The other day a thoughtful member--I can't remember which one but I will acknowledge his contribution if he steps forward--suggested that we need some kind of Godwin-ist law as related to references to George W. Bush on internet discussion boards.
As most of you know, somebody named Godwin recognized a phenomenon now known as Godwin's Law. Loosely defined it goes like this:
Godwin's Law Definition
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler steadily increases." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that {thread} is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an {upper bound} on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely recognised codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.
I believe there is a comparable law that has been identified regarding former President George W. Bush:
As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparsion involving George W. Bush steadily increases.
No matter what the topic be it fishing or animal husbandry or fashion or cooking or sports or motorcylcle racing, sooner or later somebody will mention that George W. Bush was an (expletive).
No matter how heinous or dastardly the offense--gunning down civilians in a mall or molesting children--the perpetrator isn't as bad as George W. Bush who "lied and people died."
No matter what assinine policy or proposal some member of Congress comes up with or whatever stupidity or ponzi scheme some celebrity commits, at least he or she isn't George W. Bush who "started two wars" (presumably single handedly.)
No matter how badly some idea backfired or what pain is created, it is far better than George W. Bush who is responsible for the deaths of a gazillion innocent Iraqis and Afghanistanis.
No matter how badly some national crisis is bundled, it isn't worse than George W. Bush who doomed thousands of people to die in Katrina.
Anyhow, you get my drift.
So what term or word would be useful to identify such arguments when they inevitably crop up just to save us time?
As most of you know, somebody named Godwin recognized a phenomenon now known as Godwin's Law. Loosely defined it goes like this:
Godwin's Law Definition
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler steadily increases." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that {thread} is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an {upper bound} on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely recognised codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.
I believe there is a comparable law that has been identified regarding former President George W. Bush:
As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparsion involving George W. Bush steadily increases.
No matter what the topic be it fishing or animal husbandry or fashion or cooking or sports or motorcylcle racing, sooner or later somebody will mention that George W. Bush was an (expletive).
No matter how heinous or dastardly the offense--gunning down civilians in a mall or molesting children--the perpetrator isn't as bad as George W. Bush who "lied and people died."
No matter what assinine policy or proposal some member of Congress comes up with or whatever stupidity or ponzi scheme some celebrity commits, at least he or she isn't George W. Bush who "started two wars" (presumably single handedly.)
No matter how badly some idea backfired or what pain is created, it is far better than George W. Bush who is responsible for the deaths of a gazillion innocent Iraqis and Afghanistanis.
No matter how badly some national crisis is bundled, it isn't worse than George W. Bush who doomed thousands of people to die in Katrina.
Anyhow, you get my drift.
So what term or word would be useful to identify such arguments when they inevitably crop up just to save us time?
