Everyone is constantly spouting off about Godwin’s law, which states:

In any non-WWII related conversation, if Hitler or the Nazis are brought up, rational conversation is no longer possible.

Normally this law is quoted in the style of “God-winned,” insinuating that whoever used the Nazis or Hitler automatically lost the argument. I completely agree with this rule, but I don’t think it goes far enough.

The basic idea behind this rule is that the Nazis and Hitler are so far out there that you can’t make a reasonable comparison to anything. Likewise, I also think that any reference to the book 1984 by George Orwell is similarly unreasonable. This includes reference to Big Brother, thoughtcrime, or doublespeak. These concepts are so far out of the realm of possibility that it’s ridiculous to compare the two. Even Big Brother: many people think that video cameras (like those currently used in England) are somehow analagous to the example of Big Brother. Of course, they’re not nearly as ubiquitous or invasive as they are in the book, nor are they implanted in every television screen with a central monitoring station.

“But, but, but… It’s an ANALOGY! They don’t have to be EXACTLY the same. God you’re stupid!”

Not only is that extremely rude, it’s also wrong. Yes, analogies don’t have to be exactly the same things, otherwise it wouldn’t be an analogy. However, again the Orwellian concepts expressed in the novel are so far out there that they can’t really be used as an analogy. I call this the Orwellian Corollary to Godwin’s Law:

Any person involved in a discussion discussion who brings up references to thoughtcrime, doublespeak, Big Brother, or any other concept from the book 1984 (especially discussions on the topic of the American presidential administration) shall be kicked in the balls repeatedly and told to grow a brain.