Remember Godwin's Law
Every debate is an online debate.
I had a fun conversation last week with an extended family member where he asked, somewhat innocently, "Gosh, why do all these political debates end up with one side calling the other side Hitler?"
I tried to hide my glee as I raised my hand and stood on my chair and yelled, "I have the answer to your question!" Because what a perfect opportunity to lean back, stretch your legs out long, and mansplain the nature of Godwin's Law.
That's not how that really happened, but how often do you really get to talk about Godwin's Law? In person? Out loud? With sounds and stuff?
Not that often. Godwin's Law is one of the earlier rules of online discourse and it's usually only mentioned online by very online people. Here's what it says:
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
Godwin's Law is not about politics, or any other specific topic, it's about the nature of online discussions. What I didn't realize until now is just how much these have merged. My extended family member thought the comparisons to Hitler were an attribute of political debate, but they're actually an attribute of long online discussions. What's changed is that we are so very online - and the political among us are some of the most online - that political discussions are pretty much online discussions even if they occasionally bridge the narrow gap to physical reality.
Over 15 years ago, Paul Graham realized that "The web is turning writing into a conversation." And so he built out a fundamental theory for how to disagree. He enumerated the levels of disagreement starting with basic name calling and Ad Hominem and moving all the way up to the pinnacle of debate: Refuting the Central Point.
The Ad Hitlerum style argument of Godwin is clearly a special case of the lowest level of Graham's pyramid. But PG's pyramid isn't just about the quality of arguments, it's also a way to measure the length of discourse. What Godwin's Law tells us is that even disagreements that start out with excellent arguments refuting key points will inevitably descend the pyramid over time. The longer an argument goes, the more likely the arguers will descend the pyramid. All the way down to Hitler.
The thing is… our standard, garden variety, vitriolic political conversations are moving even more online. And they seem to last a long time these days… we've still got 68 days until the election. During this last, exhausting push while we all belabor how much worse everything is, it's comforting to remember that the descent towards Ad Hitlerum arguments are not a product of politics, they are a product of all our discussions being so very online.
