Is sensitivity of language essential to public debate? What do people think of "Godwin's Law"?

Question

Most days, it seems the compulsory use of the term "femi-n**i" requires mention in at least one of the posts written by the usual anti-feminists. What they don't realise is, they look very silly using it. But more importantly to me, they clearly show their insensitivity to the individuals and families who have suffered at the hands of the n***s.

Godwin's Law refers to the usage of n**i/Hitler analogies in debate, in an attempt to highlight another group of people, or individual as behaving like a n**i soldier.

Here's a definition:

"Godwin's Law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Hitler or n***s or their actions. As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving n***s or Hitler approaches.."

"Godwin's Law is often cited in online discussions as a caution against the use of inflammatory rhetoric or exaggerated comparisons, and is often conflated with fallacious arguments of the reductio ad Hitlerum form".

"... overuse of n**i and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact."

Is the frequently used term "femi-n**i" insensitive to those who suffered greatly at the hands of the n***s, and should it be used in anti-feminist dialogue?

Answer 1

Ronnie doesn't get it.

What a shock.

Answer 2

Well, somebody had too much time on their hands to come up with something as silly as Godwin's Law, but I agree that using the term n**i to describe somebody who isn't a n**i (or has similar tendencies) is wrong on multiple levels.  There might be a few feminists out there like n***s, but certainly not most of them, so using the term feminazi is just wrong AND stupid.  Having said that, I don't think people are really thinking about what they say, which is a problem in and of itself.

Answer 3

Whoa. By bringing in logic, citations and academic terms, you are flying waaaaaay over the heads of anyone who would actually employ the term "feminazi."

Answer 4

I have to agree with Fromafar - the chess analogy is excellent.

A debate can be (and should be) a civilized thing; it should be two people exchanging and considering opposing ideas.  Ideally, both people should be open to changing their minds - much like a chess game, you don't approach with the intention to lose, but you shouldn't feel crushed if you do - to the contrary, it means you've met someone you can learn from.

Of course, resorting to insults is much like throwing the chess board - it indicates that someone is less interested in playing the game than they are in humiliating someone they see as an enemy, and they become frustrated and primitive when they find they can't do it by civilized and intelligent means.

I would like to point out that Godwin's law is overused, and it's an oversimplification of the rather delicate art of use of analogy.  Occasionally, a Hitler reference is valid even when describing a non-Holocaust-like situation - the quality of an analogy has little to do with what the analogy references so much as that it's illustrative of whatever it intends to illustrate.  Godwin's Law might be a helpful guideline for, say, schoolchildren learning the elements of logic and debate, but educated adults should be able to identify the exceptions to the rule, and use the principle underlying the law rather than the law itself.

Incidentally, I feel moved to alert both the first responder and the responder immediately above me of the irony of their responses - this entire question discusses the ridiculousness of using insults and obvious hyperbole in an intelligent debate.  When someone throws the chessboard at you, and you start throwing c**p back at them, you've lowered yourself to their level (to use another term, you've 'fed the troll').

Answer 5

You are only insulted when you chose to be insulted.

While I'm not suggesting that feminist and n***s be compared as if it were nothing, I am saying that it is better to let ridiculous things like this go because you only bring yourself down if you give it attention and energy.

Answer 6

I had never heard of Godwin's Law and I certainly agree with the basic idea but disagree with the perspective. According to you, Godwin's idea is that to improve your rhetorical ability you must avoid "n**i and Hitler" comparisons, as if the use of these terms could be seen as simply inappropriate resources for debate. It seems as if it would be like moving the wrong pawn at a chess game.

In my experience, any time someone feels the need to use such comparisons it proves that they have run out of arguments altogether. Legitimate debate must not only avoid "reductions" of all sorts but always move around insults -no matter how historical they are- derogatory concepts and arguments "ad hominem" and rather build into a general idea.

It isn't just like moving the wrong pawn at a chess game, it's like picking up the king and throwing it at your opponent.

When you do that you recognize it but just can't admit defeat.

On regards to the second part of your question I would basically say the same: you are underlining what is not important. You are asking that people who are unfit for a real intellectual debate "behave properly" as if they would have to be "sensitive to those who have suffered" while insulting you.

Answer 7

Yes, it's insensitive to those who suffered under the Third Reich, and no, it shouldn't be used in anti-feminist dialogue.  

The comparison of modern day civil rights activist groups to Nazism is ludicrous in the extreme.

Edit: Bastian, some things are ingrained in us as offensive.  If I called your mother a S****y wh*re, would you have to choose to be offended?  No, you'd just immediately BE offended.  "n**i" has the same sort of offensiveness.

Ronnie: I don't believe anyone is talking about banning the usage of words.  Pookie is just asking our opinions of their usage.

Answer 8

Yawwwwnnn ....

Godwin's Law is an old theory from the days of usenet and has absolutely no relevance to this day and age.

The most offensive people are the ones who are determined to be offended, come what may.

Answer 9

Absolutely it is. By applying the term "n**i" to someone who has not participated in any of the following:

-mass genocide (someone tried to use abortion as this, but this was the murder of those who were already alive, for no apparent reason);

-racial supremacy; or

-invasion of less-powerful nations in the name of either or both of the above,

then they are severely downplaying how the n***s made their victims suffer.

My grandmother is a Holocaust survivor. I showed her some of the rhetoric here. She decided that anyone who uses the term "feminazi" is an idiot.