TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Ask HN: Is it time for the internet to update Godwin's Law?

2 点作者 freework将近 2 年前
Godwin&#x27;s Lat states:<p>&gt; As an online discussion grows longer (regardless of topic or scope), the probability of a comparison to Nazis or Adolf Hitler approaches 100%.<p>This &quot;law&quot; has been quite effective, as every time I&#x27;ve witnessed someone comparing the person they are arguing with on the internet to Nazis, a post bringing up Godwin&#x27;s Law is always right around the corner. The effect is that you just don&#x27;t see Nazi comparisons anymore. In other words, the law has had the effect of improving internet discourse (all be it very slightly)<p>With that said I hereby propose to the internet to adopt a new &quot;law&quot;, that I&#x27;m calling the Neo-Godwin&#x27;s Law. It states:<p>&gt; As an online discussion grows longer (regardless of topic or scope), the probability of a participant calling their opponent a victim of the Dunning–Kruger Effect approaches 100%.<p>The reason why I want to make this law a thing, is because I hope it will put an end to people using this argument in internet discussion, hence raising the overall level of discourse. When I&#x27;m having a discussion on the internet, I never reach for the Dunning–Kruger viscum argument, because it just seems so dumb to me, yet I get called a Dunning–Kruger victim all the time. Its just such an intellectually dishonest argument to me.<p>I&#x27;m asking anyone who is reading this to please keep this &quot;law&quot; in mind, and next time you see someone call someone else a &quot;Dunning–Kruger victim&quot;. Point them to this thread. Also, if you&#x27;re a blogger (especially a popular blogger), please write a blog about this new law, so we have something more authoritative to link to.

3 条评论

ggm将近 2 年前
Godwin&#x27;s law was an experiment in memetics. It&#x27;s not actually a &quot;thing&quot; any more than people make it a thing, the progenitor was playing with putting a concept out there to see what happened. What happened was beyond his expectations.<p>I think its social utility has overtaken its birth story somewhat. It&#x27;s a particularly reductive line of reasoning in forms of argumentation, that arguments descend to very crude and unpleasant norms quickly, and more often than people think. I think there are times it&#x27;s mis-applied and times it accurately characterises the nature of debate. &quot;it depends&quot; basically.<p>We&#x27;ll probably see something similar happen with &quot;Tankie&quot; and &quot;CCP&quot; and &quot;Moscow shill&quot; which now intrude as much, and as often as Nazi references.
评论 #36703844 未加载
quirkot将近 2 年前
I always interpreted Godwin&#x27;s law to be about maximalist claims. Unfortunately calling someone in a nazi in 2023 isn&#x27;t as insulting as calling someone a nazi in 1990. I&#x27;d guess the reason you don&#x27;t see it as much is because it&#x27;s not as strong a word anymore, thanks to, you know, actual nazis trying to make a comeback.<p>In that sense the update wouldn&#x27;t be &quot;here&#x27;s another thing I see all the time&quot; but &quot;here is the absolute maximalist claim I can make about a person&#x27;s character.&quot;
评论 #36703827 未加载
blowski将近 2 年前
See also the claim to be suffering cognitive dissonance.<p>I assume they are from immature people who think using scientific sounding terms adds wait to their argument.