.jpg)
Godwin's law (orGodwin's rule), short forGodwin's law of Nazi analogies,[1] is anInternetadage asserting: "As anonline discussion grows longer, the probability of acomparison involving Nazis or Hitlerapproaches one."[2] The law’s creator,Mike Godwin, maintains these comparisons often trivializethe Holocaust. It is an example of thereductio ad Hitlerum fallacy.
In 2021,Harvard researchers published an article showing that the Nazi-comparison phenomenon does not occur withstatistically meaningful frequency inReddit discussions.[3][4]
Promulgated by the American attorney and authorMike Godwin in 1990,[1] Godwin's law originally referred specifically toUsenet newsgroup discussions.[5] He stated that he introduced Godwin's law in 1990 as an experiment inmemetics,[1] specifically to address the ubiquity of such comparisons which he believes regrettablytrivializethe Holocaust.[6][7] Later, it was applied to anythreaded online discussion, such asInternet forums,chat rooms, andsocial-media comment threads, as well as to speeches, articles, and otherrhetoric[8][9] wherereductio ad Hitlerum occurs.
In 2012,Godwin's law became an entry in the third edition of theOxford English Dictionary.[10]
Godwin's law can be applied mistakenly or abused as a distraction, a diversion, or evencensorship, when miscasting an opponent's argument ashyperbole even when the comparison made by the argument is appropriate.[11] Godwin has criticized the over-application of the adage, claiming that it does not articulate afallacy, but rather is intended to reduce the frequency of inappropriate and hyperbolic comparisons:[12]
Although deliberately framed as if it were alaw of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical andpedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler to think a bit harder aboutthe Holocaust.
Godwin's law has manycorollaries, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[2] than others. For example, many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums have a tradition that, when a Nazi or Hitler comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever made the comparison loses whateverdebate is in progress.[13] This idea is itself sometimes mistakenly referred to as Godwin's law.[14]
Godwin rejects the idea that whoever invokes Godwin's law has lost the argument, and suggests that, applied appropriately, the rule "should function less as a conversation ender and more as a conversation starter."[15] In an interview withTime Magazine, Godwin said that making comparisons to Hitler would actually be appropriate under the right circumstances:[16]
I urge people to develop enough perspective to do it thoughtfully. If you think the comparison is valid, and you've given it some thought, do it. All I ask you to do is think about the human beings capable of acting very badly. We have to keep the magnitude of those events in mind, and not be glib. Our society needs to be more humane, more civilized and to grow up.
In August 2017, while commenting on theUnite the Right rally inCharlottesville, Virginia, Godwin himself endorsed and encouraged social-media users to compare its "alt-right" participants to Nazis.[17][18]
Godwin has denied the need to update or amend the rule. In June 2018, he wrote, in an opinion piece for theLos Angeles Times: "It still serves us as a tool to recognize specious comparisons to Nazism – but also, by contrast, to recognize comparisons that aren't."[15] Additionally, when a potential subject of Godwin's law seems "intent on making the Hitler comparison",[19] the comparison with fascism may be appropriate rather than devaluing the argument; a "MAGA" corollary to the Law recognizes the pernicious embrace of Nazi-inspired tropes and phrases by the "alt-right".
As an illustration, in an interview withPolitico published on December 19, 2023, Godwin pointed out that Donald Trump might actually be using Hitler's rhetoric on purpose, for instance when accusing immigrants of “poisoning the blood” of the country or calling his political opponents “vermin”:[20]
You could say the ‘vermin’ remark or the ‘poisoning the blood’ remark, maybe one of them would be a coincidence. But both of them pretty much make it clear that there’s something thematic going on, and I can’t believe it’s accidental.”
In an opinion published the same day inThe Washington Post, Godwin stated: “Yes, it's okay to compare Trump to Hitler. Don't let me stop you.”[21] In the article, Godwin says that “when people draw parallels betweenDonald Trump’s 2024 candidacy andHitler’s progression from fringe figure to Great Dictator, we aren’t joking. Those of us who hope to preserve our democratic institutions need to underscore the resemblance before we enter the twilight of American democracy.”[22]
