So, ‘crimes against humanity’ is (are) a legitimate reason to compare the accused to being similar to the Nazis?
I don’t disagree. I am merely asking for elucidation.
So, ‘crimes against humanity’ is (are) a legitimate reason to compare the accused to being similar to the Nazis?
I don’t disagree. I am merely asking for elucidation.
Sure, but as I said, it may be an overwrought or strained comparison.
Yes. I agree. It is used as a commentary rather than as a genuine comparison most of the time.
In a debate, the only reason to bring up Nazis is to conjure up images of genocide, or actions that are leading up genocide. That’s what picture is seared into our brains. If you’re comparison falls short of that, you are engaging in an appeal to emotion to bolster your argument.
Aggressive war isn’t genocide, but the Nazis were condemned for waging it, and international law condemns it today. A nation that wages aggressive war today is fair game for a Nazi comparison.
Nope. As I said, the image conjured up by Nazis is genocide. It’s baggage that comes with the name. If you’re not talking about genocide, a comparison to Nazis is not a valid debate technique. It’s an appeal to emotion.
The Nazi’s were condemed for a lot of things. Political violence, breaking treaties, seizing property of their citizens, terror bombing, etc etc.
But I think John Mace is right that the Nazi’s are first and foremost linked in peoples minds with organized genocide, and the association is so strong that even if you honestly want to compare them in some other arena, the association with the Holocaust is strong enough that its going to end up poising whatever comparison your trying to make.
Then you’re using your own definition of godwinizing. Comparing a nation that wages aggressive war, or violates the civil rights of a particular subset of its citizens, or brutally represses dissent, or any number of other actions to the Nazis is a perfectly legitimate, substantive comparison. If you believe it’s frivolous in a particular instance, it’s up to you to point out why (that is, if you’re actually interested in convincing people).
But what about the following?
“I don’t believe the death penalty is ever justified.”
“So even if we’d captured Hitler, it would’ve been wrong to execute him?”
There is one perfectly legitimate negative argument IMO that invokes the Nazis:
Proposition: A did X, so A are the Good Guys™.
Refutation: Nazi Germany also did X, so doing X does not necessary make you a Good Guy™.
Another valid argument using the Nazis.
“X* would never do that!”
“But the Nazis were X, and they did!”
*X being a group that the Nazis overlapped with; humans, the government, Christians, Germans, modern industrial nation, whatever.
This is probably true in most cases. But that’s why Mike Godwin came up with his law and propagated it all over Usenet. He wanted people to think carefully before they made a Nazi comparison, to take it more seriously so it wouldn’t cheapen the memory of their crimes (I think he’s been pretty successful).
But the point was never to forbid any comparison to Nazis. Mike Godwin:
http://www.jewcy.com/arts-and-culture/i_seem_be_verb_18_years_godwins_law
Huh. I learn something new every day. Today, apparently, it is about Godwin’s Law. My understanding of the point of Godwin’s Law was that as soon as someone’s position is compared to Hitler, civil discussion was over and the flame war would begin. MOIDALIZE’s link taught me that Mike Godwin wanted to reduce the trivialization of references to Hitler and genocide.
In response to the OP, there are times when current events can reasonably be compared to Hitler’s actions in one way or another. However, I do think that my earlier understanding of the progress of Internet discussions is still valid–any such comparison is more likely to draw flames than either introspection or reasoned response.
Cause you know who else responded reasonably?
Thomas Jefferson?
Hypothetically, if Tim Tebow was a vegetarian who hated smoking, it’s still unreasonable to make a Hitler comparison, right? If he grew a toothbrush mustache and wore a swastika armband, he’s still not comparable. Even if, unthinkably, he and his friends get together and plot to kill someone who happens to be Jewish, he’s still not really worthy of the Hitler comparison.
What if they did it twice? Or seven times? What I’m getting at is there’s probably a number Jews he could kill that below that number, he’s still not comparable to Hitler, but above it, he is. I think we should try to deduce that number. We can call it Godwin’s number. It’s for science.
You know who liked talking about Hitler a lot?
Hitler.
(damn I’m like Hitler now too…)
You know who never accused people of being like Hitler? Hitler.
So ironically, the person calling everyone else Hitler is the only one who’s safe.
Just an observation, but related…
It all ways annoys me when smug, comfortably off people living in a Western Liberal Democracy; complain that they’re living in a Fascist state because an LEO has arrested one of their friends for obstruction, or they’re not allowed to occupy the local council offices etc.etc.
Are they really so ignorant that they honestly don’t know the difference between living under a genocidal tyrant operating outside of any legal code, and their being asked to move on because they’re blocking the traffic (Illegally)when they’re complaining about Globalisation or whatever ?
And do they realise just how offensive they are to REAL victims of tyranny, who never know what the next day will bring them ?
But they don’t seem too worried about that, they’re more concerned in being involved in the latest political craze (Arab Spring ,Yeah Baby !).
Or trying to appear sexy and moody to members of the opposite sex by showing what rebels they are.
Unfortunately the damage that they do lives on well after, they’ve dropped politics for sex, or bringing up families etc.
Just ask the average Iranian in the street.
I have a friend who was in Berlin in the 30s and 40s and was a member of Hitler’s Youth Corp. During the run up to the Second Gulf War, he said several times that it reminded him of the Nazi war rhetoric preceding WWII.
So, I like to think I’ve got a “Get Out of Jail” card to compare Bush and Cheney to Hitler: a first hand witness who says it’s (in some respects) valid.