I Propose a New Godwin’s Law

According to Wikipedia, Godwin’s law (or Godwin’s rule of Hitler analogies) is an Internet adage that asserts that “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches 1”; that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Adolf Hitler or his deeds.

“Promulgated by the American attorney and author Mike Godwin in 1990, Godwin’s law originally referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions. It is now applied to any threaded online discussion, such as Internet forums, chat rooms, and comment threads, as well as to speeches, articles, and other rhetoric where reductio ad Hitlerum occurs.”

I don’t know what to name it, but I believe we need a new law which says, “as an online discussion grows longer the probability of someone with no remaining cogent arguments about the topic at hand bringing up Planned Parenthood or abortion approaches 1.”

I’ve noticed this before, especially in arguments about gun control, but even more so today. Someone threw out the abortion question in a thread discussing how immigrant children are being separated by our government from their families. A reference was thrown out in a discussion related to Publix Supermarkets buying off a gubernatorial candidate. And someone threw it out in a discussion on the Parkland student’s recent protest. Not a single thread had anything to do with Planned Parenthood or abortion, but the troupes got pulled out.

In the one about the Publix political contributions, it was hurled at me when someone named, Jan Johnson on Facebook, replied to comment I’d made explaining that in my letter to the CEO of Publix, I’d suggested they should just stay out of political races. Her response was, “Would you write one to Planned Parenthood?” I responded with, “no Jan, I wouldn’t write one to Planned Parenthood. I believe that poor women in underserved areas should have access to healthcare services, and I’m sad that you don’t feel the same way. But hating poor people has kind of become the new Conservative Christian norm, hasn’t it?”

I am particularly amazed when the anti-gun control crowd tries to use this brings it up. It usually comes up when the discussion revolves around children being shot in schools. Suddenly, there it is, the comment about, “yeah, but I guess you support abortions.” So, based on the discussion so far, the commenter is making a far leap (but they believe doors cause school shootings, so what are you going to do) about someone’s position on abortion. And then, of course, your opinion on gun violence and the growing prevalence of school shootings is invalid unless you also oppose killing “unborn children.” From there the thread simply devolves into the argument over the right of women to make their own healthcare decisions (but of course, it’s not a healthcare decision, it’s murder).

I’m open for new suggestions on what to call this new law that says, “as an online discussion grows longer the probability of someone with no remaining cogent arguments about the topic at hand bringing up Planned Parenthood or abortion approaches 1.”