Hitler, That's Who!
 

So obviously as per Godwin, Hitler and the Nazis get brought up all the time, usually where they don't belong. Reason being that they have become somewhat synonymous with "bad", so logically all one has to do in a debate is find a comparison between Hitler/Nazis and their opponent's viewpoint, and they win. His viewpoint = Hitler = bad, GG.

The left is pretty horrible in this manner. Like Hitler, Bush invaded another country. Like Hitler, Bush isn't very kind to civil rights and people speaking out against him. Like Hitler, Bush is big on patriotism. Like Hitler, Bush doesn't drink alcohol (the right does a lot of the same, and has recently incorporated some nauseating bin Laden comparisons into their talking points). All of which is bullshit, because the relevant fact about Hitler was not that he invaded somewhere, or that he wasn't big on freedoms, or that he was big on patriotism, or that he didn't drink booze, or that he was a vegetarian.

The 'thing about Hitler', of course, was that he systematically exterminated eightish million people and also started a war that eventually killed close to fifty million people. That is the automatic connatation of any reference to Hitler (as it should be), and any comparison of anything to any non-exterminatory aspect of Hitler (or the Nazis) is intellectual fraud. I can see making a comparison when the object has been involved in mass exterminations, but in general such comparisons are naturally shit. For example, if person X exterminated say 6,000 people, then a comparison of him to Hitler is similar to comparing a fire hydrant to the Eiffel Tower (the man is just like Hitler (X10^-3)!).

Anyway, so I'm curious to see if anyone can find a better example than the following:
-Bill Gray

Seems to me it's just about perfect. "You know who else had an opinion on something once? HITLER, THAT'S WHO!"

Re: Hitler, That's Who!
 

What is this thread supposed to be about?

Re: Hitler, That's Who!
 

A) debate about where hitler/nazi comparisons are appropriate
B) discussion of specific examples of said
C) discussion about how the left has a "Totally worse track record than the right on this topic. In fact, their ad hominem attacks remind me of what the nazis did to their opponents in the 30's..."
D) how about that Al Gore guy?
E) Someone pointing out that global warming really is just a hoax, as we'll all find out over the next couple decades

Re: Hitler, That's Who!
 

That they did the same things or not doesn't matter, it's the manner in which those things are done. It's an easy comparison, but the nazis are a good example of an uncontrolled, unhindered political power.

^^^

Hahaha what?

He supports reasonable things, he may not always go about them in the right way but he's a "better" example of a US politican.

Al Gore may not be the best proponent of a thing ever, but this is laughable.

Re: Hitler, That's Who!
 

Hitler and the nazi's exist as a precedent and historical reminder of the dangers of unconstrained nationalism guised as innocent "Patriotism". Without our experience of the nazis, the language used by the Bush administration (for one) would be even more dangerous than it is.

Patriotism is a state tool, and an inherently bad thing; comparisons are accurate.

Also, its also a case of having to use propaganda to fight propaganda, a reflection on political comment as a whole

Re: Hitler, That's Who!
 

A B) Of course they are. The sheer number of examples you give yourself is proof enough. Now, GB may not have started any genocides, but neither had Hitler by 1940. Bush' war is still its infancy though, so there is plenty of time :)

C) Yes, the slightly less right may have a totally worse track record.. whoever's responsible for what over at your side I don't really care much about though, I'm hard-pressed to see any differences anyways.

D) The man everybody loves to hate. I saw him give a speech at a seminar. The mongchop crowd cheering at everything he said scared me.. sad really, as he probably said stuff that made sense.

E) Yeah.. and smoking is perfectly healthy.

Re: Hitler, That's Who!
 

I agree that the word is used too much, but I think the word racists and fascists is more misused. The elite on the left here is often implying that the farright (like FRP, Norway's biggest party atm at polls) is racists, and has fascistsoid opinions on certain cases. However, they do not understand the difference between racism (as I do not doubt several leading FRP'ers are, I know it!) and fear of the alien that racists play on. It's a very vital difference, and when people feel like they are branded racists when they aren't the word miss its true meaning and its more difficult to explain to them WHY the poltics of FRP (and many other parties, I could argue about racism in the state in general) and such they cement those people (or voters, as they have been reduced to) into a firmer stance. Also, the true racists (like neonazies or FRP) can hide more easily in the general public. Fascist is likewise a word that is used too much by young people in politics, I was like that myself when I was younger.

However, as people above me have explained better, Bush CAN in many areas be better compared with Hitler/fascism then t.ex Gore. Patriotism, warlust, populism, nationbuidling and making a common enemy is things that spring to mind. His rants about parts of the world does not class in the same category as Hitler's rants about Jews and others, but they are in some cases pretty racist.

And Hitler was not a vegetarian, his doctor just recomended him to cut out meat. Check his chef's book to see what he ate :)

Re: Hitler, That's Who!
 

He was an animal lover though, as are all truly despicable people.

Re: Hitler, That's Who!
 

Oh sup. Although that wasn't Hitler, of course. That was Goering.

Knew a thing or two, those Nazis.

Re: Hitler, That's Who!
 

If you don't think Hitler's slaughter of the Jews, gypsies and others had anything to do with his stance on individual rights nor think that the resulting world war had anything to do with his aggressive foreign policy you're at best deluded.

Just because you're not as bad as Hitler doesn't mean you aren't a complete shit.

Re: Hitler, That's Who!
 

I was about to post that quote :(.

On the topic: Politicians used to do that quite a lot around here in the last years. Ofc, there always was some public outcry about how anyone could compare anyone to Hitler, with the result that the whole incident got a lot more media attention than it deserved. It somehow stop a year or so ago.
To be honest, I don't think that much can be done about it, when did a politician ever leave out an opportunity to score some cheap hit on someone in another party?

Re: Hitler, That's Who!
 

Hitler actually won an election lolerz

Re: Hitler, That's Who!
 

You can do an amusing one by saying both got into power despite not winning the popular vote but then were able to stay in once their party started rigging elections :(

Re: Hitler, That's Who!
 

Depends how you define genocide. The SS were shooting the Polish upper and middle classes en-masse from 1939 onwards, not to mention the ghettoisation and sometimes ad hoc slaughter of Poland's Jewish populations.

Re: Hitler, That's Who!
 

Most people use the legal definition, which is actually fairly broad in that it covers a lot more than the literal extermination of an ethnic group (which is what many perceive it to be).

Re: Hitler, That's Who!
 

that's not exactly TOP SECRET NAZI TECHNOLOGY there though; every country that has ever gone to war has used almost that exact same formula to get its people to rise up and fight (though usually they don't phrase it in such a cynical way).

tell the people they are under attack, and call the pacifists unpatriotic?

that's certainly what Roosevelt did (though there were likely few pacifists), and stalin, and Churchill. that's also how we got into Vietnam, and Korea, and Iraq (twice!).

'the consequences of not acting far outway the consequences of acting' etc., the real question, of course, being: are we really "under attack"? obviously nazi germany wasn't literally 'under attack' at the time, and america wasn't 'under attack' by iraq either (right wing nuts might disagree with me there). but one might reasonably argue that 'being under attack' in the literal sense isn't an absolute prerequisite for a just war; perhaps america (the world?) would have been better off intervening with germany earlier, likely we would have been better off squishing the Taliban at an earlier date. another question: "can this 'attack' (which may not be military, it could be economic, social, spiritual, or what have you) be effectively responded to by military force?"

the goering quote, while chilling in its applicability, source, and cynicism, leads to only the following comparison between bush and hitler: they both started wars.i'm not arguing that bush isn't horrible, i'm saying that aside from being bad, starting wars, and not drinking, they aren't particularly comparable. to be fair, there havent' been many people this 'bad' who have also started major wars and avoided alcohol in recent history, so many a comparison was inevitable.

anyway, roosevelt tossed a lot of individual rights out the window, but managed to avoid slaughtering jews and gypsies. i would argue that hitler's extermination of jews and gypsies had to do with his belief that it was okay for the government to exterminate jews and gypsies, and did not extend from any belief on his part that it was okay for the government to, say, tap phone lines and access people's library records. and obviously i'm not arguing that hitler's foreign policy had nothing to do with world war II.

Re: Hitler, That's Who!
 

It usually isn't performed in such a cynical way as the method of getting support for the recent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Re: Hitler, That's Who!
 

Most governments, actually pretty much all, have tossed away some individual rights. However it's the extent to which Bush is willing to go on comparatively minor provocation and the attitude towards questioning of the necessity of this prevalent among many that brings up the comparison. Moreover being willing to infringe dramatically on people's rights is generally indicative, but not completely so I suppose, of a similar contempt for their lives. He who is not a man as we are can be killed easier than he who is.

Re: Hitler, That's Who!
 

I can accept that you have 'gone loopy' as many of our american posters can end up doing.

I can forgive the angry rants which come from no-where.

It's just the sheer abuse of history that I object to.

Re: Hitler, That's Who!
 

i really don't think i should have to justify this, but i fear that certain people are under the misimpression that this is some sort of defense of the bush administration. it certainly isn't; if i have an ulterior motive in this topic, it is to get ahead of the curve on the inevitable comparisons of each and every (see OP) left-leaning candidate in 2008 to some aspect of the ww2 axis.

i just chose examples relating to bush because i like to pretend that i'm 'fair and balanced'; in general it's hard to find negative things to say about bush that i won't agree with,

but i just happen to find that saying "like hitler except for the whole holocaust thing" is a lot like "like water except for the whole wet thing"egad, i've been caught revisionating.

i admit it: roosevelt never said nor implied that america was under attack,

and churchill certainly never made any appeals to british patriotism.

Re: Hitler, That's Who!
 

The old man forgot to mention that? :confused:

Re: Hitler, That's Who!
 

I don't recall him declaring war ...

P.S. yes you have gone loopy. I am not privy to the reason why our american posters sometimes go loopy. Indeed it upsets me greatly. To be truthful if dda ever did I think I would leave the internet

Re: Hitler, That's Who!
 

I don't know anything.

Re: Hitler, That's Who!
 

i certainly don't mean to upset,

and i can't really argue against me being 'loopy',

but i think i can well argue that isn't any recent change in my posting behavior.

that's some wacky shit right there i'll tell you what.

Re: Hitler, That's Who!
 

so it all started 4th down.

(whacky is fine. bizare political rants are not)

Re: Hitler, That's Who!
 

or 216th...earlier if they hadn't purged the database.
http://pirate.planetarion.com/showthread.php?t=152021
http://pirate.planetarion.com/showthread.php?t=152298
http://pirate.planetarion.com/showthread.php?t=152916
http://pirate.planetarion.com/showthread.php?t=154141
k.

Re: Hitler, That's Who!
 

I like acro's threads; although I don't understand what's he's on about in half of them (which sounds bad I suppose but actually puts him ahead of many others).


Re: Gore. He is/was considered one of the most boring US politicians (in a country where the title is hotly contested). Now he's one of the Gulfstream Enviromentalists who flies around the country (world in Gore's case) telling everyone else to lower their emissions. Comparing him to Hitler is pretty silly.