Replies

The use of the charge of Holocaust denial in arguments about everything under the sun reflects a culture that cannot handle rational debate. In one sense, it is a return to the unthinking sanctimoniousness of the Middle Ages. We have opinions - on abortion, state intervention, animal rights - because we believe they are right, full stop. We are not prepared to have them challenged or to defend them through rational argument (perhaps because we are not sure about them ourselves).
Except now, unlike the Middle Ages, there is no God to call upon as the arbiter of moral absolutes. As the ultimate symbol of evil, the Holocaust gets dragged in as a post-religious substitute.

Whoa! That's an intriguing statement.

Rather, the tactic often just looks childish - it is a kind of, 'I am right because…you're a Nazi!'. Ultimately, it is a foot-stamping, self-righteous refusal to engage with other people in debate. It is the cheapest of cheap shots.

Boy, do I know people who fit this description. Bookmark.

"...The use of the charge of Holocaust denial in arguments about everything under the sun reflects a culture that cannot handle rational debate...."

Another wonderful find CommiesOut.

Sadly, the author is also a Nazoonie (nazi moonie): '...In one sense, it is a return to the unthinking sanctimoniousness of the Middle Ages...." Another Modernism Nazi. Sigh. Where will it all end? When we're all commies, I guess. Or perhaps when we're all Nazis. All Nazis is no Nazis......

Anti-abortion ('pro-life') activists claim that 'abortion is akin to the holocaust, family planning officials are officers of the Gestapo' (5). One elaborates on this comparison: 'The abortion fanatic, like the Nazi, speaks of "removing" the victim to avoid admitting that the victim is being killed. And, like Nazis, those who participate in abortions frequently suffer excessive drinking, sleep disturbances, and disrupted relationships'

The author does here what he condemns in the article. He does use the the perjorative sounding "anti-abortion", and put "pro-life" in quotes, but he never really says why the analogy of abortionism to Naziism is improper. Sometimes such analogies are entirely valid, and comparison of mass abortionist killings of babies with certain aspects of the mass murders that the Nazis perpetrated is one of those instances.

Cordially,

Great article. I'd have to say though that the "pro-choice" lobby makes the same kind of comparisons as the "pro-life" movement, and with much less justification.

It does seem strange that our contemporaries attack the Nazis for eugenic policies, and then apply very similar ideas and expect not to be compared to Nazis. There is a contradiction here that it's hard not to notice.

Anyway, the article makes a good and provocative point. Also a good zing at Jonah Goldberg -- and by implication many others. The point of argument shouldn't be to reduce one's opponent's position to Nazism.

Unfortunately, I think you'll find that people, even educated people, don't like to think, because that involves the possibility that they may be wrong. The preferred alternative is to remove any opposing views from consideration entirely.

The other problem is that once you recognize that you disagree it's hard to stop or contain the disagreement. It's almost natural in politics to suspect that your opponents are evil or so ignorant and misguided as to be as bad as they would be if they were actually evil. Fortunately, those who aren't politically passionate can judge these disputes and bring a more dispassionate judgement to the discussion.