Graves law

While I would hope that anyone reading this is familiar with Godwin’s Law, I’ve seen enough silliness over the years to convince me that belaboring the obvious is required.

Godwin’s law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Godwin’s law (also known as Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin’s Law of Nazi Analogies) is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 which has become an Internet adage. It states: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.” In other words, Godwin put forth the hyperbolic observation that, given enough time, in any
online discussion–regardless of topic or scope–someone inevitably
criticizes some point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs
held by Hitler and the Nazis.

Godwin’s law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the widespread Reductio ad Hitlerum form. The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis
might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a
reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses.
It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be
appropriate, Godwin has argued that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

Although in one of its early forms Godwin’s law referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions, the law is now often applied to any threaded online discussion, such as forums, chat rooms and blog comment threads, and has been invoked for the inappropriate use of Nazi analogies in articles or speeches.

The frequent enforcement corollary of Godwin’s Law is that once the Nazi comparison has been made the discussion is over and the party who made the comparison is deemed to have lost the debate or surrendered their point.

Graves’ law

Graves’ law (also known as Graves’ Rule of Racist Attribution or Graves’ Law of Racist Analogies) is an observation made by Rodney Graves in 2011.  It states: “As an online discussion of American Politics grows longer, the probability of an attribution of a position being racially motivated approaches unity [1 or 100%].” In other words, Graves put forth the observation that, given enough time, in any
online discussion of American Politics someone inevitably
criticizes some point made in the discussion by claiming or insinuating that their opponent’s point is a product of racial bias.

The same enforcement corollary pertains: Once the charge of “racism” or insinuation of “racist” motivation has been made the discussion is over and the
party who made the charge or insinuation is deemed to have lost the debate or
surrendered their point.

"We do not have time for this kind of silliness"
The "Birther" Issue Gets Trumped
  • Jay Guevara

    After a few hours sleep, I return briefly to see I’ve been mischaracterized and called names. What else is new.

    It’s because of your race.

  • retired military

    And the Graves award goes to bob Schieffer

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1381527/Donald-Trump-racist-Bob-Schieffer-attacks-Apprentice-host.html

    “Trump is a racist”

    BTW Alex

    It is great to be able to write so flowery. But the impress factor that you are going for is about a negative 100 and going downhill fast.

  • Rodney Graves

    Alex @ 23,

    The whole notion of “race” is silly. We’re all homo sapiens sapiens. There is less biological diversity in the human genome than there is in the Chimpanzee genome.

    There is but one human race. All else is cultural baggage.

  • Rodney Graves

    retired military @ 52,

    While I gladly lend my name to the law I have proposed, I object to the “prize” for its fulfillment being in my name. I propose the prize be named for Margaret Sanger.

  • retired military

    Rodney

    My apologies.

  • Evil Otto

    RM,

    No, Brucie was speaking specifically to me. I was the one making the “boy who cried wolf” argument, saying that the left’s ridiculous over-use of the “racist” charge was diluting its meaning and value. And to prove me wrong, he implied that the BWCW argument is used by racists to disguise their racism.

    What it boils down to is that Bruce accused me of being a racist, and then tried to weasel his way out of it. Even then, he wouldn’t back off very much… saying that I had never written anything “glaringly” racist here. It’s clear what he thinks: that I’m a racist, but I’m just good at hiding it.

  • Jay Guevara

    We’re all homo sapiens sapiens

    “Sapiens” means “wise.”

    Whoever gave humans that Linnean name obviously had a sense of humor.

  • Rodney Graves

    Evil Otto,

    That was my impression as well. If that was not Bruce’s intent, I’m sure he’ll clarify his meaning and intent…

    Shortly after hell freezes over.

  • retired military

    Otto

    I thought Bruce was referring to my argument earlier about the boy who cried wolf argument.

    I will now step my ass out of the middle of you two and pop some popcorn.

  • Bruce Henry

    Back from work, I’ll be happy to try to explain myself a little.

    For one thing, I just comment here for fun. I don’t pretend I’m changing the world, or anyone’s mind for that matter, and so I’m not particularly careful about what I say here, besides making some attempt to be amusing if not hilarious. And to be polite most of the time.

    Now, Otto, you have decided that I have called YOU, specifically, a racist. That’s not so. What I said, or meant anyway, is that the Cry Wolf argument has little validity in my opinion, and can easily be used as an excuse for outrageous rhetoric, because, after all, those damn pussy liberals and minorities are ALWAYS saying that stuff!

    Since you’re so good at Google, Otto, why don’t you go through all the Wizbang threads where this issue is discussed? I’m certain I’ve made similar points here before, so that should reassure you that my remarks were not meant to be Ottocentric.

    And the concept of “Graves Law,” whereby anytime an allegation of racism is made the accuser has “lost” the debate, is stupid on its face, I’m afraid. Again, “he who smelt it dealt it” is not a defense. The “race card” may be overused, but not nearly as much as some people claim. There is more validity than non-validity in it, in my experience. Your mileage may vary.

    “Glaringly” is just an adjective, but I’ll concede that inserting it wasn’t helpful and could be construed as you have done. So, let me say again that I am not calling you a racist. If I have given that impression I apologize – my intent was to quibble with your argument, not with you personally.

    RM, I was referring to you with the creepy archive thingie, but it was a joke – is this thing on? It goes back to you digging up a quote I made ON ANOTHER BLOG that I found, umm, disconcerting. But if I’ve hurt your feelings, I’m sorry for that, too. Thought I could rib you a little, but I’ll be more careful in the future.

    By the way, RM, I appreciate you and Jim smacking down this Alex character. He needs to go back to Stormfront.com. I refuse to be baited into giving this warped SOB any legitimacy. I hate Nazis, whether they’re your garden variety dumbass or verbose good spellers like Alex here.

  • Evil Otto

    Back from work, I’ll be happy to try to explain myself a little.

    This should be good.

    For one thing, I just comment here for fun. I don’t pretend I’m changing the world, or anyone’s mind for that matter, and so I’m not particularly careful about what I say here, besides making some attempt to be amusing if not hilarious. And to be polite most of the time.

    You’re responsible for what you write here, Bruce, just as everyone else is, which means “I’m not careful” isn’t much of an excuse. If you don’t believe something, don’t write it. Whatever arguments or insults I may use (and I openly use them all the time), I NEVER write something I don’t believe. Never. If I call someone a mindless leftist drone (like dear, departed Woop for example), it’s because I think they’re a mindless leftist drone. If I call someone like Hyperbolist vile because he thinks that babies are not people and it should be allowable to kill them (I’m not making that up), it’s because I think he’s vile.

    Say what you mean, mean what you say. Life’s easier that way.

    Now, Otto, you have decided that I have called YOU, specifically, a racist. That’s not so. What I said, or meant anyway, is that the Cry Wolf argument has little validity in my opinion, and can easily be used as an excuse for outrageous rhetoric, because, after all, those damn pussy liberals and minorities are ALWAYS saying that stuff!

    C’mon, Bruce. Your actual words are written above in this very thread. “And it’s my belief, Otto, that the “boy who cried wolf” argument is just an excuse to let one’s racist hair down.”

    Since I was making that argument, openly so, you were FLAT OUT SAYING that I was using the BWCW argument to let my “racist hair down.”

    In other words, you called me a racist.

    Want to use a little logic? Let’s break it down:

    A: The “boy who cried wolf” argument is just an excuse to let one’s racist hair down.

    B: Evil Otto is making that exact argument.

    C: Thus, Evil Otto is a “letting his racist hair down.”

    If A is true, and B is true, then C follows. And C says that I’m a racist because I used that argument.

    You can try to spin that away, but your meaning was crystal clear. If you meant so say something different, then you should have said something different. Unlike liberals, with their Shadow-like ability to the know what racism lurks in the hearts of men, all I can go on are your words written here.

    Since you’re so good at Google, Otto,

    Providing you a link is being “good at Google?” Who knew Google was something that had skill levels?

    why don’t you go through all the Wizbang threads where this issue is discussed? I’m certain I’ve made similar points here before, so that should reassure you that my remarks were not meant to be Ottocentric.

    Ah, so they were just meant to be a generic insult to everyone who thinks the “racist” accusation is being vastly overused? Which, by the way, is virtually every conservative or libertarian here. What you’re saying, if I boil it down, is that you think we’re ALL racists. I suppose I should feel flattered that you distinguish me enough to say that I haven’t said anything “glaringly” racist.

    And the concept of “Graves Law,” whereby anytime an allegation of racism is made the accuser has “lost” the debate, is stupid on its face, I’m afraid.

    It’s a Parody of Godwin’s Law, which is not really a real rule anyway.

    Again, “he who smelt it dealt it” is not a defense. The “race card” may be overused, but not nearly as much as some people claim. There is more validity than non-validity in it, in my experience. Your mileage may vary.

    You on the left have been using this accusation for decades as a way of shutting down or shifting debate, but with the campaign of Barack Obama it’s become the one… hell, the ONLY weapon in your arsenal. Oppose Obama’s election? You’re a racist. Make fun of his ears? You’re a racist. Laugh at his over-use of the teleprompter? You’re a racist. Question his birth certificate? (Which I don’t, by the way) You’re a racist. Oppose his budgets? You’re a racist. Join the tea party? You’re a racist. Listen to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck? You’re a racist.

    Don’t tell me that it’s not being overused, Bruce, because I can read. I follow the news. I keep up with political thought and opinion not just on the right side but on the left. I read your side’s blogs, and I see how you leftists act on the conservative blogs I read.

    And I’m not stupid, whatever you may think.

    I see it every single day. You yourself resorted to it in this very thread.

    You on the left are overusing, vastly, insanely overusing the accusation of racism. And it’s not working anymore.

    “Glaringly” is just an adjective, but I’ll concede that inserting it wasn’t helpful and could be construed as you have done.

    Ya think?

    So, let me say again that I am not calling you a racist. If I have given that impression I apologize – my intent was to quibble with your argument, not with you personally.

    Then, if you’re going to quibble with it, do so without implying that those who make it (I’m hardly the first) are racists. That really is proving my first point (that it’s overused) for me.

    OK, you’ve apologized, I’ve vented, and that’s that. I’m not going to keep harping on the subject anymore.

  • Bruce Henry

    Well, Otto, I’m not calling you a racist, but I AM calling you an ungracious, oversensitive, arrogant, supercilious, bombastic, incivil prick. Bless your heart.

    You can ALWAYS “say what you mean and mean what you say” if you wish, Mr Forthright Integrity. I might just continue tossing off comments with very little thought if I wish. Other times I might carefully consider what I wish to say and take great care to choose exactly the right words. I’ll decide as I see fit, or as the mood strikes me. Appreciate the advice to ALWAYS do as you do, though.

    But I do admit that, had I just used the word “often” or “sometimes” in comment # 27, you might not have had an excuse to pretend to be all butthurt. As in, “And it’s my belief, Otto, that the ‘boy who cried wolf’ argument is OFTEN just an excuse to let one’s racist hair down.” Or “…is SOMETIMES just an excuse…” So excuse me for getting you all riled up for nothing, but, like I said, the stuff I say in blog comments is not something I ever-so-carefully consider before hitting “submit,” like you do.

    Since you feel free to give me advice about how and with what level of care to comment, I’ll give you a little advice as well, Otto. Calm down. Don’t be so eager to play victim. Relax, and realize not everyone is so deadly fucking serious about every word they write here. Oh, and accept apologies graciously. You might get more of them.

  • retired military

    Bruce Henry

    Sorry I took your joke the wrong way.

    It has been a lousy week and on top of everything else I have a damn nasty sty in my eye.

    Every time I blink it is like reading Lee Wards posts .. Oh I mean like sticking myself in the eye with a pencil

    In reference to your comment on the other thread I tend to google when I am involved in an online discussion and someone says “I Never said ….”

    What you say on The internet lasts longer than concrete nowadays.

    Take care.

  • Bruce Henry

    Thanks, RM. You’re all right, man.

  • Alex

    Rodney,

    “The whole notion of ‘race’ is silly. We’re all homo sapiens sapiens.”

    This is simply a (slightly) more sophisticated rendering of the Leftist bromide “one race the human race”. It is vacuous in the extreme. It is nothing more than an incantation. The findings of contemporary genetic testing and forensic anthropology stand in manifest contradiction to what you say. In carrying on as some mealy-mouthed cultural Marxist you can only succeed in fashioning a rod for your own back. For instance, if race is a “social construct” then by what standard do you say *species* is not also a “social construct” – that is, defined as such free of any objective, scientifically testable content?

    Until you change your tune in light of demonstrable fact, I never again want to hear you say that you are not “politically correct” as you surely are.

    “There is less biological diversity in the human genome than there is in the Chimpanzee genome.”

    And the Europe of native Europeans is the most genetically homogeneous continent on earth. Your point? Wait…I take it you won’t be able to resist a snark about the dangers of “inbreeding” and the alleged benefits of miscegenation. Right, all that “inbreeding” is what prevented the White race from being considered synonymous with civilization for the past three thousand years (sarcasm).

  • Alex

    I think you do well and truly know, Rodney, at some level, that something, indeed many things, are disturbingly amiss with the essentially liberal meta-narrative which dominates our age. It will be nothing less than a cosmic outrage if this is how the symphony of Europe ends: not with a bang but a whimper. It is wholly unfitting that White men of the West shuffle forward to the grave as so many zombies, skulls filled with mush. And make no mistake, that is what their minds are brimming over with, the most stupid twaddle imaginable which can be dispensed with summarily by those who can actually think. I do understand, there is a heavy price to be paid for a man in any age who will go against the grain of the regnant ethos, however misbegotten the latter may be. It is to risk being pushed into the hinterlands of moral unpersonhood. It was the price which the spiritually indomitable Charles Lindbergh paid in saying only what was and is eternally true. Yet with the stakes so high, it is a risk we must take, and gladly, for our now dying people.

  • Rodney Graves

    Alex @ 65,

    Even a blind pig finds the occasional chestnut. So the Leftists stumbled onto a truth by way of internationalist propaganda which genetics subsequently proved to be true. Homo Sapiens Sapiens is indeed ONE race. One race which can and does interbreed.

    While I can see that it really chaps your hide to realize that fewer and fewer folks give a rats ass about your obsession with melatonin content and other fourth order genetic issues, that is indeed the trend, and it is a net positive one.

    I’m done with you, as I have no interest in conversing with folks who obviously believe themselves to be subtle white supremacists (even less their more blatant fellow travellers). I suggest you go peddle your schtick somewhere else.

  • Bruce Henry

    Wizbang readers: was I right about this Alex asshole in comment # 43, or was I right?

  • Rodney Graves

    Bruce,

    Congratulations! You win today’s blind pig award! Alex is indeed a racist of the white supremacy model, and he is done on this thread.