Did Godwin's Law Set Us Up for the Rise of Fascism?

[Diana Hignutt]

Godwin's Law stopped lots of people from using Nazism as a yardstick in online discourse. It is often said, that once you evoke Nazis in an argument, you lose. It occurs to me that we have allowed the alt-right, white nationalists, and, yes, Nazis, to gain a foothold in public discourse, because we have not challenged these ideas in debate, and have, in fact, discouraged mention of the dark warnings that Nazi Germany has for the world today.

Here's a generic Wikipedia article on Godwins' Law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

So, I ask you, did Godwin's Law help bring about the authoritarian overthrow of Western democracy?

 

[morngnstar]

Yes, and, "Don't feed the trolls," actually left the trolls alone to spawn in the dungeon. We atrophied our rhetorical skills by retreating from any argument once it got impolite.

 

[AW Admin]

Godwin also specifically also said, regarding the White supremicists / Neo Nazis in Charlottesville:

By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with you.

See this and this.

As always, speak truth, witness, testify. Call out and name evil when you see it.

 

[Brightdreamer]

Yes, and, "Don't feed the trolls," actually left the trolls alone to spawn in the dungeon. We atrophied our rhetorical skills by retreating from any argument once it got impolite.

Is that quite the same, though? As I understand it, the definition of a troll is someone who speaks out specifically without intending to engage in argument or debate but rather to anger and provoke a reaction: they're the guy who shouts insults on the street to get attention, not to engage in a discussion on modern social taboos, and if someone does stop to debate them the troll will just shout more insults and grin, 'cause they got their audience. To spend one's time and energy attempting to engage them in meaningful debate is like the proverb about teaching a pig to sing: it doesn't work, and it annoys the pig. (And one risks emulating the other proverb about fighting with pigs: they'll drag you down into the mud, then beat you with experience.)

Avoiding non-troll hard debates is definitely a problem, I agree. But trolls themselves still don't deserve the food of attention, IMHO.

 

[Xelebes]

Is that quite the same, though? As I understand it, the definition of a troll is someone who speaks out specifically without intending to engage in argument or debate but rather to anger and provoke a reaction: they're the guy who shouts insults on the street to get attention, not to engage in a discussion on modern social taboos, and if someone does stop to debate them the troll will just shout more insults and grin, 'cause they got their audience. To spend one's time and energy attempting to engage them in meaningful debate is like the proverb about teaching a pig to sing: it doesn't work, and it annoys the pig. (And one risks emulating the other proverb about fighting with pigs: they'll drag you down into the mud, then beat you with experience.)

Avoiding non-troll hard debates is definitely a problem, I agree. But trolls themselves still don't deserve the food of attention, IMHO.

I'd assume the problem is the prominence of the troll. Using the street barker as the example, you can literally avoid the street by walking around the barker. But if they are at the place where you need to be, then you might request a police officer to remove them. Likewise on AW, the moderators are effectively the police removing the barkers, litterers and vandals as they appear. The problem with Facebook and Twitter is that they never made room for the police officer, instead deciding that everybody is capable of managing what comes at them (pro tip: everybody isn't.)

 

[lizmonster]

The trouble is, the internet allows trolls to band together, allowing a fairly small group of people to have a large, often dangerous, impact.

 

[Roxxsmom]

Godwin also specifically also said, regarding the White supremicists / Neo Nazis in Charlottesville:



See this and this.

As always, speak truth, witness, testify. Call out and name evil when you see it.

Exactly. It's not invoking Godwin's Law to compare Nazi, and Nazi-like groups, to Nazis. I think there was a problem, though, when people were reluctant to call out people who didn't call themselves Nazis as such, but who had the approval and support of Nazis,.

I think one loses either way, though, because calling these people what they are evokes defensiveness and denial in those who are sympathetic to some of their aims, even if those people themselves aren't Nazis. This is what has baffled me most about the far-right movement in the US.

Several people I know who are in most respects very nice people spend a lot of time forwarding, liking and parroting some pretty horrific lies on facebook and other social media sites, and I know they almost certainly voted for you know who. These are people who would give you the shirt of your back and don't seem to bear anyone they know in person ill will. Yet they voted for someone who has made no secret of the fact that he seeks to destroy the lives of some of their friends.

I think the most pernicious lie that has sucked a lot of people into this movement, at least in terms of their voting patterns, is the notion that life is a zero sum game and that there isn't enough to go around, and any frustrating economic issues are because we have given too much to the groups and causes--immigrants, feminists, environmentalists, other human rights advocates, public employees, labor unions--they think are draining away resources and efficacy from our government an society.

They've bought into the notion that they've been patiently waiting in line, working towards the American Dream, and these "interlopers" have taken cuts and stolen prosperity from their grasp. This has led many Americans to essentially cut off their own noses to spite their faces, to borrow and old metaphor. They are voting against their own self interest too in their desire to punish people they think of as "cheaters."

This belief, more than any taboos associated with calling Nazis Nazis, has (imo) poisoned the pot and created this monster. It's a result of years of manipulation by far-right media and the politicians who have taken over one of our two parties. We can thank people like Gingrich and the Tea Party for making what should have been fringe ideas "mainstream."

This is in spite of the fact that our GDP is higher than ever and there is plenty of wealth in our society to help the traditionally disenfranchised while allowing for white, middle-class people to be prosperous too. They steadfastly refuse to blame the people who have steadily been channeling resources away from ordinary people of all stripes since the Reagan era (at least).

I'd like to know how to address this "great lie" and to get the white working class to understand that improving the lot of the people and groups they've learned to mistrust will, in fact, benefit all of us. I'd like to know how to turn their ire against that small sliver of society that has been getting richer and richer while the rest of us stagnate and struggle to not lose ground (at best) without invoking the dreaded word "socialism." Surely we can return to a more regulated form of capitalism that held sway in times of great middle-class expansion without becoming communists.

I'm not saying our taboos associated with Godwin's law haven't played a role too. I think many things are part of this puzzle, which is why it's been so hard to lop the head off this beast of fascism spawning in our own country.

 

[lizmonster]

This is in spite of the fact that our GDP is higher than ever and there is plenty of wealth in our society to help the traditionally disenfranchised while allowing for white, middle-class people to be prosperous too.

There's also the American mythos that's built up over time: that significant wealth requires nothing more than hard work and perseverance. They can't blame the people who've already got the significant wealth, because obviously they got it because of work. (Never mind evidence to the contrary in many cases.) If it's harder for them to obtain this significant wealth, it must be because of the people beneath them pulling them down.

I can't count the number of people I've talked to in my life (each of them, to the best of my recollection, a white man) who've voted GOP, and when I express surprise, said "Well, yeah, all the social stuff is important, but they'll lower my taxes." These are people I thought of as intelligent, reflective, and decent. I suppose it's always a shock to learn someone's price, but the dismissiveness was pretty memorable.

(I'll also say that I've run into a lot of very smart people who don't understand the progressive tax system - they really think a 35% tax rate takes 35% of your income. They really believe the rich are getting screwed.)

There's a reason places like Fox News - and the president's twitter feed, before the election - are full of fearmongering: they know frightened people will frantically scapegoat, and our society is built on scapegoating people who have less than we do. Thus the money keeps funneling upward, the myth of the self-made man keeps getting propagated, and the folks who aren't part of the more privileged classes face increasing poverty and violence.

History doesn't have a lot of happy examples of the outcome of situations like this.

 

[ElaineA]

I think one loses either way, though, because calling these people what they are evokes defensiveness and denial in those who are sympathetic to some of their aims, even if those people themselves aren't Nazis. This is what has baffled me most about the far-right movement in the US.

<snip>

I'm not saying our taboos associated with Godwin's law haven't played a role too. I think many things are part of this puzzle, which is why it's been so hard to lop the head off this beast of fascism spawning in our own country.

I agree that calling out people with Nazi/White Supremacy agendas evokes defensiveness, but I think the problem is that we let them shame us into silence. "Be nice. We don't want them to be defensive or we can't change their minds." Which, when it comes to a group that basically wants to eliminate a huge chunk of people from our societal quilt, I call BS.

I really don't care if they're defensive. The Right has learned very effectively to use the elemental core of what makes people lean liberal--empathy, education, and inclusiveness--against us. To silence us, to make us think there's actually something to be done from the outside when people embrace Nazi-like answers to hard questions. That they've gotten this far relatively unchallenged is a problem (imo). IDK about it being *because* of Godwin's Law per se (I had never heard of Godwin's Law before joining AW), but I think the principle has been wielded as a silencing weapon with laser precision.

But, yes. I do agree With Roxxsmom (and lizmonster) that it's only one element in a much larger problem.

History doesn't have a lot of happy examples of the outcome of situations like this.

Near-history, at that. I've begun to wonder if future historians (if there are any) will look at the period from the Russian revolution to now (and beyond), as one war, temporarily paused and then flaring back up, like The Hundred Years war era.

 

[AW Admin]

Several people I know who are in most respects very nice people spend a lot of time forwarding, liking and parroting some pretty horrific lies on facebook and other social media sites, and I know they almost certainly voted for you know who. These are people who would give you the shirt of your back and don't seem to bear anyone they know in person ill will. Yet they voted for someone who has made no secret of the fact that he seeks to destroy the lives of some of their friends.

I really personally have no interest in engaging with such people. As Naomi Shulman wrote:

Nice people made the best Nazis. My mom grew up next to them. They got along, refused to make waves, looked the other way when things got ugly and focused on happier things than “politics.” They were lovely people who turned their heads as their neighbors were dragged away. You know who weren’t nice people? Resisters.

 

[MaeZe]

It's a perfect storm:
The internet with its social media allowing the white supremacist movement to coalesce,
the mainstream news media amplifying the echo chamber because their business model is selling scandal and controversy,
the most horrible leader possible gaining tremendously with, among other things, voracious fear mongering about minorities and immigrants,
a few thousand people on the border, which is actually a drop in the population bucket and could be accommodated in the US easily but who look like a horde facing off soldiers with barbed wire collecting on the border,
the runaway divide between rich and poor,
and much of the same happening in EU countries.

History doesn't have a lot of happy examples of the outcome of situations like this.

Indeed.

 

[morngnstar]

Is that quite the same, though? As I understand it, the definition of a troll is someone who speaks out specifically without intending to engage in argument or debate but rather to anger and provoke a reaction: they're the guy who shouts insults on the street to get attention, not to engage in a discussion on modern social taboos, and if someone does stop to debate them the troll will just shout more insults and grin, 'cause they got their audience.

That was the theory, yet it seems they are equally happy to gather in their own spaces, preaching to their own unholy choir. If you don't feed the trolls, they just feed each other on their own increasingly concentrated bile.

There are also those who seem like trolls, but don't fit the definition you've given. They actually believe what they're saying, rather than just trying to disrupt, and believe they have logical reasons. They stubbornly cling to their way of thinking, making absurd counterarguments when you undermine their argument with basic facts, and therefore appear indistinguishable from trolls. But when you throw them out with the trolls, they join forces, whereas they might have been content to remain within the mainstream as long as they believe they have a voice.

But if they are at the place where you need to be, then you might request a police officer to remove them. Likewise on AW, the moderators are effectively the police removing the barkers, litterers and vandals as they appear. The problem with Facebook and Twitter is that they never made room for the police officer, instead deciding that everybody is capable of managing what comes at them (pro tip: everybody isn't.)

You obviously need some troll-proof spaces, or they will take over everything up to and including grandma's knitting circle.

But maybe trolls are like nuclear material. You can't leave them in unmixed company, or they'll feed back on each other until they melt down or explode. You need decent people to go in among them and at least challenge their ideas. You don't have to refute their every nitpick, just pour in some bulk common sense and decency.

 

[DancingMaenid]

That was the theory, yet it seems they are equally happy to gather in their own spaces, preaching to their own unholy choir. If you don't feed the trolls, they just feed each other on their own increasingly concentrated bile.

There are also those who seem like trolls, but don't fit the definition you've given. They actually believe what they're saying, rather than just trying to disrupt, and believe they have logical reasons. They stubbornly cling to their way of thinking, making absurd counterarguments when you undermine their argument with basic facts, and therefore appear indistinguishable from trolls. But when you throw them out with the trolls, they join forces, whereas they might have been content to remain within the mainstream as long as they believe they have a voice.

There's also a really fine line (if one exists at all) between spewing hateful things because you "really" believe them and doing it "ironically" or to rile people up. I'm a big believer that most of the time, the things people say and the groups they're willing to lash out at reflect their values. If you're willing to join in when people are making racist or antisemitic jokes because the people making those jokes are your friends and you see it as harmless fun, then you probably don't think that highly of the groups of people you're attacking. If you think it's funny to upset people by saying bigoted things, then you probably don't have much empathy for the people who are personally affected by your worlds.

I think the idea that the internet is this magical place that's disconnected from the real world, and that people's words and actions don't matter if they're online or if they're "just trolling," has been really harmful for our society. I don't think it's worthwhile to try to engage trolls in meaningful debate, but I absolutely think it's important to shut them down or say, "Why would you think this okay?"

 

[Roxxsmom]

I agree that calling out people with Nazi/White Supremacy agendas evokes defensiveness, but I think the problem is that we let them shame us into silence. "Be nice. We don't want them to be defensive or we can't change their minds." Which, when it comes to a group that basically wants to eliminate a huge chunk of people from our societal quilt, I call BS.

I agree with this, and it's been a problem the Left has been wrangling about for a while. One of the central traditions of liberal democracies (or Republics or whatever) is tolerance for the political views of others. "I detest what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it." I see a considerable amount of disagreement about who first said this, but it's supposed to be how things work in our society.

This only works, though, when both sides are playing by the same rule. The Right has been screaming "free speech" when they are criticized for hateful rhetoric, let alone when they are stopped from using hate speech in some situations (or when hate speech laws or policies are proposed). There is a point when someone's expressed views (say, that white people and white culture are wonderful and unfairly blamed for all society's ills) segue into a plan for actually harming others, fomenting violence, and overthrowing the government. There is a word for speech that crosses the lines into such a game plan--sedition, or even treason. These are not protected.

I saw a show on Front Line the other night about the White Nationalist movement in the US, and some of these people actually identify as Nazis. Others might as well be, even if they don't call themselves that. They are actively recruiting within the US military and trying to gain members who can help them use organized violence to topple our system of government. That is treason, imo.

Another issue is that one of our two political parties is, at least, sympathetic to the views of these so-called "white nationalists." I don't think most GOP members of congress, or even our POTUS, want to overthrow the US government (if for no other reason than they are still riding the gravy train). They want to work from within it, changing our laws and altering the makeup of our courts so that these laws stand. This is not, technically, treason. This could change, of course, if the US starts to wake up and they lose more of their power.

So how do we call people out who don't self identify with a fascist, anti-government group, but their views are nearly identical with people who do? I also don't give a rat's ass about pushing the haters away. They are probably lost, or at least, people like me can't bring them back (there are programs run by some ex-members of these groups to bring people back to the mainstream). But what about that distressingly large group of people who aren't haters, those who support you-know-who for other reasons, or who have bought some of the lies, or even those puzzling people in the middle of our political spectrum who aren't terribly invested in the issues at all and are put off by "all the incivility." I know people who hate Trump but think the Left is almost as bad and cite the fact that they "mislabel" those who disagree with them as fascists as an example.

There's also a really fine line (if one exists at all) between spewing hateful things because you "really" believe them and doing it "ironically" or to rile people up.

Trolls, in other words. I suspect many of these start to believe their own venom, even if they don't when they start out. It's purely anecdotal, but I have a cousin who has gone down that path.

 

[Chris P]

Near-history, at that. I've begun to wonder if future historians (if there are any) will look at the period from the Russian revolution to now (and beyond), as one war, temporarily paused and then flaring back up, like The Hundred Years war era.

Niall Ferguson (in his book The War of the World) already has, except he puts the start at the Russian-Japanese War of 1905 and goes to the end of the Korean Conflict. I never understood why he didn't lump the Franco-Prussian War as setting up the European part of WWI, or why Vietnam wasn't a continuation of the conflict. Perhaps because Ferguson is British and Americans see these wars as such? Dunno.

Back to Diana's question, in the 90s when I was naively "socially liberal, financially conservative" a "fully liberal" friend of mine said political correctness was going to blow up in our faces because we were driving hate underground and mistaking that for success. He aid it was going to come out sideways and violently. I thought he was crazy, until I lived in an area of the country where hate is closer to the surface. What I didn't appreciate at the time was how modern communication can allow such groups to organize. They've always been able to, but they can do so more efficiently now.

 

[Larry M]

...So if you were to say fascism is a response to communism, I don't think you'd be far off...

I have seen recently on social media, a number of right wing sorts who were insisting that communism and fascism are one and the same. This includes a personal friend of mine who I've known for more than 50 years (and who I once considered to be intelligent.) This guy started quoting books he had read, insisting that the model with communism on the far left, moving to fascism on the far right is completely wrong.

 

[amergina]

It's racism. It's always been racism. It's inherent in white America. We're soaking in it.

The fascists calls are coming from inside the house, because the fascists have always been here, being such *nice* people (to other white folk). Of course we didn't notice them.

 

[MaeZe]

It's racism. It's always been racism. It's inherent in white America. We're soaking in it.

The fascists calls are coming from inside the house, because the fascists have always been here, being such *nice* people (to other white folk). Of course we didn't notice them.

I didn't realize what a bubble I'd come of age in until I saw an old news clip of the Kent State killings and the woman interviewed said the kids deserved it. I didn't know any white housewives could have been that bigoted after the death of four innocent bystanders.

Back to Diana's question, in the 90s when I was naively "socially liberal, financially conservative" a "fully liberal" friend of mine said political correctness was going to blow up in our faces because we were driving hate underground and mistaking that for success. He aid it was going to come out sideways and violently. I thought he was crazy, until I lived in an area of the country where hate is closer to the surface. What I didn't appreciate at the time was how modern communication can allow such groups to organize. They've always been able to, but they can do so more efficiently now.

Social media is a catalyst.

 

[Xelebes]

Niall Ferguson (in his book The War of the World) already has, except he puts the start at the Russian-Japanese War of 1905 and goes to the end of the Korean Conflict. I never understood why he didn't lump the Franco-Prussian War as setting up the European part of WWI, or why Vietnam wasn't a continuation of the conflict. Perhaps because Ferguson is British and Americans see these wars as such? Dunno.

The Franco-Prussian War to World War II has a common theme: the issue of food production. The Vietnam War doesn't have that although the Vietnam War appears right before the American Agricultural Revolution (aka Green Revolution). The Franco Prussian War happened right before the Crash of Vienna (1873), which was precipitated by the advent of refridgerated shipping. Cheap beef and pork could be shipped across the Atlantic Ocean and as a consequence made the United States, Canada and Argentina rich. This undermined the landed aristocracies who still made most of their money from their agricultural assets and as their fortunes fell, the artisans and craftsmen could take power. Then begins the Gilded Age and the Long Depression. Arms races begin in Europe and then blam! in comes World War I. World War I could have only come as a nasty and protracted war because of food storage and the imports of food. Once the blockades on Germany had deprived them of food did they come to the table in Versailles. Without money to buy imported food, Germany starved. Revanchism set in and begets World War II with all of its horror and scandal.

However, one idea did pop in my mind. The Holocaust is not such a haunting memory and remembered so distinctly over other genocides because it had gas chambers, but that the gas chambers resembled refrigerators with the pipes overhead, the cold, fridge-block walls, and the scratch-marks as people tried to escape.

 

[morngnstar]

I have seen recently on social media, a number of right wing sorts who were insisting that communism and fascism are one and the same. This includes a personal friend of mine who I've known for more than 50 years (and who I once considered to be intelligent.) This guy started quoting books he had read, insisting that the model with communism on the far left, moving to fascism on the far right is completely wrong.

This is common fascist propaganda to muddy the waters and make you suspect that communists / socialists are the real fascists. They don't need you to believe this, just perplex you into inaction.

The Nazis and Italians Fascists were explicitly anti-Marxist. The early Nazis debated over whether to call themselves socialists. Hitler resisted using the term, but was overruled. However once he came to power, he ran the party in an not-very-socialist way, while keeping the name.

 

[morngnstar]

Mussolini's fascists were the first fascists. I don't think Mussolini came up with the idea, it was some other Italian. The word fascist comes from Latin, meaning a bundle of twigs.

The fascist got funding from businessmen, and others who owned property who were afraid of communism.

The bundle of twigs, the fasces, was a Roman symbol. Mussolini was explicitly emulating ancient Rome. I would say fascism really did have some parallels with what happened in ancient Rome. The old elites in Rome were afraid of the power of the mob. Caesar was able to pander to the mob while in fact conservatively protecting the interests of the old elites. It's basically the same as fascism.

 

[Roxxsmom]

Thinking more on the original question posted in this thread, I recognize a pattern. Over the two years since the Left was shocked by Trump's victory, there has been a lot of hand wringing and self blame. What did we do to cause this? This has been helped along by carping from the Right too (and probably from sources that just want to generate views).

What if it isn't our fault? What if this hateful phenomenon is the fault of the way the Right has been undermining peoples' faith in government and making unholy alliances with some of the most backward and extreme people in our society for the past few decades? What if there have been economic, technological and global forces that are making increasing numbers of people redundant and made our world feel smaller and smaller. What if there really are just some personality types, or cultural values, or life experiences that make some people more vulnerable to right-wing rhetoric in a shrinking world where more and more people struggle to feel relevant and secure?

Insecurity breeds hate, resentment, paranoia, and our current economic trends make for a great deal of insecurity. The Right has been doing their best to dismantle everything in our society that helps people feel secure. What if changes in tax structure and laws have been exacerbating the growing gap between rich and poor and the shrinking middle class? I don't think this is unintended. If the Left failed at anything, it was because they didn't see what the slow erosion of our economic and democratic institutions would do to some people psychologically.

I think considering this is rather scary for the Left, because it implies there's no easy fix on our part. We can't just change the way we do one thing and fix this mess. Admitting that we didn't make some easily rectifiable mistake makes us feel helpless.

I think there are things we can do, but it involves a major change in how we look at ownership and work in our society. Not a return to old-fashioned socialism or communism, but something new. I think it might also involve embracing some kind of great, long-term, shared goal or vision for our society as a whole.

The hard part will be selling them to enough people to change the priorities of our government.

Not that I think we should shy away from calling fascists what they are. It's only Godwin's Law when someone compares something that isn't like a Nazi (like feminists or environmentalists or whatever) to Nazis.

 

[JimmyB27]

Not that I think we should shy away from calling fascists what they are. It's only Godwin's Law when someone compares something that isn't like a Nazi (like feminists or environmentalists or whatever) to Nazis.

IMO, the original point of Godwin's law was to prevent the watering down of the term (my boss is such a Nazi, he wouldn't even let me leave five minutes early today!), so that we still have a word that has power to describe actual Nazis.

It's the same reason I dislike the casual use of the word 'fuck'. Not a prude, I just want a word I can say when I'm really mad.