Not really. Godwin's law itself is just an observation on the nature of online conversations. (And arguably commentary on the popularity of fallacious reductio ad hitlerum style arguments)

Godwin's Law has become some sort of notion of mentioning Hitler being a "forfeit" of sorts. The reason this has become popular is because low barrier-to-entry comment sniping is great fun and this version of Godwin's Law makes it child's play. However it is nothing to be respected.

There is a line of reasoning that states that comparisons to Hitler are damaging to society because they necessarily "cheapen" the memory of what the Nazis were and did. I might concede that this is true in extreme cases ("You won't let me go to the dance with Jimmy? You are literally Hitler!" may qualify. Certainly that is at least obnoxious and fallacious) but I do not accept that line of argument across the board. Nobody is going to walk away from the above comment thinking that the Holocaust was not as bad as they originally thought.

Another, weaker, argument given in support of Godwin's Law is that comparisons to Hitler are inappropriate wherever and whenever the subject is less extreme or serious than the Holocaust. I submit that refusing to compare things to Hitler unless they are demonstrably already as bad as Hitler cripples our ability to learn useful lessons from that dark period in history. If we wait until a situation is as bad as the situation in 1930s Germany, then we have waited to the point that rhetoric alone is no longer of use. Comparisons to that era in German history are therefore only useful in situations that are not as dire.

Godwin's Law is important because it shows the cost of attaching baggage to your arguments. I think that if you can argue that something is bad by invoking Hitler, you can argue that something is bad without invoking Hitler. It's not just that going Godwin is tacky. It is, or should be, a sign of rhetorical weakness.

I don't think the problem described by Godwin's Law is that bad arguments cheapen Hitler. I think the problem is that Hitler cheapens one's arguments, unless one is arguing about genocide. Sure, you can draw lesser lessons from Hitler's lesser crimes (ie gun control), but the implication, intentional or not, is that the lesser crime you're arguing about is on par with the Holocaust.

While bad arguments can be made with Hitler, good arguments can be made with Hitler as well. These arguments do not necessarily need to use Hitler, but they can. They frequently do because comparisons to Hitler are accessible. Nobody needs to explain who Hitler was; nobody needs to tap out of the conversation for a few minutes to go read the Hitler wikipedia page.

Why not use an example other than Hitler here on HN then? I'd assume people here are reasonably well educated and don't need intellectual spoonfeeding.

To put it another way... if you can't win your argument without going Godwin, maybe your position isn't very strong. Leading with Godwin is the sign of a very weak argument, or a very weak arguer.

I think the Godwin rule is good for stuff that is extreme hyperbole, and typically just examples of attacks on character. The 'Soup Nazi' from Seinfeld being a good example: it was one of my favorite episodes, but really, the soup restaurant guy is Hitler?

But I am literally making a point about something that I think is truly key to preserving democratic society in America, or whatever is left of it, and I would view the removal of private gun ownership in the United States as actually being a prelude to something as bad as Nazi Germany. I think the Second Amendment is the keystone to all of the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Basically, calling your boss Hitler because he made you work on the weekend is absurd, but making comparisons between Hitler and somebody like Pol-Pot is quite legitimate.

If you actually look at modern warfare vs WWII guns in the hands of private citizens are basically useless for fighting the US military. Bombs can be effective but modern body armor, surveillance, medicine, and tactics mean even a well trained and equipped army is going to lose significantly more people let alone people with effing hand guns. See: Iraq and Afghanistan for examples.

Realistically, freedom of the press and due process are far more important and in far more danger than guns which are basically just a talking point / distraction at this point. Or put another way, if everyone in George Orwell's 1984 had a gun nothing would change.

Point 1: You didn't go Godwin on "removal of private gun ownership", you did it on mere registration. Changing parameters to defend your point is bad arguing too.

Point 2: I'm a pro-gun liberal. I'm also opposed to gun registration. I kicked you around on it not to support gun registration, but rather because you're making my side of the argument look bad. I don't want the people I agree with making crappy omg hitler!11!! arguments because it makes my job that much harder.

Point 3: If you can't show how gun registration is bad (or ineffective, which is my usual tack) without saying omg hitler, you're not going to convince anyone that you're right.

I think there is a sizable minority that wants anybody who isn't in jail to be well armed, whether or not they agree with me politically, and I'm in that minority. I think it benefits society. I sort of vacillate between conservative and libertarian depending on the issue and the day of the week myself, but I think pro-gun liberals are a great addition.

I think there is a sizable minority that wants nobody to have guns, for various reasons, but typically because they actually think it'll stop violence. I think that won't work at all, and has lots of negative effects. It isn't a coincidence that all of the mass shootings happen in "gun free zones".

I think there is a vanishingly small number of people who actually want to disarm society in order to try and push a Nazi-like situation. But, imagine an America where the NSA that Snowden has told us about are the only people with firearms. Do you want to live there?

Small logical problem there, common in pro-gun circles. The reason mass shooting happen in "gun free zones" is because those are the places where people are concentrated. The idea that mass murderers are afraid of armed self-defense is utter nonsense - after all, they know they will be engaged with the police quickly enough.