Godwin's Law
On August 4th, I made this prediction: "Sometime in the next six months, Hjelle & Co. will publicly compare their opponents to Nazis. It's the inevitable next step."
I almost was proven wrong, but at the 11th hour one of the council majority's proxies delivered the goods at the Mayor's Forum on February 3rd, in the approving presence of both Mayor Longrie and Mr. Hjelle, neither of whom voiced any disagreement with the speaker. (Mayor Longrie even stepped up to help clarify his remarks, and gave him the floor to have the last word after the meeting was scheduled to end.)
Why did I say it was the inevitable next step? Well, it's predicted by Godwin's Law, AKA Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies. Godwin was talking about internet discussions, but his observation has been generalized to other public discussions as well. The longer a debate goes on, observed Godwin, the more likely someone will make a comparison to Nazis, regardless of how absurd such a comparison may be. Back in August, I figured that calling something really profoundly American -- such as exercising our first amendment rights to criticize our government -- "un-American," as Hjelle did, is a warning sign that a Nazi comparison can't be far away.
A widely accepted corollary of Godwin's Law is that once somebody brings up the Nazis, the argument is pretty much over, and the person who invoked the Nazi comparison almost certainly lost it. It's an emotional outburst, more of an expletive than an argument. The person making the comparison thinks it is very compelling and rhetorically forceful, but he usually winds up sounding silly, as he seems to argue that something like a citizen taping a public meeting deserves the same level of moral condemnation as mass murder and genocide.
There are exceptions, of course. For example, if you're talking about mass internment of political dissidents, or the extermination of entire groups on account of religion or ethnicity, a comparison to Nazis isn't absurd.
But talking about Maplewood? Saying (I got a copy of the audio via data practices to make sure I quote this accurately), "if we fall for this baloney, these organizations [i.e., citizens who criticize the council majority] with their computers will raze our cities just like Berlin in the early 1940's" -- well, that's just the kind of hyperbole Godwin's Law is talking about.
I almost was proven wrong, but at the 11th hour one of the council majority's proxies delivered the goods at the Mayor's Forum on February 3rd, in the approving presence of both Mayor Longrie and Mr. Hjelle, neither of whom voiced any disagreement with the speaker. (Mayor Longrie even stepped up to help clarify his remarks, and gave him the floor to have the last word after the meeting was scheduled to end.)
Why did I say it was the inevitable next step? Well, it's predicted by Godwin's Law, AKA Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies. Godwin was talking about internet discussions, but his observation has been generalized to other public discussions as well. The longer a debate goes on, observed Godwin, the more likely someone will make a comparison to Nazis, regardless of how absurd such a comparison may be. Back in August, I figured that calling something really profoundly American -- such as exercising our first amendment rights to criticize our government -- "un-American," as Hjelle did, is a warning sign that a Nazi comparison can't be far away.
A widely accepted corollary of Godwin's Law is that once somebody brings up the Nazis, the argument is pretty much over, and the person who invoked the Nazi comparison almost certainly lost it. It's an emotional outburst, more of an expletive than an argument. The person making the comparison thinks it is very compelling and rhetorically forceful, but he usually winds up sounding silly, as he seems to argue that something like a citizen taping a public meeting deserves the same level of moral condemnation as mass murder and genocide.
There are exceptions, of course. For example, if you're talking about mass internment of political dissidents, or the extermination of entire groups on account of religion or ethnicity, a comparison to Nazis isn't absurd.
But talking about Maplewood? Saying (I got a copy of the audio via data practices to make sure I quote this accurately), "if we fall for this baloney, these organizations [i.e., citizens who criticize the council majority] with their computers will raze our cities just like Berlin in the early 1940's" -- well, that's just the kind of hyperbole Godwin's Law is talking about.
8 Comments:
At 1:29 PM, drawnLeftward said…
And now, a word from our sponsor...
projection
At 2:38 PM, Anonymous said…
I'm wondering if firefighters undergo a psych evaluation. Hjelle is most definintely more than a just a few french fries short of a happy meal.
At 7:37 AM, Anonymous said…
ACtually all fire fighters that are now hired must undergo a psych evaluation. This was started after Eric joined the fire department.
The intersting observation I have is why was City practices not followed when Eric was rehired as a fire fighter? He quit to fire Fursman. Then had to apply to be rehired. Guess what - he didn't have to take the psych test. I am guessing no one is surprised by this.
I think it is too bad he did not take the test. A real man would have submitted to it, knowing he would pass and therfore be able to silence his critics accusing him of having psych issues. From what I have heard, Eric was in the miliary. I am surprised that someone who served in the military would be afraid to follow the rules that are being applied to everyone else.
At 8:18 AM, Frostbrand said…
I know it's fun to pick on Erik, but lets be honest -- he's been a pay-per-call firefighter for years. If he was psychologically unfit for the position, I would have expected that to come out in his performance. (And if there is no correlation between a psych eval and performance, what's the point of it anyhow?)
Hjelle has a tendency to speak what's on his mind without thinking of the diplomatic way to say it, or asking himself if it might be better left unsaid. That can be a real drawback when it comes to constituent relations (as we've seen in some of his letters to citizens), and it can get in the way of harmony on the council, but it doesn't bother me if he angrily tells flames what he really thinks of them when he's blasting a firehose at a burning house. :)
At 8:23 AM, Anonymous said…
I would opine that only your professional firefighters have to take the psych. test (usually the MMPI-2) test as a condition of employment. Volunteers are usually exempted from the tests. How about an open challenge to Hjelle to take the test. He doesn't have to release the results, but he would have to hold himself to the same hiring standards he puts on his professional firefighters. Meaning = if he's coo-coo for Cocoa Puffs, he has to resign. Hjelle has a real chance to prove he holds himself to the same standards he puts on his employees, and that he is a professional worthy of public trust.
At 8:35 AM, Frostbrand said…
That doesn't strike me as a great idea. I mean, we could also challenge Longrie to take the bar exam again, to prove she really qualifies as a lawyer in her day job.
The thing is, if Erik failed a psych eval or Diana couldn't pass the bar, that would in neither case disqualify them from the council. And frankly, in neither case would it be relevant to their role on the council. So I think it's not really our business -- it's up to their supervisors and/or clients to judge their fitness in those roles.
Are there psych evals for volunteer firefighters? Should there be? I don't know. But I do know that I would not want the decision made on account of wanting to play "gotcha" on a politician. That's a lousy method of setting policy for a public safety institution.
At 8:44 AM, drawnLeftward said…
Their qualifications as lawyers or firefighters are relevant if they used them as qualifications as candidates for their seats.
Longrie as lawyer hollering about reducing litigation seems to make her lawyeriness a matter of public concern.
Hjelle threatening not to answer a 2am call to the house of a resident he doesn't like is a matter of public concern.
At 9:25 AM, drawnLeftward said…
And now, another word from our sponsor...
surrogate
Post a Comment
<< Home