Godwin's Law, and the JWD variation

by Fe2O3Girl 5 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Fe2O3Girl

  Godwin's Law states:

  As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. [1]

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

  This reflects the status of the Nazi movement under Hitler as a universally known standard for horrific behaviour. IMO, it also reflects the fact that when one doesn't have any reasonable factual basis for one's position, an ad hominem attack always comes in handy. Hence

  There is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.

  I think we have a JWD variation, that

  As an JWD discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving JWs or Kingdom Halls approaches one.

  It is most likely to happen in any threads on a theological issue (e.g. if you don't believe the trinity, you are a JW and should go back to the KH), but can crop up anywhere. Don't like the way I express myself? JW!

  I think that this reflects the JWs own opinion of themselves as the ONLY people who don't cuss, the ONLY people who don't believe or do this that and the other. Of course, they are a handy benchmark as a group that we are all familiar with.

  What do you think?
• 

  LittleToe

  I agree, but I think you've got the analogy the wrong way around. The concept of retaining a JW mindset is usually hurled at those who have retained some form of religous belief (be it Trinitarian or otherwise, but usually Fundamentalist of some flavour), as if they haven't unshackled themselves from the god-crutch.

  THe most braindead use of it I can think of is when someone posts something that's either outright abusive or completely off-colour, and wonder why it's not publically acceptable. They sometimes retort that folks are still thinking like JWs, when in actual fact they are merely thinking like responsible humanbeings.

  We all go through the pedulum swings of change, however. Hopefully the end result is something resembling balance.
• 

  Fe2O3Girl

  Hello Toe!

  What you have said is exactly what I meant - I can't have expressed my self properly - back to the TMS for me! HaHa!

  They sometimes retort that folks are still thinking like JWs, when in actual fact they are merely thinking like responsible humanbeings.

  Because they really still believe that only JWs have any standards?!
• 

  LittleToe

  You expressed yourself just fine (in fact I could have phrased things a bit sharper, myself). I knew fine what you meant, but was just nit-picking

  I would suggest that to some simple minds the only recourse, after leaving the JWs, is a hedonistic lifestyle (or at least the persona of such). Those who don't fit the mold (at least in speech, or in posts) are somehow deficient.

  In this case the label "JW" would be equivalent to "prude".

  A little bit of tolerance to a variety of personally held standards and ethics can go a long way, IMHO. In the case of a site like this we do have a lowest common denominator in that we don't really want to put off folks who are potentially exiting and regaining some degree of normality. I think the policy regarding reasonable use of explitives and abusive conduct, are appropriate, for this very reason.

  I have very personal reasons for thinking this way. I first got on the Internet in 1995, and immediately stumbled across an exJW site. I was horrified by the anger and bitterness that were portrayed there, and I can honestly say that I wasn't trying to be offended. It would be a further six years before I would make a similar search, and it wasn't until I'd already decided to leave.

  More wasted years, for the sake of a litttle human restraint!
• 

  Fe2O3Girl

  Of course, some of us managed to get booted without the benefit of an online community! So I had to do that hedonism thing without supervision.
• 

  AuldSoul

  Boy, do I ever agree! Labeling others as the holders of any extremist view is a cop-out to avoid earnest debate.

  In the past year I have been called a radical liberal, a left-wing extremist, a neo-con, an America Hater, an advocate for communism, and advocate for fascism, and most recently had my style of argumentation compared to Rush Limbaugh (of all people!).

  The reality is, I am none of these. People who stoop to this sort of tactic have nothing meaningful to offer as rebuttal to an argument even though they may strenuously disagree and in their frustration (caused by their own ignorance) they lash out in ad hominem. It is not a poor reflection on the poster who gets assaulted as much as it is on the one who assaults them.

  If someone strenuously disagrees with a point that is made, they should have a reason for their disagreement. That is the stuff of discussion forums. It isn't just throwing viewpoints around, it is defending them, reforming them, testing them, shaping them, and yes, even investigating them. A comment by the same poster who said my style reminded him of Rush Limbaugh prompted me to dig deeper on a specific point than was obviously needed. The poster's comment turned out to have validity and I corrected my statement—which was wrong, however well intended or innocently arrived at.

  I wonder if we label people too harshly as like (fill in the blank). Comparisons are beneficial only if they are fair.

  You go, FerrousOxideGirl!

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul