Comparing somebody with Hilter is not unfair.

[benburch]

It is likening somebody to Hitler that is unfair.

In a recent dust-up, one talk show host compared another with Hitler. To paraphrase, "Caller: He must be good, he has a lot of followers. Host: So did Hitler".

I assert this was not unfair at all, as it was pointing out the fallacy of assuming that having a lot of followers makes one good. It does not say that the person being referred to was in any way shape or form LIKE Hitler.

Now, were somebody to say "Like Hitler, he has many blindly-devoted followers.", well, THAT would be grossly unfair.

Can you see the distinction?

[Poiuyt]

1. You COULD compare Hitler and Mother Teresa

There wouldn't be many similarities, but that doesn't mean you couldn't compare them. (Hitler would have more similarities to a certain un-named US president)

[peaches2003]

2. Why?

QUOTE: Now, were somebody to say "Like Hitler, he has many blindly-devoted followers.", well, THAT would be grossly unfair.

Why? If the shoe fits.....

[chicofaraby]

3. I'll stop comparing * to Hitler

When he stops acting like Hitler.

[Swamp Rat]

4. Yes, I see the distinction

However, given more time Bushler would likely (de)evolve to the same point as Hitler, and therefore be much more like him (as a byproduct of capitalism's natural tendency toward fascism).

[unblock]

5. first, no such thing as "unfair" in politics

second, the problem with bringing up hitler is that he has been vastly overly demonized for his mass murders, of jews in particular. people forget that he was charismatic, had staunch support of a very vocal minority, gained power through mostly democratic means (albeit by corrupting various institutions), covered his tracks legally, used the support of the church and religion to his advantage, brought some arguably good results to his country in the short term (at least if you weren't in one of the "inferior" groups), restricted human rights, invented their own version of the "truth", railed against communism, atheism, and terrorism, launched optional wars but called them necessary pre-emptive strikes to defend his country, and so on.

people forget all that an zero in on the mass murdering thing. they can't get past this. which is where we jews have failed miserably in our mission to ensure that THAT will never happen again. we unfortunately so demonized hitler that it CAN happen again, all a hitler-wannabe needs to do is to keep the murdering wolves on a leash, at least until complete control is achieved.

and i think shrub has proved this to be the case. whether or not he would ever become a mass murder a la hitler is beside the point. the point is that he has shown the way. he has used SO MUCH that is SO SIMILAR to what hitler did, aside from the actual violence. a slightly more skilled person might have pulled it off. who knows, maybe shrub and the gang may yet pull it off, or maybe they will merely shuffle around the characters to fool us once again.

oh, and yes, i see the distinction :)

[chicofaraby]

7. Exactly what I mean when I say

that * acts like Hitler.

I don't mean he kills Jews. I mean he is using hate, lies and fear to push an unconscionable agenda.

[Lerkfish]

8. excellent observation. the problem is that you cannot make the comparison

without someone objecting that UNLESS Bush kills exactly as many people as Hitler, or orders his regime in exactlty the same way, its unfair to learn from history and be wary of Bush.

[Lerkfish]

6. as I said in another thread: all comparisons are valid, because

definition: The act of comparing or the process of being compared.
A statement or estimate of similarities and differences.

seeing what is alike, and what is different, is part of making a comparison. The problem is not to think that noting the differences erases the similarities. or vice versa. in a comparison, there are both.

[Dogmudgeon]

9. But it's an INTERNET LAW!

Since it's been expressed as a humorous, quasi-scientific "law", it has become a kind of Law of the Internet. Every wiseass within a ten-seconds' ping will bwa-ha at you for raising the topic. It would be interesting to see the stats on just DU's "Mr. Rofl" icon alone.
By the way, here's "Mr. Rofl" ==> :rofl:

(I have now increased that stat by one, but I'm sure it scarcely makes a dent.)

However, it might be just as well, because people really need to exercise their metaphor-creating abilities. So many cliches! I myself am particularly pained by the Fred Rogers phrase -- "Can you say _________ ? I knew you could." The Desi Arnaz cliche was also getting pretty bad for a while, but it seems to be going away.

Plus, a lot of people seem to think that any and all forms of tyranny must henceforth be like Naziism. It means that they won't be looking when the real thing comes along. Kind of like falling in love, except tyranny will make you much more miserable than even love.

When it comes to people like ... oh, like George Bush ... several hours a day of metaphorizing would result in a whole palette of interesting, colorful, meaningful turns of phrase. I say, we ought to do it. Simply invoking Hitler has lost its punch, and dilutes the conversation. But comparing him to Suparmurat Niyazov ... now there's a raving lunatic!

--p!

[sam sarrha]

10. well Hitler was a pathetic drug addict & surrounded himself with incompetent

corrupt fascist conies who invaded a small defenseless country under false pretenses for profit..

[lala_rawraw]

11. I think it is much more accurate

to compare the Nazi movement with the current administration, than to compare Hitler with Bush, as they are vastly different. more accurately, I would say that Bush is like Hindenburg and Cheney is closer to the Hitler MO, with Rove as... fill in the obvious blank:)

[MrModerate]

12. With regard to Hitler comparisons, historical facts . . .

Are irrelevant. The "rule" in civilized debate is that once you trot out the Hitler comparison, you are no longer to be taken seriously.

Because there is no separating Hitler the determined and patient revolutionary, the political mastermind, the Svengali who bent the minds of the German military and much of the German public, from the Hitler who organized and went a long way to carrying out the Final Solution.

Corpse for corpse, Stalin probably was responsible for more deaths; Mao probably killed more, too. But Hitler made extermination into POLICY, in a way that is positively inhuman.

So don't bother comparing Schimpanski* with Hitler -- not if the intent of your comment is to educate or convince someone not already of the same opinion -- they'll just shut you down and your point will be lost.

Find some other historical comparison -- or point out that Bush is unique in his world-historical badness, as US presidents go -- but leave the Hitler stuff at home, or you'll be labled a crank.

*"Schimpanski" -- what the July 1944 plotters called the target of their little excercise.

[sam sarrha]

13. good points, Mao killed over 20,000,000 killing off the sparrows in a syphilis

insuced mania .. he believed that bug eating sparrows were eating up the crops and had them all killed off..

[MrModerate]

14. Well, I was always taught that the Ukrainian famine . . .

Was deliberate, and intent to decimate the strongest ethnic groups in the region 8 times over, so they could be more easily assimilated as "Soviets."

But I'll grant you -- Stalin had a reputation for viscerally hating his enemies, almost in a retail way (although he had 'em killed wholesale), but you don't get the feeling that he stopped thinking of them as people. I don't think Hitler considered his vicitims at be of the same species.

(Not to get the PETA folks mad a me, just because a creature IS of a different species, it doesn't meen you can exterminate them. Except for viruses, of course.)

[sam sarrha]

15. Stalin was bat shit crazy from Syphilis too, what mao did was kill off the

sparrows to increase agricultural production, but the sparrows ate the bugs and the following crop failures caused famines that ended up starving well over 20 million.

[laheina]

16. While I see and understand your distinction,

my personal thought on this matter is that it is unfair to Hitler's *victims* to use this comparison lightly. Likening another to him, or even invoking his name in this manner, breeds the lightness and familiarity of such frequent and common exposure. If one is to point out a fallacy--do it directly. Why spice it up? The fact that talk show hosts would converse in this manner should demonstrate why it is uncivil.

Secondly, bringing Hitler into civilized debate is a fallacy in itself. Unless one is using this method in a close parallel that warrants it--i.e. a political leader whose policies lead to a large number of deaths, who uses blatant propaganda, who heads a fascist regime, etc. etc.--than it is being used as a faulty emotional appeal, meaning that it is designed to evoke strong emotions in the listeners/readers that aren't really about the topic at hand. Not only is it fallacious, but it shows a lack of reason and skill in the one who invokes it.