I'm just curious. It is a point of contention, and I'd like to see if somebody else remembers or if a person is willing to acknowledge his or her own work.
Unlike many of you, I don't care much about thread or post deletion, never have. I think of these conversations, for the most part, as things that have already happened and will eventually be deleted anyway, so I don't feel the drive to preserve most of them in stone.
(By the way, this was changed for me by the initiation of eventual thread-clearing by the mods. Back in the day when it really all was there for all time (or so it seemed), I probably felt differently, or at least would have, if and when I'd considered it.)
But I do understand the concern when something in active discussion is deleted. It is different. And something in central focus now did get deleted very recently -- not, apparently, a changed post, but a deleted post, or so it appears -- and that seems worth asking about.
Hey, I promise to support whomever's right to delete or edit it out. If you want to and you can, sure, fine by me (people can take it up with the mods if they don't like it, in my opinion). But if people call you on it, I'd like to see some frankness, just as if people asked if you said something before in regular conversation.
So, what's up?
[ September 09, 2004, 09:24 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I would like to know as well. I won't ambush you, or anything....but if the reason you deleted it was so that no one would find the reference to it after yesterdays heated debate, I don't think that was fair.
If it was deleted before that, fine....As Sara said, it is your post to do with what you want.
But why mention it at all if you won't back it up when people call you on it.
Kwea
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
A search gives rivka mentioning a "Karlin-Stalin chassid" regarding shatnez.
Cypher mentioned the game Red Alert as "show[ing] the Brotherhood of Nod's influence on the Great World War II, faught between the Allied countries and Stalin's Soviet Union."
In the "Can you pass the liberal Democratic test?" thread, Bokonon notes that a particular question is slanted to make it seem that "_everyone_ (except for Mao, Stalin, and Hitler) is a libertarian."
Under "Mormon Theological Question," fallow notes that "Isn't "joy" tantamount to the "opiate" of the masses remark attributed to Stalin?"
And in "An article about Birth Control and Pharmacists," there is some back and forth about Stalin & Hitler, but not Kerry.
[None of these are involved in current conversation, but something was.] What's missing? What was deleted or edited, and why? By whom?
And has Stalin replaced Hitler under the pressure of Godwin's law? (Should he be off rhetorical limits, too?)
[ September 09, 2004, 08:48 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Stalin did kill more people, as did Mao. I think Saddam Hussein is probably the lower limit of the mass murdering dictator comparison hyperbole. I've only heard of him killing hundreds of thousands.
But whoever made the comparison, if they did delete it, is unlikely to now come forward. I don't read the majority of political threads, so the fact that I don't remember it doesn't mean a lot. And there is plenty of written evidence that even if I have seen something, I easily forget.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
I'll quote myself:
quote:I'm not going to hold anyone's toes to the fire, not specifically. Not my place. But I will extend an invitation. I do think I may remember the source of the Stalin remark in question, and I'd like to see someone set the record straight for themselves.
It is being discussed anyway, and I'm sure someone other than me remembers and might be less circumspect. Here is a good chance to be frank about it, should you chose, and you can nip the gossip in the bud. If you don't, then that's not that big a deal, but it does say something.
FWIW, I think Hatrack should have a Stalin Corollary to Godwin's Law. I haven't seen Mao overused, or any other name, just Stalin. (There is good and clear scholarship on Hitler and Stalin, their beliefs and motivations and techniques, but in our context, it's pretty much a thought-killer.)
[ September 09, 2004, 09:23 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:In the "Can you pass the liberal Democratic test?" thread, Bokonon notes that a particular question is slanted to make it seem that "_everyone_ (except for Mao, Stalin, and Hitler) is a libertarian."
If I am not mistaken, Bok's quote was a direct reference to the thread I remember, and was make right after it was posted...within a few days.
Kwea
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I mentioned Stalin. . . just now.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
No, Kwea, I don't think it was a reference to that. Bok was responding to PSI Teleport's link to a Libertarian Party political test. PSI didn't mention Stalin, and Bok was just noting the slant of the outside link.
See, this is the problem: people try to figure it out and other things get drawn in.
Again, I'm okay with deleting it. But if people are asking, I think it's a good idea to be clear about what you said before others get drawn in.
It's as much a courtesy thing as anything else.
(Were it me, I'd probably say something like: "Hey, it was me, and I was really embarrassed when it came up in the discussion with the mods. I sure as heck am not going to be saying it again. I did delete it myself, though. Don't roast me, okay?" And then the proper response would be "Thanks. I appreciate knowing." That's all. Period. No "well, you shouldn't have" and no "why didn't you just"s. No questions, no trailing insinuating ellipses, just a "thanks." And it could be over and done with.)
[ September 09, 2004, 09:37 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Thanks, Scott.
[for clarity: Who else?]
[ September 09, 2004, 09:36 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I believe I might have made a Stalin reference in that "back and forth" discussion that was referenced, but that's pretty old and it has nothing to do with Kerry.
So, I'm not the one you're looking for.
Unless I am.
In which case, I'm outta here.
KarlEd...I'm sorry to hear you are feeling increasingly alienated. I hope you stick around!
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think the important thing to remember is that character is in no way connected with belief. The fact that you would have admitted it isn't connected to the belief I have that you probably would never have said such a thing to begin with.
Like these conversations about politics are causing me to be aware how many people there are on Hatrack who are conservative, which I consider myself, but their mode of expressing themselves is very alienating.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Godwin is a nazi.
Stalin just isn't useful as an example of anything modern. While there is desultory mention of marxism, the reality is Stalin was just another czar in a long long line of czars. And the Soviet system was nothing more than a continuation of dividing society into nobility and serfs, with "communism" merely being a renaming of old-style religion as a tool of the state.
Whereas Hitler is an object lesson about the weakpoints of modern ideals -- capitalism, meritocracy, democracy, social liberalism, rule of law, state-free religion, etc -- vulnerable to attack through manipulation of individual desires and public opinion through mass communications, advertising campaigns, and the BigLie.
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
I've been slipping, obviously.
Okay, I'll make up for it now.
Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin Stalin.
Thats better. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Scott could change from the grammar nazi to the grammar stalinist. or something. :/
Posted by WraithSword (Member # 6829) on :
Godwin simply says that when people start comparing the opposition to Nazis, the actual information transmission of a usenet/internet/UBB becomes zero. Even if anything intelligent is said, no one will read it.
This is manifestly true, and it is as far as the law goes. Godwin himself states that any attempt to apply this law to moderate discussions in any forum (such as by making it a rule that nobody can be compared to Nazis) will...do something or other that is just as bad as comparing everyone to Nazis.
Kerry and Stalin both have better hair than Bush and Hitler. There, I am the one that has compared Kerry to Stalin.
Okay, technically, I compared him and Stalin to Bush and Hitler.
I heard somewhere that Kerry was 'carrying out the program of undermining American culture and values...instituted by Stalin' (words to that effect) during his anti-war protestor days (and throughout his Senate career, depending on who says it).
Maybe you guys should search for links, too. It isn't like nobody elsewhere on the internet is saying anything bad about Kerry.
I think that comparing him to Stalin is overboard mostly because Kerry...he just doesn't have that....
And nobody gets compared to Mao unless they're a certified genius. Mao was probably the most brilliant military commander of the last century, certainly a lot smarter than any other major military commander I can remember.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
Or the Red Grammarian?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
or Dr. Frank N. Grammar
or Count Grammarula
or how about Capt. Grammar with T_Smith as his sidekick.
or maybe Grammar Dude.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Holy crap.
Storm is actually trying to be funny.
My whole world is starting to make sense.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Take notes would be my suggestion.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
If anyone has any C-notes, I'd like to take those.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
My understanding of Godwin's law is that comparing the opposition to Nazis is like calling them Satan.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
I am under the impression that the original Godwin's intent was exactly as represented by WraithSword (whose posts I'm coming to quite enjoy, and this is unsettling for reasons undetermined by me ). That is, that people's brains turn off when the comparison is made and so regardless of how erudite and insightful, any further discussion is just pissing in the wind.
Or falling over in the forest when there's nobody to hear you.
Posted by WraithSword (Member # 6829) on :
No, because if you call someone Satan it doesn't automatically reduce the information transmission to zero.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
I have determined that I'm an unsettling person, particularly when suffering from certain types of readily induced insanity (I once crossed the line from being obnoxious to attempting to physically pick a fight with a superior officer, he took a second look and decided to back off--this is one of several reasons that it is good I'm not in the military anymore).
I have not determined exactly why this is the case.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
From that link:
quote:So, what this means in practical terms:
If someone brings up Nazis in general conversation when it wasn't necessary or germane without it necessarily being an insult, it's probably about time for the thread to end.
If someone brings up Nazis in general conversation when it was vaguely related but is basically being used as an insult, the speaker can be considered to be flaming and not debating.
If someone brings up Nazis in any conversation that has been going on too long for one of the parties, it can be used as a fair excuse to end the thread and declare victory for the other side.
More...
quote:If you're really bored, a fun game to play is Six Degrees of Godwin. Take a topic - any topic - and see how quickly you can relate it to Nazis using legitimate topic drift methods. For example: a discussion about computers will eventually lead to discussions of keyboards and which are best, followed by a lot of complaining about the Windows key on 104-key keyboards, leading to complaints about Microsoft, forcing the standard MS-vs-government flamewar that I'm sure you're all aware of, leading to attacks on Microsoft's "fascist" tactics by one side or another, which will force the other side to start talking about the differences between fascism, capitalism, and, of course, Nazism! The fun never stops!
[ September 09, 2004, 12:30 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Interesting, so what it is saying is that the side that calls the other side Nazis is in effect surrendering the debate.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yes.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
But also
quote: What happens if we're actually talking about Nazis?
Then you've already invoked Godwin's Law, and the chances are that your thread isn't going to last all that much longer as a sane discussion. Them's the breaks.
That isn't to say, of course, that you can't talk about Nazis and such on Usenet - this *is* Usenet, after all, where virtually every conversation that goes on is fairly ludicrous in the first place. It's just going to take you a lot more effort to find real information out of there and to avoid getting yourself off on side-threads - which you'll eventually do regardless, but you can try to put it off.
This also applies if a thread mutates into an actual discussion of Nazis, of course.
Posted by WraithSword (Member # 6829) on :
Uhg. The actual, and completely obvious, mathmatical rule. Any non-repeating text string, if continued indefinitely will eventually mention Hitler or Nazis. And of course, it will probably mention both before disgorging the complete works of Shakespeare.
There is an exception for cases where the people being called Nazis are, in point of fact, Nazis.
Posted by WraithSword (Member # 6829) on :
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I assume you mean any random text string.
Since you can make a non-repeating sequence with 10 digits, I'm assuming you could do it with 25. Leave out the Z, and no nazi can appear, but it will never repeat.
Dagonee
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I just mentioned Stalin and feel proud of myself.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
Well, I've been on this board since July, but this sentence right here is the first one in which I've ever said anything about Stalin. So it wasn't me.
I generally try to avoid political threads anyway. There's so little potential gain, and so much risk of animosity and hatemongering. Not just on Hatrack, but in general. I learned years ago that political debates on message boards pretty much never have a happy ending.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Is Rush Limbaugh the exception or the proof of Godwin's law?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Yes.
Posted by Chupacabras (Member # 6840) on :
While we are talking about who might have mentioned some famous and very good looking leaders of the past I might like to know if any of you have mentioned Pancho Villa recently. You know, something like:
"Man, that Pancho Villa really knew how to sit on a horse."
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
The mention of Rush brings up an interesting aspect of Godwin's law. Calling someone a Nazi in one sense is calling them the evilest person on the face of the earth. In another sense, it is saying Hitler was no worse than that guy who keeps bothering me about my apostrophes (or squeezing the toothpaste backwards, or whatever.) Is Rush where my brother got the habit of saying that so and so is "spitting on the holocaust?"
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
In an effort to hold true to form I suppose it's possible that in referencing my propensity to procrastinate I puposely misspelled stalling and then subsequently deleted the post.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
No, I don't think so...not unless you also mentioned the Khymer Rouge as well, perhaps misspelling a SOFAI character...
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
This was as close to a graemlin that indicates complete confusion as I could find. Kwea, you lost me.
[ September 09, 2004, 08:16 PM: Message edited by: punwit ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
This was as close to a graemlin that indicates complete confusion as I could find. Kwea, you lost me.