I'd argue, that with more polarized disussion and team politics, there's more cognitive disonance simply because people have strong beliefs about topics they are less informed (or disinformed) about. As analogies are great for highlighting discrepencies in belief they are more offensive (in that they cause negative feelings) to a person considering them.

A more noble alternative is that the level of internet discourse has become so much more refined these days that if you simplify a new position to an old analogy you're just retreading old "solved" ground rather than discussing the nuances that make this particular topic business as usual/the end of society. To be fair most people are anti shooting babies and pro killing harmful parasites but neither of those analogies are particuarly novel or useful in an abortion discussion unless it's the first time you've considered the topic.

on the contrary, I don't think borderline invoking Godwin's law is a reflection of maturity either. Sure, you can compare everything to nazis if you want, but in 99% of the cases people making such exaggerated comparisons to the worst tragedies are probably derailing into something frivolous.

Hence, the "law".