I'm gobsmacked that this post seems to be necessary: A Presentation of Godwin's Law:

[jtuck004]

73. "Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle actually used a wider notion of analogy.

They saw analogy as a shared abstraction.[6] Analogous objects did not share necessarily a relation, but also an idea, a pattern, a regularity, an attribute, an effect or a philosophy. These authors also accepted that comparisons, metaphors and "images" (allegories) could be used as arguments, and sometimes they called them analogies. Analogies should also make those abstractions easier to understand and give confidence to the ones using them."

One source here: here.

So I guess some people might look at that and give credence to the poster, for using an apt analogy. If they think the Shield and Sword patch fits, of course.

Oh, and from the same link you posted - I know we are limited as to what a poster can excerpt, but it seems like a couple of paragraphs were left out of the above post that might be important.,

While falling afoul of Godwin's law tends to cause the individual making the comparison to lose their argument or credibility, Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate.[9] Similar criticisms of the "law" (or "at least the distorted version which purports to prohibit all comparisons to German crimes&quot have been made by Glenn Greenwald.[10]
History

See, it points out that throwing out Godwin's law as anything more than a device to make conversation more civil around a coffee table or computer bulletin board can frequently be something else than authoritarian.

and, and

Godwin's law does not claim to articulate a fallacy; it is instead framed as a memetic tool to reduce the incidence of inappropriate hyperbolic comparisons. "Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust", Godwin has written.[11]

Not that using it invalidates your argument, he just doesn't want the comparison to be done without thought.

I would agree that people should be thoughtful in their postings.

This isn't a law against using the terms which make up the wide variety of authoritarian analogies and mythologies, (unless one wants to cut off argument, like that Bashar al-Assad guy in Syria, which brings us to another analogy, eh?). It is a teaching tool, a "rhetorical" device to prompt you to consider with some thought the comparison you are making.

That didn't seem clear in the first posting.