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

[freework]

Godwin's Lat states:

> As an online discussion grows longer (regardless of topic or scope), the probability of a comparison to Nazis or Adolf Hitler approaches 100%.

This "law" has been quite effective, as every time I've witnessed someone comparing the person they are arguing with on the internet to Nazis, a post bringing up Godwin's Law is always right around the corner. The effect is that you just don't see Nazi comparisons anymore. In other words, the law has had the effect of improving internet discourse (all be it very slightly)

With that said I hereby propose to the internet to adopt a new "law", that I'm calling the Neo-Godwin's Law. It states:

> 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%.

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'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.

I'm asking anyone who is reading this to please keep this "law" in mind, and next time you see someone call someone else a "Dunning–Kruger victim". Point them to this thread. Also, if you're a blogger (especially a popular blogger), please write a blog about this new law, so we have something more authoritative to link to.

[ggm]

Godwin's law was an experiment in memetics. It's not actually a "thing" 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.

I think its social utility has overtaken its birth story somewhat. It'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's mis-applied and times it accurately characterises the nature of debate. "it depends" basically.

We'll probably see something similar happen with "Tankie" and "CCP" and "Moscow shill" which now intrude as much, and as often as Nazi references.

[freework]

> We'll probably see something similar happen with "Tankie" and "CCP" and "Moscow shill"

Those terms are all specific to political discussions. The Dunning Kruger effect is known across every single cross section of the internet, and it is absolutely everywhere.

[quirkot]

I always interpreted Godwin's law to be about maximalist claims. Unfortunately calling someone in a nazi in 2023 isn't as insulting as calling someone a nazi in 1990. I'd guess the reason you don't see it as much is because it's not as strong a word anymore, thanks to, you know, actual nazis trying to make a comeback.

In that sense the update wouldn't be "here's another thing I see all the time" but "here is the absolute maximalist claim I can make about a person's character."

[freework]

> In that sense the update wouldn't be "here's another thing I see all the time" but "here is the absolute maximalist claim I can make about a person's character."

Well, the text of the law states that the probability of Nazis coming up "approaches 100%". This is to say the law was made after an observation of how common the argument was. In my experience, the Dunning-Kruger argument has the same probability on the modern internet.

[blowski]

See also the claim to be suffering cognitive dissonance.

I assume they are from immature people who think using scientific sounding terms adds wait to their argument.