Replies

woodpusher: "Context is everything.
That's why you bastardize quotes and rip away context, to give appearance of support for your lame, baseless argument.
Try the quote with context and describe what wardaddy was arguing."
And yet... and yet... it remains true that wardaddy was the first to bring up the name Hitler on this thread, and for anyone not familiar with the alleged ins-&-outs of Godwin's law, that would seem to offer permission for others to also use the "H-word".

You are merely blinded by your blatant prejudices and unable to restrain yurself from interjecting them into all your deliberately out-ot-context quotes.

Try the quote with context and describe what wardaddy was arguing.
wardaddy #448
Bro’s mini me brownie claims he’s a “professor”
Well when I was at ole miss 40 years ago most professors were right leaning....I was libertarian leaning.....a long haired southern kid
Erwin Neumaier was a classical liberal...a veteran of Hitler youth brigades sent here and adopted as a wounded teen,,,.an orphan ... he had seen totalitarianism up close as a kid......he was my political theory advisor....I adored him.....steel trap mind
From Socrates to Kant we covered it all....even Fromm and Sartre and Camus and Bill Shakespeare ....and Aquinas....he was a devoted Catholic in Oxford
He figured Hobbes Leviathan as our warning sign. And who do you think he blamed most in the USA for that....ahem......care to hunch?.....he was a Jeffersonian idealist ...Erwin was though he also loved Madison and Mason.....and across the pond. Burke
Today nearly all liberal arts teachers are lefties .....if Bro is not he’s a unicorn

Obviously, you proved unable to discuss the quote of wardaddy, preferring your typical skewed, prejudiced, and out-of-context bullcrap. Your screed adds nothing but the additional out-of-context absurdity:

Indeed, while we're talking about "Godwin's law", let's remember that Godwin himself is a raving nut-case:
"In December 2015, Godwin commented on the Nazi and fascist comparisons being made by several articles about Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, saying: 'If you're thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler when you talk about Trump, or any other politician.'[12]"
So... according to Godwin himself, it's A-OK to call Donald Trump a Nazi, just not those Godwin favors.
[cartoon WikiWorld by Greg Williams]

In explaining Godwin’s Law, why one would prefer a cartoon from WikiWorld to Mr. Godwin is a matter of personal prejudice.

How a statement of Godwin (go ahead and refer to Hitler when you talk about Trump, or any other politician) is twisted into “So... according to Godwin himself, it's A-OK to call Donald Trump a Nazi, just not those Godwin favors,” is a mystery, especially if one reads the complete Godwin explanation, and not just a snippet quote of Godwin at WikiWorld.

YOUR SOURCE at its cited footnote 12 source, courtesy of the Wayback Machine

After some early energetic seeding on my part, “Godwin’s Law” took off in the early days of large-scale public access to the Internet. Users would see a poorly reasoned, hyperbolic invocation of Nazis or the Holocaust and call the arguer to account, claiming the shallow argument had proved (or, sometimes, had “violated”) Godwin’s Law. Soon after, Godwin’s Law propagated into the mainstream media as well. Democrats and Republicans alike invoke it from time to time — so do other political parties in the United States and around the world. Sometimes it’s invoked by a Democratic blogger; sometimes it’s cited by a Republican. The law notably surfaced recently in Canadian politics, too.
So has Godwin’s Law actually reduced spurious Hitler or Nazi or Holocaust comparisons? Obviously not — just sample your own media sources, and you’ll find that Hitler comparisons are alive and well. (My personal favorite this year: the Mets fan who likened Yankees fans to former Nazi Party members.) But I do think the meme gives Internet users a clear opportunity to think critically about shallow references to the Nazis or the Holocaust. And it exposes glib Nazi comparisons or Holocaust references to the harsh light of interrogation.
[...]
To be clear: I don’t personally believe all rational discourse has ended when Nazis or the Holocaust are invoked. But I’m pleased that people still use Godwin’s Law to force one another to argue more thoughtfully. The best way to prevent future holocausts, I believe, is not to forbear from Holocaust comparisons; instead, it’s to make sure that those comparisons are meaningful and substantive.
[...]
The one thing we shouldn’t be skeptical of is our right — our obligation, even — as ordinary individuals to use the Internet and the other tools of the digital age to challenge our would-be leaders and check the facts.
And by all means be skeptical of Godwin’s Law, too. But you don’t need me to tell you that.

That hardly supports your claim that Godwin is a nut case.

To be sure, the wardaddy mention of his school instructor having been a member of a Hitler youth group was not a comparison to anyone, and was a substantive comment.

To be equally clear, the complete post of TwelveOfTwenty #592 contains nothing but his Hitler nonsense, and does not relate to anything substantive.

To: woodpusher; BroJoeK
"It is untrue that I or anyone else in Germany wanted war in 1939." Berlin, 29 April, 1945, 4 a.m. Adolf Hitler
See how that works?
592 posted on 11/5/2021, 6:10:03 AM by TwelveOfTwenty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 590 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

The irrelevant quote of Hitler at #592 does nothing but invoke Godwin’s law. The lack of substantive content in that post was clear to see for all but those blinded by their own prejudice. There followed a quote wrongly attributed to me, and an unattributed quote for which no attribution could be provided when requested because it was a famous, albeit, bogus quote.