Godwin’s Law: as the number of people engaged in a debate or discussion increases, the probability of a reference to Hitler or the Nazis approaches one. There are two important corrolaries: The first person in a debate to compare his opponent’s position to Hitler/Nazis loses. Once a discussion reaches comparisons to Hitler/Nazis, it is no longer useful. Not surprisingly, Hitler comparisons have come fast and furious in response to Bjorn Lomborg’s The Skeptical Environmentalist.
Rhetoric is powerful and easy to abuse. Unfortunately, “debates” in the public sphere often reduce to little-kid sandbox fights in which one party, apparently no longer able to defend his position, resorts to name-calling and Hitler comparisons (see, for example, this article in Wash U’s student newspaper and our response).
So what’s the moral of the story? A good heuristic for debate/discussion may be to note that anyone who invokes Hitler—unless the comparison is relevant—forfeits his or her right to an audience. The world should be far too civilized for name-calling and wild accusations to be considered serious commentary.
