By sifilings on
Archive
Internet
How To Disagree Online Without Being A Total Jerk

Discussion

Thu, 01/12/12
… it happens in the first post? Does that disprove the “science”?

Worse yet, what if Hitler is named in the first post and someone includes his picture too?
[img=125x183] /sites/default/files/images/12_01/Hitler%20125.jpg

We have hundreds of threads longer than this one with no mention of Hitler at all… so that proves… nothing, I guess.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Thu, 01/12/12
I don’t know about “science proving,” but this observation has been around more than 20 years, and I wonder if the OP author knew about it (it wasn’t mentioned in the article). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law] Godwin’s Law . It states (a little more validly):
[Godwin’s Law] As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.
I certainly agree that many discussions have proceeded on SI without Godwin’s Law coming into play, but I have also seen the comparison made on SI on more than on occasion, which of course proves nothing except that SI is not immune to its effect.

Dave Barnhart

Thu, 01/12/12
The longer any given conversation goes on, the greater the probability of ANYTHING being mentioned increases (approaches 1).

Fun post, though

My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com

Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin

Thu, 01/12/12
Charlie’s right- only 4 posts in and already I’ve mentioned bunnies. Hoppy, floppy bunnies. Who knew.

Scenescape Media

Thu, 01/12/12
It ignores the differences between on-line conversations.

For SharperIron, the longer a conversation goes, the more likely it is that someone will mention BJU or Billy Graham. (For a time, we would have included Chuck Phelps in that category as well….)

http://mindrenewers.com/

Thu, 01/12/12
And, JG, the corollary to your thesis is that the longer a conversation goes on at BJU, the greater probability that someone will mention both Billy Graham and Hitler.

My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com

Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin

Thu, 01/12/12
and another corollary, whoever mentions Hitler first in an argument loses.

Yeah… doing a quick search on SI, Hitler is mentioned seldom few times, even in the comments. Yay us.

Thu, 01/12/12
I think alot more of the threads here would mention Hitler if the admins weren’t such Nazis.

Thu, 01/12/12
I know of one forum whose rules state: “The perso who violates of Godwin’s Law first looses the argument.”
[dcbii] I don’t know about “science proving,” but this observation has been around more than 20 years, and I wonder if the OP author knew about it (it wasn’t mentioned in the article). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law] Godwin’s Law . It states (a little more validly):
[Godwin’s Law] As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.
I certainly agree that many discussions have proceeded on SI without Godwin’s Law coming into play, but I have also seen the comparison made on SI on more than on occasion, which of course proves nothing except that SI is not immune to its effect.

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

Thu, 01/12/12
[DavidO] I think alot more of the threads here would mention Hitler if the admins weren’t such Nazis.

Yeah… we keep deleting the H-word. You’re supposed to use “Das Fuhrer.”

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Fri, 01/13/12
[Aaron Blumer] Yeah… we keep deleting the H-word. You’re supposed to use “Das Fuhrer.”
As a Grammar Nazi, I insist that you use the masculine form, “der Führer.”

[edit] Had to fix my own mistake. :) [/edit]