Can't a person make a point that just happens to involve Nazis without someone invoking "Godwin's Law"?

It's like just because someone slapped a label on a thing we're not allowed to do the thing anymore. We need an "Anti-Godwin's Law" that states no mention of Nazis or Hitler can be made on the internet without someone inevitably invoking Godwin's Law.

Zike's Law: Whenever Nazi's are mentioned on the internet, someone inevitably mentions Godwin's Law.

Is there a law for mentioning Zike's law? (kinda serious)

I believe that's Kurotetsuka's law.

Apparently we've reached peak Godwin, everyone. Knock it off.

Godwin's law is rubbish. The Nazis are a strongly and consistently disavowed extreme group. They're a perfect tool when you need to cut across cultures and remove any chance of ambiguity. Their actions so despicable that comparing X performing Y1 to the Nazis performing Y2 is a good tool for reasoning about Y itself and the difference between Y1 and Y2.

Nazis had state sponsored scientific research and a national healthcare system (with certain, obvious exclusions).

It just seems nonsensically reductive to go 'the nazis did it! therefore its bad!'

I agree, however that's not what this thread is about.

The first poster essentially said "this is so normal, even Nazis do it".

We consider Nazis to be abnormal, so if a behavior is common many groups inclusive of Nazis it can be used to imply that the behavior is something inherent to human beings or human governments or human societies.

That's why Godwin's law is pretty much not rubbish. Compare to, say, Himes' law:

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Corvairs approaches 1"

This law, as best as I can determine, is rubbish.

I mean, have you read Unsafe at Any Speed? :P

And a new law is born: La muerte Flacas' law: Try to use a valid NAZI reference and a clueless bastard will mention Godwin's Law. The Laziest form of counter argument.

"[Godwin's law is] an endlessly tiresome way of feigning moral indignation" -- Kevin Drum

How could you reasonably expect me to anticipate your irritability? You've irritated me by failing to see obvious moral indignation, but I wouldn't bother to complain about it. (I'll complain about pettiness, though.)

As it turns out, the person I quoted said exactly what I wanted to say. It doesn't need elaboration.

>It's a complaint at people being lazy in making arguments.

Godwin's law is a very lazy way to make that argument, I would expect.

Pointless thought-terminating cliches brought in hard and fast, was invoking that "law" really necessary?