Posted on 03/25/2013 10:58:17 AM PDT by TurboZamboni
People across the political spectrum, from left to right and back again, seem to revel in perverse delight when comparing the policies of a political foe to those of the Nazis. Sometimes, they will skip the group comparisons and head straight into drawing personal parallels between the individual in question and Adolf Hitler. The practice is so onerous that, in the Dark Ages of the internet (1990), an attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation named Mike Godwin coined what has become known as Godwin's Law. It states that, the longer and more involved an argument becomes, the more likely a Nazi/Hitler reference is. A corollary to Godwin's Law is that the first person in a given debate to drop a Nazi reference automatically loses the argument by default. The reason is simple enough: As upsetting and egregious as the policies of a given leader might be, the situation in modern-day America isn't within a country mile of being Nazi Germany in the 1930s. Furthermore, George W. Bush wasn't Hitler, and Barack Obama isn't Hitler, and various other national political leaders aren't Hitler. Only Hitler was Hitler, and at last check, he was still thoroughly dead.
(Excerpt) Read more at reviewonline.com ...
Oh, sure. That's what They want you to believe. BTT.
True... but don't think the groundwork isn't being laid that could bring us to very similar conditions.
this guy is obviously a nazi lover...
oops. i lost the argument.
t
I believe in greater accuracy, thus:
Hitler didn't think he was God, for instance. And Hitler wished that he controlled the press as tightly as Obama.
read
No comparison between the two. Hitler wore his (adopted) nation’s military uniform and served with distinction.
You mean all history didn’t start on September 1 1939? Who’da thunk it?
The author’s premise seems to be that since the Weimar Republic disarmed Germans, not Hitler, it is ok to disarm Americans.
Rubbish.
Lazamataz's Inverse of Godwin's Law: "People who resort to Godwin's Law are just like Hitler."
Incorrect on the facts and the intent.
We have a surveillance state with black-clad shock troops intended to intimidate the common populace. We have a leader and a party that flouts the law. We have a leader who stirs up racial hatreds, on purpose. We have the attempt to disarm the populace. We have a rapidly-deteriorating economic situation.
In fact, my main problem is seeing the DIFFERENCES between Modern America and Germany in the 1930's.
There is absolutely nothing unreasonable, unfair, or misleading, in drawing comparison between contemporary demagogues and one of the master demagogues in Western History. Indeed, comparisons to previously successful salesmen for tyrannical Government, is the most natural measure for analyzing contemporary threats to liberty.
Put another way, does anyone really believe that contemporary demagogues do not study the techniques--the methodology of others who succeeded?
We all need to be aware of how history's Robespierre's, Lenins, Trotsky's & Hitlers managed to motivate mobs in the directions that they did. Understanding how freedom is lost is just as important as studying how it has been gained.
William Flax
As if in disparming the law-abiding citiznryy can end well.
Maybe he thinks as long as millions don’t die in concentration camps, it’s all good.
Why is that significant? Because it gave the automatons chanting in unison, a sense of being part of an invincible movement. Hitler managed by such tactics to project inevitability & the futility of opposition, while totally undermining any sense of individualism. The mass pageants in Red Square under Stalin were to similar purpose & intent. Anyone who believes that similarity between such displays is accidental is hopelessly naive.
William Flax
Firstly, Godwin’s Law is not the longer the argument the more likely is Hitler’s mention. The longer the argument the more likely it is anything’d be mentioned, I’d think. Point is the longer the internet argument the more certain is the appearance of a Nazi analogy.
Secondly, I don’t believe in the corollary. Believe it or not, sometimes Hitler is relevant. Argumentative fallacies are arguments which are never true, not ones that usually aren’t true and are annoying and repetitive. Even were it fallacious we couldn’t make it so that the side invoking it always loses. Human argumentation isn’t that rulebound or objective. People try to declare the first to go ad hominem the loser, too, sometimes. But there’s no reason why one bad argument should spoil the whole bunch.
Invocation of Hitler suggests you might be losing the argument, depending on the context. But it can’t mean you definitely have lost. That presumes a judgement beyond all earthly power.
I believe our political system could most accurately be described as fascist. You can’t call it that, given how the term has been corrupted. But imagine you could say it publicly. That, then, turns this stupid article on its head. Instead of arguing anyone’s a Nazi being ridiculous for us not resembling Nazi Germany in any meaningful way, it becomes ridiculous to accuse anyone in particular of being fascist because everyone is.
I adamantly refute that statement and offer proof.
Read the article at the following link and tell me none of it sounds familiar. Tell me America isn't within a country mile of what is described.
Ehr Kumt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
