• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Using Hitler as a tool in argumentation and debate

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
The comparison is fine when it's appropriate, but it shouldn't be misused.

When I first saw the Blues Brothers, I thought the screenwriters were being lazy by making the villains "Illinois Nazis." I thought that the idea of Nazis in Illinois was outlandish and ridiculous, and I thought they were just thoughtlessly latching onto characters that the audience would recognize as the villains without having to do much to establish them that way.

... but then later on, I discovered that Illinois Nazis in the 70s were a real thing:

National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie - Wikipedia

Suddenly, I realized that what I had originally taken as a tackish screenwriter trope was actually a pretty on-point response to very current events and issues.


Short version: make sure you know why someone is using Hitler or Nazi analogies before you criticize them for doing it.

I think in The Blues Brothers, they were using it for comedic effect more than anything else.

Although somewhat unrelated, I have seen those complain about using the Nazis as a source of comedy, such as those who complain about Hogan's Heroes. Many thought it was in poor taste and considered it offensive.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
A command to stop saying something I don't say?
Emphasis mine:

Central planning & great control over the economy, even over
private business is a far cry from a free economy. The "socialist"
label fits well
, albeit with a distinctive German flavor.

Using Hitler as a tool in argumentation and debate

Socialism is all about the people (ie, government) controlling
the means of production.

Using Hitler as a tool in argumentation and debate

You're missing the central defining trait of socialism, ie, control over
the means of production. Privatization while retaining control is
still socialist. When banning unions serves greater government
control, it serves socialism.

Using Hitler as a tool in argumentation and debate

(RE: definition of socialism being control of the means of production by the workers or community)
....Or by government.
If any one of these entities takes control, it's socialism.
It doesn't matter which, per the definition.

Using Hitler as a tool in argumentation and debate

You repeatedly asserted that socialism was defined by government control.

Oh, dear....this isn't worth continuing.
Maybe not. You seem to have admitted your error now and acknowledged that "government ownership" isn't part of the definition of socialism.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Emphasis mine:

Central planning & great control over the economy, even over
private business is a far cry from a free economy. The "socialist"
label fits well
, albeit with a distinctive German flavor.

Using Hitler as a tool in argumentation and debate

Socialism is all about the people (ie, government) controlling
the means of production.

Using Hitler as a tool in argumentation and debate

You're missing the central defining trait of socialism, ie, control over
the means of production. Privatization while retaining control is
still socialist. When banning unions serves greater government
control, it serves socialism.

Using Hitler as a tool in argumentation and debate

(RE: definition of socialism being control of the means of production by the workers or community)
....Or by government.
If any one of these entities takes control, it's socialism.
It doesn't matter which, per the definition.

Using Hitler as a tool in argumentation and debate

You repeatedly asserted that socialism was defined by government control.


Maybe not. You seem to have admitted your error now and acknowledged that "government ownership" isn't part of the definition of socialism.
Bless your heart.
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
"Sociocapitalism" is the correct term.

No we use "mixed economy" to describe the "European" style of government.
Its actual blend, depends on the makeup of the government at any particular time. as most are coalitions of parties.

Although the rare coalitions have always been very effective in the UK, voters do not understand them and so hate them. and they never last more than one term. even though they are the direct result of how people voted.
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
Bless your heart.

Control is the function of Government of what ever flavour.

The USA splits that control between President, The House and the Senate. so it is rarely fully effective.
However it has tighter financial controls and regulations than any European country.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
No we use "mixed economy" to describe the "European" style of government.
Its actual blend, depends on the makeup of the government at any particular time. as most are coalitions of parties.

Although the rare coalitions have always been very effective in the UK, voters do not understand them and so hate them. and they never last more than one term. even though they are the direct result of how people voted.
I prefer my neologism because people are unfamiliar with it.
So it confuses them. I like that.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member

sooda

Veteran Member
The same reasons make comparison to anything, really. Sometimes it's because there's actual apt similarities between the two that indicate shared traits, ideologies or attitudes; sometimes it's for the sake of hyperbole or demonization. The key is in how the comparison is used and justified. For example, somebody saying "General X's policy of arresting socialists and trade unionists bares striking resemblances to Hitler's early policies" is an apt comparison. "General X believes the wealthy should be taxed more, and this makes him no better than Hitler" is not apt.


See above. It depends entirely on the context and justification for why the comparison is used.


See above.


See above.


I have no idea. I tend to see it a lot on both sides, but I generally find it is more often to be aptly used by the left than by the right. This could be simply confirmation bias, however.


No.

In short: decrying comparisons to Hitler simply because they are comparisons to Hitler is kind of missing the point of comparison. The real issue is to evaluate the comparison on its own merits, evaluate why it is made, and assess each individual case of comparison.

Hitler's speeches were bombastic and ever changing lies to inflame emotions and manipulate the German people.. When you see a contemporary speaker doing that its important to remember.
 
Top