Godwin's law, short for Godwin's law (or rule) of Nazi analogies,[1][2] is an Internet adage asserting that as an online discussion grows longer (regardless of topic or scope), the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Adolf Hitler approaches 1.[2][3] In less mathematical terms, the longer the discussion, the more likely a Nazi comparison becomes, and with long enough discussions, it is a certainty.
Promulgated by the American attorney and author Mike Godwin in 1990,[2] Godwin's law originally referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions.[4] He stated that he introduced Godwin's law in 1990 as an experiment in memetics.[2] It is now applied to any threaded online discussion, such as Internet forums, chat rooms, and comment threads, as well as to speeches, articles, and other rhetoric[5][6] where reductio ad Hitlerum occurs.
I don't know any "Trump worshipers", but why do you think that?Im sure you Trump worshipers would love nothing more than for everyone to forget that the last 4 years happened.
Look in the mirror, you'll find one.I don't know any "Trump worshipers", but why do you think that?
I don't know any "Trump worshipers", but why do you think that?
I am sorry your butt got dented by people saying mean things about your new Jesus.Is there also a kind of Godwin's Law for the mentioning of Donald Trump?
I am sure you know Godwin's Law:
Now I have noticed that in many discussions the name "Trump" appears sooner or later, whether the topic is related to Trump or not.
I wonder if it isn't time to formulate a law for the mentioning of Trump.
Or is there one already?
It's amazing that anyone would still be concerned by the doings of an utterly corrupt and criminal bastard who commands the minds and souls of 74 million Americans (maybe he lost, like, 1 million after the Capitol invasion), who keeps leaking that he's very probably going to run in 2024, who is going to do his damndest to pick primary winners and losers.
Trump remains relevant until he doesn't have enough supporters who act on his behalf for them to be relevant.
Besides, what's the point of this thread? Trumpists were already commanded to use the "lives rent free" line every time someone mentions Trump. Even in threads about something Trump has done.
Fun fact: if you search for posts containing "Obama" by a Trumpist deploying the "rent free" line, you'll see they were on about Obama the entire Trump presidency. Accusations as confessions, yadda yadda.
Interesting (to me) that you bring up Godwin's Law now since I've recently been thinking of the possibility of the Republicans turning to Genocide in the not so distant future to fully obtain their desired white enthnosate. Considering some of their actions, rhetoric and provable outright lies, I don't think that consideration is a stretch.Is there also a kind of Godwin's Law for the mentioning of Donald Trump?
I am sure you know Godwin's Law:
Now I have noticed that in many discussions the name "Trump" appears sooner or later, whether the topic is related to Trump or not.
I wonder if it isn't time to formulate a law for the mentioning of Trump.
Or is there one already?
It's a cult-think projection. Since the media cult universally hates Trump, all exceptions must be a rival cult, hence they worship him.I don't know any "Trump worshipers", but why do you think that?
Godwin's law proves out again.Interesting (to me) that you bring up Godwin's Law now since I've recently been thinking of the possibility of the Republicans turning to Genocide in the not so distant future to fully obtain their desired white enthnosate. Considering some of their actions, rhetoric and provable outright lies, I don't think that consideration is a stretch.
It does have its uses.It's a cult-think projection. Since the media cult universally hates Trump, all exceptions must be a rival cult, hence they worship him.
The cult cannot acknowledge what the rational world considers obvious, that Trump did a good job.
Godwin's law proves out again.
The rule is that the first to mention it loses. That would be you if you had any doubt.It does have its uses.
Why should that be "amazing"?It's amazing that anyone would still be concerned by the doings of an utterly corrupt and criminal bastard who commands the minds and souls of 74 million Americans (maybe he lost, like, 1 million after the Capitol invasion), who keeps leaking that he's very probably going to run in 2024, who is going to do his damndest to pick primary winners and losers.
There you go making shit up again. It's about its occurrence, not a contest.The rule is that the first to mention it loses. That would be you if you had any doubt.
By, yeah, the misnomer of calling an opponent a Nazi is pretty universal
Godwin's Law is aleways relevant and gets more and more relevant each day.Godwin's Law is irrelevant.
But when you walk like a Nazi and talk like a Nazi...Godwin's Law is aleways relevant and gets more and more relevant each day.
It is now applied to any threaded online discussion, such as Internet forums, chat rooms, and comment threads, as well as to speeches, articles, and other rhetoric[5][6] where reductio ad Hitlerum occurs.
I suspect such a law would make sense around the 2040s.Is there also a kind of Godwin's Law for the mentioning of Donald Trump?
I am sure you know Godwin's Law:
Now I have noticed that in many discussions the name "Trump" appears sooner or later, whether the topic is related to Trump or not.
I wonder if it isn't time to formulate a law for the mentioning of Trump.
Or is there one already?
Now YOU have won the case - or lost the case ....But when you walk like a Nazi and talk like a Nazi...
We are all used to that already.The fact that Trump and his cultists support the destruction of our electoral process just to keep him in power is something that will stay with us one way or another for generations to come. Get used to his name being brought up as a bad example for the same amount of time.
Step vone: delegitimize ze present system of government.Now YOU have won the case - or lost the case ....
Apparently not or the OP would never have been posted.We are all used to that already.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?