Is a comparison between ayn rand and adolf hitler an exception to the rule of Godwin?
Wikipedia says:
I’m arguing that a comparison is valid and that this is one of the exceptions as forseen by Godwin. Both wrote books to put promote their radical ideas. Both were radically opposed to certain groups of people. Hitler opposed jews and communists. Ayn opposed religion and communists. Neither of them could let go of the obsession with Russian communists. Both were in their own way patriottic and convinced they were saving their new homeland. Both inspire(d) great zeal in their supporters despite the unfriendly aspects of their messages. And both were essentially ignoring the lessons of the past. Most importantly I think their social darwinist ideas are just too much alike.
This should prove a lively debate. Let me just say that I am partially doing this to provoke an intelligent response (rand’s readers, like nazis, aren’t necessarily stupid ;)). (Either way the rule doesn’t apply to this post or this thread, because it doesn’t apply when the analogy is raised on purpose.) Please keep your heads cool and the arguments interesting.
That completely depends on your own personal point of view. I am also interested in how people will argue about it, like it says in the post. You know - see what people with a different opinion have to say.
So they’re uniquely alike because they both wrote books, didn’t like communists, were Social Darwinists, were patriotic and had passionate supporters? Certainly they’re alike in those ways, but hardly uniquely so.
Winston Churchill didn’t like communists, wrote books, tried to impliment Social Darwinist ideas (more so then Rand, I’d say) was patriotic and had passionate supporters (plus, both he and Hitler were (bad) painters, so far as I know, Rand didn’t paint). Is Churchill also exempt? How about the hundreds of other people who would also qualify.
Sure, as in all things. If one has an irrational hatred for Rand and wants to twist and turn enough, then they will agree with your premise…certainly Rand was JUST like Hitler (aside from being Jewish, and not into genocide as a solution to problems, and not particularly militaristic, and…well, not having really anything at all in common with Hitler beside the fact that they both have an ‘a’ somewhere in their name. Well, and an ‘r’ to…very important and vital, to be sure).
How have the responses been so far? Well, just wait…I’m sure the Rand haters will be here soon, and then you’ll have the knee jerk Rand defenders in next, and the thread can go on it’s way to the train wreck you must have wanted by starting with so provocative an OP.
No. Godwin’s Law (such as it is) exists because sooner or later in many debates someone will come along and say “You know who else would’ve done/said/thought that? Hitler!!!”
Rand serves no conceivable parallel. A bit of a hack philosopher, to be sure, but so what? Their similarities are superficial and trivial, their differences massive and significant. If and when we start seeing online discussions go the route of “Oh yeah, you know who else would’vce done/said/thought that? Rand!!!”, well, then you’ll have a point.
How many millions of people did Ayn Rand send to Death Camps?
That’s why comparing Ayn Rand to Hitler is fatuous. What’s the point of comparing her to Hitler, unless you intend to link her to mass death and destruction along the lines of the Holocaust and World War II?
You could find dozens or hundreds of similarities between Hitler and any other person on the planet. But Hitler has been turned into the symbol of ultimate evil. So unless you intend to convince people that the person you’re talking about is also an inhuman genocidal monster, why are you bringing up Hitler? I could list all the ways you’re similar to Hitler, or all the ways Gandhi was similar to Hitler. But why would I compare you to Hitler? What does the discussion gain when I compare you to Hitler?
Godwin is invoked because comparison to Hitler is an attempt to short circuit the argument, to substitute emotion for reason. And you know who else tried to substitute emotion for reason?
No. All you’ve done is bring up petty or justified shared attributes. If Rand had engaged in genocide, or if she used her cult of personality as a weapon against her enemies, then you’d have a leg to stand on.
Sorry. You are correct, and I forgot about the rule about accusing others of trolling. Still, since you brought it up I have to ask…why has this thread not been locked? Unless you think this is a serious debatable discussion here, of course…
It’s an extreme comparison, but I’m willing to give it a try.
Millions of people have written books to promote their ideas. And everyone with radical ideas (and many people who aren’t radical) is strongly opposed to some groups. That’s pretty much the definition of radicalism. So what you have here is a very shallow comparison that doesn’t justify the exception you are asking for. And that’s assuming Godwin really matters in the first place, which I don’t think it does. Invoking the Nazis is usually a cheap comparison but there are plenty of arbitrary ways to decide who won and lost a debate.
I think you need to elaborate on this. Rand was far from sympathetic but she didn’t advocate the wholesale slaughter of any group as far as I know. She thought people of great talent were not beholden to the rest of society, which I agree with to some extent, but that’s a far cry from Hitler’s racial theories. Rand was also a hardcore individualist and Hitler and the Nazis were absolutely not.
Any discussion that begins as a comparison of x and Hitler/the Nazis is on its face an exception since the comparison between the two is what the discussion is about, whether its comparing and contrasting Rand with Hitler or Santa’s elves with the SS. The original comparison may have some validity or may be entirely baseless and idiotic, but this isn’t what Godwin’s law is about. It’s about the eventuality that someone will do a Reductio ad Hitlerum in any discussion if it goes on long enough.
You know - monkeys, typewriters, Shakespeare and all that.