What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Hitler analogies suck. (1 Viewer)

Vlad the Impaler comes to mind. So does Mao-Tse-Dung, Pol Pot, Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, most Roman Emperors, Peter the Great, Lenin, Stalin, etc. We have had several nasty characters in the history of the world.I agree the analogy is overdone to the point of being nauseous though.
Good list of bad/evil people. I'll add Idi Amin & Moses to that list.
Moses? Why is that?
There are several stories in the Old Testament about Moses being a tyrant, one of the worst:They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho. Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.Numbers 31:7-18 NLT
Yeah that sounds pretty gruesome. Not unusual for the time period, but pretty gruesome nevertheless. I'd have kept the younger women that weren't virgins too, myself.
 
Good that Tim doesn't live in Miami. Many older Cubans exiles compare Fidel and Che to Hitler. They even say that Che Guevara was worse because he actually killed with his own hands and enjoyed it. The Cubans are frustrated with the glamorization of Che through his iconic photo and the admiration of Castro by unenlightened people like Jack Nicholson.

 
Regarding all the mass murderers mentioned in this thread: I could make a very good argument that none of them are analogous to Hitler, because Hitler is unique even among mass murderers, for several historical reasons. But that wasn't my point really; I am referring specifically to American politics and culture and the fact that we have no Hitlers here. It would be just as stupid to compare Bush to Polpot, or Obama to Ivan the Terrible. These sort of comparisons are pretty disgusting, IMO.With regard to Hitler, historically this comparison has been made by liberals. There is not one Republican president or prominent conservative politician in this country in the last several decades who hasn't been compared to Hitler on a continual basis by progressives. And conservatism in general is compared to fascism. As recently as 2008, I would have stated that this was primarily a liberal phenomenon. But in the past two years, ever since Obama took office, conservatives have grabbed this revolting analogy and made it their own. Now suddenly it is the Democrats who are the new Hitlers. Just terrible.
I wouldn't compare him to Hitler - one could compare him to Marx or Engels maybe, or even Lincoln in some regards (though comparing Bush to Lincoln might be a better analogy). Obviously, comparing him to some Muslim despot is also repugnant. Personally if I were to compare him to anyone, it would be Carter.
 
Honestly, one of the biggest problems I have with it is that it seems to minimize a lot of the other real atrocities that have occurred in two different ways:1) By comparing lots of non-atrocities to Hitler/Holocaust, it trivializes real atrocities, including that of the Holocaust. Any person that compares a politician that they don't like to Hitler or a policy they don't like to the Third Reich is essentially mocking the true horror of the Holocaust2) Elevating the Holocaust over every other evil does a disservice to those evils as well. This principally happens/happened with the horrible slaughters of tens of millions of people by the communists in Russia, China, Cambodia, North Korea, etc. during the 20th century. Up to 120 MILLION people lost their lives due to outright murders, conditions in prison camps and starvation in communist countries. The educated and elite were principal targets and then the poor suffered when there was no food. These evils and many like them seem to be acknowledged with a slight nod followed by "but Hitler, now THERE was a terrible guy!"
:goodposting:
 
Good that Tim doesn't live in Miami. Many older Cubans exiles compare Fidel and Che to Hitler. They even say that Che Guevara was worse because he actually killed with his own hands and enjoyed it. The Cubans are frustrated with the glamorization of Che through his iconic photo and the admiration of Castro by unenlightened people like Jack Nicholson.
Not even close. Older Cuban exiles are upset because they had their #### taken away by Fidel and Che, but the mass extermination industrial complex created by Nazi Germany was 1000x worse than anything that went on in Cuba.
 
George Soros said yesterday that Fox News reminded him of Goebbels Ministry of Propaganda.STOP IT!!!!
What's wrong with that? Seriously.You've never hear of hyperbole?
There's.....umm... a WHOLE LOT wrong with that. WE really don't need that kind of hyperbole (unless it's SNL or some other comedic show designed around hyperbole).
So can we get some sort of list as to what is acceptable?
 
George Soros said yesterday that Fox News reminded him of Goebbels Ministry of Propaganda.STOP IT!!!!
What's wrong with that? Seriously.You've never hear of hyperbole?
It's stupid. It's offensive, IMO. I can't stand Fox News. But this is just way out of bounds. We need to shun anyone who makes these analogies. (That includes many of the hosts of Fox News BTW, especially Glenn Beck who does it all the time.)
 
A little known fact about Hitler, he had 11 toes

so if you have 11 toes, you could be reasonably compared to hitler, from a podiatrist's point of view.

or from Rex Ryan's point of view, for that matter.

 
George Soros said yesterday that Fox News reminded him of Goebbels Ministry of Propaganda.STOP IT!!!!
What's wrong with that? Seriously.You've never hear of hyperbole?
It's stupid. It's offensive, IMO. I can't stand Fox News. But this is just way out of bounds. We need to shun anyone who makes these analogies. (That includes many of the hosts of Fox News BTW, especially Glenn Beck who does it all the time.)
Why is it offensive? Why is it out of bounds?IT'S HYPERBOLE"It's hot as hell in the summer". "Jimi Hendrix was a guitar god".
 
George Soros said yesterday that Fox News reminded him of Goebbels Ministry of Propaganda.

STOP IT!!!!
What's wrong with that? Seriously.You've never hear of hyperbole?
It's stupid. It's offensive, IMO. I can't stand Fox News. But this is just way out of bounds. We need to shun anyone who makes these analogies. (That includes many of the hosts of Fox News BTW, especially Glenn Beck who does it all the time.)
Why is it offensive? Why is it out of bounds?IT'S HYPERBOLE

"It's hot as hell in the summer". "Jimi Hendrix was a guitar god".
how is that hyperbole?do you have 11 toes?

 
George Soros said yesterday that Fox News reminded him of Goebbels Ministry of Propaganda.STOP IT!!!!
What's wrong with that? Seriously.You've never hear of hyperbole?
It's stupid. It's offensive, IMO. I can't stand Fox News. But this is just way out of bounds. We need to shun anyone who makes these analogies. (That includes many of the hosts of Fox News BTW, especially Glenn Beck who does it all the time.)
Hitler analogies, if properly used, convey a very critical message that we really shouldn't forget--that is that democracy is a fragile thing and that we often have to pay a price to maintain a vibrant democracy. The "Hitler" lesson, in my opinion, is that one can exploit a situation to incrementally accumulate power that could eventually threaten the democracy. The ill-informed don't know that in many respects Germany had a more diverse democracy than we have because they had a greater number of political parties yet Hitler was able to exploit their dire economic situation, create additional catalysts (Reichstag Fire) and ended up pushing through the Enabling Act even though the Nazi party had never received a majority of the vote in any open election. I'm a Republican and even I wince at what happened in the US following a relatively minor attack compared to what's possible--the Patriot Act, Gitmo, the Iraq war. Heck, I saw muslims booted off of airplane's first hand. Now imagine if it had been a larger attack and it had happened during the financial collapse in '08. Sure these analogies are over-used and many ill-informed people interpret them incorrectly, but the true lesson--that we have to be mindful of the larger implications of our actions during unsettling times--is one that needs to be repeated.
 
timschochet, on 14 Sept 2010 - 2:14 PM, said:

The truth is that, almost from the beginning of his life, Adolf Hitler destested all forms of religion, especially Christianity. He admired the ways the Catholic church used symbolism and ritual and imitated this in the Nazi party. But he saw his movement as opposition to the Church, and this is clear from his very early speeches. Hitler's two greatest influences on his thinking about religion in the early years were Nietzsche and Hegel, both of whom considered German culture heavily weakened by Christianity. His greatest romantic influence was Wagner, who sought to return Germany to the anti-Christian folk of the pagan gods. Hitler chose the swastika as the Nazi symbol very specifically as an alternative to the cross.

All of Hitler's speeches and vague mentionings that appear to be favorable of Christianity were nothing more than a sop to the Bavarian working class, which was strongly Catholic and which Hitler needed to soldify power in the early years. He admitted as much to his cohorts, according to direct sources (Joseph Goebbels' diary among others.) Once in power, Hitler and his pal Walter Rosenberg, a lifetime opponent of the church, immediately began persecuting ministers and priests. Their ultimate goal was a Germany without Christianity.

All of this is very well established in history, and only certain people with an axe to grind are attempting to rewrite the facts. As most people here know, I am an atheist myself, and I have no love for religion. But what I really hate is when people attempt to twist facts in order to argue their warped POV.

But again- (and this will be my last post on it because I don't want to hijack the thread)- the symbolism that the Nazis used- all the candlelight marches designed by Goebbels, as seen in the film Triumph of the Will, etc.- played into emotions that the German people already had. It didn't change their feelings or opinions. Populism never does, it takes advantage of emotions that already exist, and Hitler was the greatest populist of all time. If you want to argue that some behavior was changed as a result of the Nazi party, that's a different story, but not from symbolism.
timschochet, on 19 Aug 2014 - 11:19 AM, said:

The Nazis did not change the behavior of the German people. They capitalized on feelings that had always been there.
Of course this has everything to do with the Ferguson MO protests.

But wow, how can you of all people say that Hitler and the Nazis did not change behavior.

Excuse making for authoritarians (the worst kind here) yet again.

 
Are you really enjoying this?

The Nazis used symbolism. The Nazis changed the behavior of some Germans. But the symbolism that the Nazis used did not change the behavior; that served to reinforce feelings that were already there. And I didn't bring up the Nazis in the Ferguson thread; that was Henry Ford (incidentally the real Henry Ford was a deep admirer of the Nazis).

That's what I was trying to say. When I wrote that the Nazis didn't change behavior, I thought it would be clear that I was discussing symbolism, since that was the topic at hand. Of course overall the Nazis changed behavior. If I was unclear I apologize. How you take any part of this and think that I am a defender of authoritarianism is beyond me.

 
(incidentally the real Henry Ford was a deep admirer of the Nazis).
Roger Meyers senior, the gentle genius behind Itchy and Scratchy, loved and cared about almost all the peoples of the world. And he, in turn,was beloved by the world, except in 1938 when he was criticized for his controversial cartoon, "Nazi Supermen Are Our Superiors".

 
Are you really enjoying this?

The Nazis used symbolism. The Nazis changed the behavior of some Germans. But the symbolism that the Nazis used did not change the behavior; that served to reinforce feelings that were already there. And I didn't bring up the Nazis in the Ferguson thread; that was Henry Ford (incidentally the real Henry Ford was a deep admirer of the Nazis).

That's what I was trying to say. When I wrote that the Nazis didn't change behavior, I thought it would be clear that I was discussing symbolism, since that was the topic at hand. Of course overall the Nazis changed behavior. If I was unclear I apologize. How you take any part of this and think that I am a defender of authoritarianism is beyond me.
What was the purpose of symbolism?

 
Are you really enjoying this?

The Nazis used symbolism. The Nazis changed the behavior of some Germans. But the symbolism that the Nazis used did not change the behavior; that served to reinforce feelings that were already there. And I didn't bring up the Nazis in the Ferguson thread; that was Henry Ford (incidentally the real Henry Ford was a deep admirer of the Nazis).

That's what I was trying to say. When I wrote that the Nazis didn't change behavior, I thought it would be clear that I was discussing symbolism, since that was the topic at hand. Of course overall the Nazis changed behavior. If I was unclear I apologize. How you take any part of this and think that I am a defender of authoritarianism is beyond me.
You don't understand how this works?

The Nazis changed feelings, changed behavior, changed a whole country and the world for the worse. Through violence, corruption, intimidation. It's important, it's relevant, it certainly doesn't belong in the Ferguson MO thread but it's important you get it right in your own head.

 
Are you really enjoying this?

The Nazis used symbolism. The Nazis changed the behavior of some Germans. But the symbolism that the Nazis used did not change the behavior; that served to reinforce feelings that were already there. And I didn't bring up the Nazis in the Ferguson thread; that was Henry Ford (incidentally the real Henry Ford was a deep admirer of the Nazis).

That's what I was trying to say. When I wrote that the Nazis didn't change behavior, I thought it would be clear that I was discussing symbolism, since that was the topic at hand. Of course overall the Nazis changed behavior. If I was unclear I apologize. How you take any part of this and think that I am a defender of authoritarianism is beyond me.
You don't understand how this works?

The Nazis changed feelings, changed behavior, changed a whole country and the world for the worse. Through violence, corruption, intimidation. It's important, it's relevant, it certainly doesn't belong in the Ferguson MO thread but it's important you get it right in your own head.
I don't think Tim actually believes that the Nazis didn't change things in Germany. I just think he takes ridiculous positions without thinking once he's backed into a corner.

 
Are you really enjoying this?

The Nazis used symbolism. The Nazis changed the behavior of some Germans. But the symbolism that the Nazis used did not change the behavior; that served to reinforce feelings that were already there. And I didn't bring up the Nazis in the Ferguson thread; that was Henry Ford (incidentally the real Henry Ford was a deep admirer of the Nazis).

That's what I was trying to say. When I wrote that the Nazis didn't change behavior, I thought it would be clear that I was discussing symbolism, since that was the topic at hand. Of course overall the Nazis changed behavior. If I was unclear I apologize. How you take any part of this and think that I am a defender of authoritarianism is beyond me.
You don't understand how this works?

The Nazis changed feelings, changed behavior, changed a whole country and the world for the worse. Through violence, corruption, intimidation. It's important, it's relevant, it certainly doesn't belong in the Ferguson MO thread but it's important you get it right in your own head.
Ok Tim, I looked it up, you're right, Henry did bring it up. However it was valid, it reinforces the point, you cannot really see the issue with militarization of the local constabularies across the country and specifically in Ferguson?

I think your defense is explicitly authoritarian, it's an argument that legitimizes the no. 1 tool for authoritarianism, heck intimidation of the local populace is authoritarianism or at least a classic hallmark.

 
Are you really enjoying this?

The Nazis used symbolism. The Nazis changed the behavior of some Germans. But the symbolism that the Nazis used did not change the behavior; that served to reinforce feelings that were already there. And I didn't bring up the Nazis in the Ferguson thread; that was Henry Ford (incidentally the real Henry Ford was a deep admirer of the Nazis).

That's what I was trying to say. When I wrote that the Nazis didn't change behavior, I thought it would be clear that I was discussing symbolism, since that was the topic at hand. Of course overall the Nazis changed behavior. If I was unclear I apologize. How you take any part of this and think that I am a defender of authoritarianism is beyond me.
You don't understand how this works?

The Nazis changed feelings, changed behavior, changed a whole country and the world for the worse. Through violence, corruption, intimidation. It's important, it's relevant, it certainly doesn't belong in the Ferguson MO thread but it's important you get it right in your own head.
I don't think Tim actually believes that the Nazis didn't change things in Germany. I just think he takes ridiculous positions without thinking once he's backed into a corner.
He says some pretty extreme things about some pretty important subjects. From time to time. He often is the voice of moderation and reason (or tries to be, which I respect) but good grief.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Are you really enjoying this?

The Nazis used symbolism. The Nazis changed the behavior of some Germans. But the symbolism that the Nazis used did not change the behavior; that served to reinforce feelings that were already there. And I didn't bring up the Nazis in the Ferguson thread; that was Henry Ford (incidentally the real Henry Ford was a deep admirer of the Nazis).

That's what I was trying to say. When I wrote that the Nazis didn't change behavior, I thought it would be clear that I was discussing symbolism, since that was the topic at hand. Of course overall the Nazis changed behavior. If I was unclear I apologize. How you take any part of this and think that I am a defender of authoritarianism is beyond me.
You don't understand how this works?

The Nazis changed feelings, changed behavior, changed a whole country and the world for the worse. Through violence, corruption, intimidation. It's important, it's relevant, it certainly doesn't belong in the Ferguson MO thread but it's important you get it right in your own head.
Ok Tim, I looked it up, you're right, Henry did bring it up. However it was valid, it reinforces the point, you cannot really see the issue with militarization of the local constabularies across the country and specifically in Ferguson?

I think your defense is explicitly authoritarian, it's an argument that legitimizes the no. 1 tool for authoritarianism, heck intimidation of the local populace is authoritarianism or at least a classic hallmark.
The only thing brought up was the fact that he had discussed symbolism as a tool of the Nazi regime before saying he didn't think he'd ever discussed symbolism as a tool of control. It devolved. I have that effect on people.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top