MeghanIsMe

There's a screencap going around lately that makes me grin. Someone is saying that calling the concentration camps at the borders of the US 'concentration camps' is too charged a phrase and runs afoul of Godwin's law. In response, Mike Godwin, the law's formulator, says, basically, 'no, these really are concentration camps.'

It's funny because it suggests the the original poster has no leg to stand on when using Godwin's Law as a basis for criticism. However....

I don't think that's actually true. A concept, an axiom, a hypothesis, once created, has an existence of its own. This makes me think of a discussion I was having with Danae when she was reading a lot of literature on the topic of the public sphere as formulated by Habermas. Talking about changing ideas about the public sphere, she said that "even Habermas doesn't agree with the public sphere as originally formulated by Habermas!"

I couldn't help but abstract that thought out to other realms. Once an idea has been put forth, it needs to stand on its own merits. Thinking about that idea and arguing for or against its applicability in certain contexts is a legitimate area of disagreement. Just because Habermas created this idea of the public sphere and how it operates doesn't mean that that idea is perfect as it is, nor does it mean that he is an absolute authority on how it exists and operates. People change too. If Godwin has different ideas now about what constitutes a Godwin's law issue than he did when the concept was first popularized, which is valid?

The answer to that, I think, is that, in the end, these are very fuzzy concepts that simply cannot be fully and cleanly described. I do not feel that the questions of whether or not these camps are concentration camps, or whether someone who calls them that has lost the argument by bringing up Nazis, can be unquestionably decided by Godwin or anyone else.

That said, give me a damn break. These things are concentration camps. They're horrific. Godwin is right, here.