like the proverbial frog in the frying pan – desensitized until it is too late.
Ahmadinejad continues to make what the West considers outrageous and unthinkable claims. Many Muslims embrace these statements. My concern is that over time those statements will be discounted more and more until Iran gets the bomb.
My speculation is that the first bomb Iran gets will target either Israel or Washington, DC.
Ahmadinejad means what he says. He has an apocalyptic view of the world. He thinks that by creating global conflict vis the choas of war, the sixth imam will come to save the world by subjecting all to Islam (if I understand the theology right).
A bullet may provide short-term help, but what do we do with the Islamist movement itself?
Jun 3, 2007 - 4:19 pm 5. jedrury:But we also must realize that it is too later. No nation, except Israel, will take out his nuke capabilities. Iran will have the bomb and use the threat effectively in the Mid East. To what end, I can not even begin to speculate. Bush is too weak now, the Europeans have lost their cojones years ago, the IAEA is a multi lateral joke and the UN is, well, the UN.
After reading Mark Bowden’s “Guests of the Ayatollah,” I am convinced that the present Iranian leaders are nutso. It will take some truly catastophic event (another 9/11?) to kick in military retaliation from the West.
“Bibi” Netanyahu did an interview in the WS Journal last week calling for an American boycott of Iran through a Congressional act outlawing all investments by corporations doing business with Iran. Short of war, this sounds reasonable and plausible, ratching up the pressure, forcing the stain of complicity through a creative capitalist boycott. A third alternative worthy of discussion and deployment in the face of the weakness in the West at this juncture.
Squeeze the madmen economically, cut off their money and the use of the banks in international transactions. A nice idea. Is it feasible given the jelly fish attitudes in the West ?
Jun 3, 2007 - 6:10 pm 6. Barrett:Jedrury,
Absolutley. We should be squeezing Iran everyway possible. The Iranian economy is not robust and depends largely upon petro dollars.
Iran heavily subsidizes oil consumption at home and does not have enough refinery capacity for gasoline. The subsidies discourage conservation and encourage a sense of entitlement to cheap fuel. The refining constraints are another weakness.
There should be a multi-facted strategy designed to isolate politically and economically weaken Iran if there is any hope of change from within Iran. Of course, the Iranian people will suffer – which is always what happens under dictatorships. Make no mistake about it, Iran is a theocratic dictatorship despite illusions to the contrary.
Jun 3, 2007 - 6:46 pm 7. gk:I am probably way out on this one, but Ahmadinejad
Jun 3, 2007 - 9:34 pm 8. jedrury:comes across as more shrill and hysterical every week. The capital flight from Iran is unmistakable as is the spiralling inflation and unemployment. I think his idiotic statements will make it less likely the euros will try to bail him out with sweet heart factory deals and oil contracts. He’s playing with a weak hand and it shows.
Netanyahu is an eloquent uber hawk but his plan has sense and may find a receptive audience in the US. Why would not Bush and the Dems find it attractive? Can it be done unilaterally? Where would the Brits and Gordon Brown be on this tactic? Sarkozy may come on board if you believe all the hype about him. But all this has to be scoped out.
A good first step is “Bibi” snaring the op ed page of the WSJ.
Forget the Times, the most negative paper in the world.
Jun 4, 2007 - 5:52 am 9. dclydew:Well, Godwin’s Law gets abused a lot. There’s nothing wrong with referencing Nazi’s if there’s a useful reason to reference Nazi’s. If we’re discussing WWII it’s not really possible to have a conversation without including Nazis. If we’re discussing some totalitarian act by a government and it compares with something that happened in Nazi Germany, then there’s no reason to exclude the comparison.
Godwin’s Law was really a comment on Internet ‘debate’ and its tendency to sprout false arguments in place of actual debate. It’s was (and still is) common to compare ‘Government Official You Don’t Like” to a Nazi. Of course, this is usually a false comparison and tends to comment more on the lack of thought by the poster.
In the case of the Kook of Iran, sure we could compare him to a Nazi… but why would we need to? His actions are Nazi actions, his actions are anti-semitic (actually truly anti-semitic as opposed to say Michael Moore). He doesn’t need Hitler’s name invoked when we can simply quote his statements which induce memories of the Holocaust. He doesn’t need the name of a 20th century Boogey Man. By his own actions, he condemns himself and by his own words we should condemn him.
The Internet, the blogsphere, Live Journal, Myspace, etc etc etc have created places where debate has given way to screeds, fiskings and really, really poor conversation. People type, it seems, without considering the words they write. We can have “debate” about Ahmadinejad’s Naziness, or we can actually debate about Ahmadinejad’s statements and actions. I would prefer the later, but then I suppose some would prefer the former.
Either way, Roger, I’m sure you and I are in agreement when it comes to our personal feelings on Mr. Ahmadinejad. For me, I’d be happy to see him out of power, but his carcass being strung up by revolutionaries wouldn’t be at all upsetting to me.
Jun 4, 2007 - 11:22 am 10. Lem:Amoung literary circles, Admad is in good company
CSPAN’s In Depth 3 hour interview yesterday featured Lewis Lapham, former editor for the monthly Harper’s Magazine, of Harper’s Index fame.
Less than 25 minutes into the program Mr. Lapham had Stalin, Hitler and president Bush in the same sentence.
I immediately switched channels as one would expect PBS Nature and found a fundraiser instead.
Jun 4, 2007 - 11:52 am 11. Mikey:Godwin’s Law doesn’t apply when you are actually dealing with Nazis, or people who want to kill all the Jews.
So, it really isn’t broken here.
Jun 4, 2007 - 12:44 pm 12. ricpic:Reuters reports that Amadjewhateverthehellhisnameis triggered “outrage” in the West when he threatened the destruction of Israel. No he didn’t. Not in the West and doublenot in the editorial offices of Reuters. These Reuters scum are loving it every time he threatens Jews. And our State Department and the foreign affairs offices of London and Paris for whom, almost to a man, Israel is “that dirty little country” were outraged? No. This is Israel’s and only Israel’s job. Please Israel. Hurry.
Jun 4, 2007 - 4:53 pm 13. rockfly:Any thoughts about the following statement? (Not my opinion) Iran didn’t have a crazy president in 2003… they had a moderate, reformist one. Our invasion of Iraq led to a very serious rise in nationalist sentiment in Iran, though, and that had at least some influence in Ahmedinejad’s election.
Jun 5, 2007 - 12:35 pm 14. Steven Mitchell:“Any thoughts about the following statement? (Not my opinion) Iran didn’t have a crazy president in 2003… they had a moderate, reformist one. Our invasion of Iraq led to a very serious rise in nationalist sentiment in Iran, though, and that had at least some influence in Ahmedinejad’s election.”
The number of people educated beyond their intelligence seems to rise every year. That statement is one of those things that a plain stupid person would never believe. You have to work really hard to tangle your mind into the shape where it will believe something like that. Or maybe work for the State Department too long.
Jun 6, 2007 - 9:10 am