Definition 1: Godwin’s Law
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
Definition 2: Unnamed (longstanding tradition re: Godwin’s Law)
After a Nazi or Hitler comparison is made, the thread is over. He who has made such a comparison has just lost.
Definition 3: Quirke’s Exception
Any intentional triggering of Godwin’s Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful. (That is, the exception to Godwin’s Law is intentionally invoking Godwin’s Law.)
Definition 4: Monckton’s Exception
Comparisons of nonviolent activists to the Hitler Youth are kosher, even face-to-face, and especially if the person you’re speaking to is Jewish. (See also: Monckton’s Justification and Monckton’s Solution).
If you’re unfamiliar with this exception’s namesake, pick a random article or two and see for yourself. If he didn’t exist, comedians would have to invent him - but the comedians would have the good taste to keep him locked away and medicated rather than letting him try to influence global policy with his conspiracy theories.
Hi there,
Off topic, but …
At Tamino’s, you said:
“On a supplemental note, the Edmonton Journal’s print version DID run Dr. Weaver’s correction, but buried it deep in the Technology section, instead of in the front News section where Foot’s story ran.”
I haven’t seen that correction - did it run online? If not, do you have date and page number for the print version?
Feel free to respond here or at my Open Thread. Thanks.
http://deepclimate.org/2010/03/08/open-thread-2/
Comment by Deep Climate — March 10, 2010 @ 3:55 pm
Sorry about the delay in responding, DC. I’m a bit slow here, so I’ll cross-comment this on the Open Thread.
Calling it a “correction” was a slip-up: that term has a very specific meaning in journalism (sort of like ‘objectivity’), and what ran wasn’t so much a correction as a secondary article. I can almost guarantee you’ve seen it - under the headline “Prof Clarifies Position on Climate Panel”, on January 31.
However, I didn’t find out about it through the paper, since I long ago gave up on it as a news source. Rather, I heard about it from BigCityLib through a mailing list (which I think you’ve been contacted about, though I understand if you’d rather maintain total anonymity. You do incredible work as it is - when I met Weaver himself in December, he mentioned you as soon as I brought up climate blogging - and I wouldn’t want to compromise it). As such, I’m not aware of it being run in the print Journal. My father’s got access to the online scans of the print run; I should ask him to dig through the Jan31 issue to see how little coverage it got compared to the original allegation.
Hope that helps.
Comment by Brian D — March 14, 2010 @ 8:12 pm