-
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!
Are Hitler comparisons ever apt?
- Thread starter Iti oj
- Start date
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Its used as a psychological weapon, as also many other things, such as the bible or the cross.
Its apt when its for the prevention of a repeat of genocide. If you literally suspect that genocide is a possibility because a leader has qualities in common with Hitler then its legitimate to compare or to contrast.
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
I do not know about that.
I mean, Freddy Krueger seems much worse that the Jersey Devil....
He never even killed a human well besides his family depending on which version you go by and was even reported to fight in the revolutionary war for us
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Krueger or the Jersey Devil?
The Jersey devil.
When we get a politician who puts thousands of people in ovens,
then I'll accept the Hitler comparison without crying "Godwin's Law!'.
Btw, "dutch ovens" don't count.
I don't think that's fair. Comparing just say trumps campaign and rhetoric to that of Hitler rise to power isn't the same thing as saying trumps gonna put people in ovens. And hey hindsight is 50/50 .
Hitler comparisons are fine. But it's worth always being honest with yourself about why you are choosing that particular comparison.
Where it's for emotive effect, I'd suggestca different comparison is better.
If anything, the parallels are not made often enough.
Hitler was a demagogue, a nationalist, a manipulator of hopes and fears. And he did not have access to today's weaponry.
Aye, to compare Trump to Hitler is stoopid.
We find yet one more thing to agree upon. Isn't life grand!
In a rat colony, as long as there are the basic necessities - which among rats amounts to food, water, a place to sleep - then rat society is quite respectible. The mothers take quite good care of their children, they are intelligent enough to work together for the common good, they even avoid pooping on each other and are very clean actually. They even play a bit, and teach each other new pathways across the street or onto the rooftops or to other locations of food.
But as soon as the food cuts off and water sparse - things change a lot.
I believe it is some sort of chemical reaction in the rat brain - but they notably change. Once the water is gone - something changes in the brain. Once that changes, they get sort of very nasty. Then if the food is cut off, another chemical (IMO) change happens in the brain.
They literally become a different rat. They don't like anyone sleeping near them. And if another rat does - suddenly they think "that rat hasn't urinated in a while (no water) and is staring at me too much (no food) so - I am going to take a bite at him".
Then next a bite and then a swallow.
Next thing you know, they start cannibalising on each other. And it gets worse - and "rat insanity" kicks in, some literally charge in a group and go right over the edge of the roof and fall to their death.
Why am I talking about this?
Germany. The "war is over" (WW1). Young men who were soldiers thrown into the streets, no jobs. The cold German winter comes. Some were just getting out of the hospital. Maybe they were hospitalized because of mustard gas.
Like Hitler, for example.
Even water becomes a problem in the pouring rain, ice. Food.
No place to sleep properly. Cold.
The brain changes. Especially living during a war, then the war is over and you lost and you are cold, thirsty, hungry.
The nice rat colony sort of starts cannibalizing on each other.
Hitler is more than a person. It is a chemical.
There were far worse than the many Hitlers in Germany. Oh sure, you can play the numbers game. But, for example, the Cambodian Khmer Rouge were far worse than the Nazis, even though less were cannibalized. Of course less - the population was less. Far more in China under Mao - but the Khmer Rouge were worse than the Maoists.
I think it makes more sense to compare some of these politicians to Pol Pot instead of Hitler. Sure - an exaggeration... but... maybe not, I mean if one of them ever got hold of the colony it could very well be Pol Pot in genre. I have no doubt, Michelle Obama would be the tutelary head of mass rat cannibalization. She would be much worse than Barbara Bush. Let Michelle get a hold of power than it will be a rat colony on rabies. Once the Khmer Rouge level, the chemicals hit the brain. Pol Pot is as much a chemical as a person.
Now if the rat colony has the water, and the food, and a place to sleep, then the extra chemicals do not build up. Some real smart rats help with the situation. But really, no rat has a way to make sure. I mean, no politician can or ever will, either. There is no such solution. Some rat may tell you there is. But no rat is really that smart. Not dumb, either. But not able to feed the world, and water for everyone and a nice sleep. Too many things can go wrong. Even a little earth quake can really shake things up. An astedoid.
The thin veneer of civilization.
Sieg heil.
But as soon as the food cuts off and water sparse - things change a lot.
I believe it is some sort of chemical reaction in the rat brain - but they notably change. Once the water is gone - something changes in the brain. Once that changes, they get sort of very nasty. Then if the food is cut off, another chemical (IMO) change happens in the brain.
They literally become a different rat. They don't like anyone sleeping near them. And if another rat does - suddenly they think "that rat hasn't urinated in a while (no water) and is staring at me too much (no food) so - I am going to take a bite at him".
Then next a bite and then a swallow.
Next thing you know, they start cannibalising on each other. And it gets worse - and "rat insanity" kicks in, some literally charge in a group and go right over the edge of the roof and fall to their death.
Why am I talking about this?
Germany. The "war is over" (WW1). Young men who were soldiers thrown into the streets, no jobs. The cold German winter comes. Some were just getting out of the hospital. Maybe they were hospitalized because of mustard gas.
Like Hitler, for example.
Even water becomes a problem in the pouring rain, ice. Food.
No place to sleep properly. Cold.
The brain changes. Especially living during a war, then the war is over and you lost and you are cold, thirsty, hungry.
The nice rat colony sort of starts cannibalizing on each other.
Hitler is more than a person. It is a chemical.
There were far worse than the many Hitlers in Germany. Oh sure, you can play the numbers game. But, for example, the Cambodian Khmer Rouge were far worse than the Nazis, even though less were cannibalized. Of course less - the population was less. Far more in China under Mao - but the Khmer Rouge were worse than the Maoists.
I think it makes more sense to compare some of these politicians to Pol Pot instead of Hitler. Sure - an exaggeration... but... maybe not, I mean if one of them ever got hold of the colony it could very well be Pol Pot in genre. I have no doubt, Michelle Obama would be the tutelary head of mass rat cannibalization. She would be much worse than Barbara Bush. Let Michelle get a hold of power than it will be a rat colony on rabies. Once the Khmer Rouge level, the chemicals hit the brain. Pol Pot is as much a chemical as a person.
Now if the rat colony has the water, and the food, and a place to sleep, then the extra chemicals do not build up. Some real smart rats help with the situation. But really, no rat has a way to make sure. I mean, no politician can or ever will, either. There is no such solution. Some rat may tell you there is. But no rat is really that smart. Not dumb, either. But not able to feed the world, and water for everyone and a nice sleep. Too many things can go wrong. Even a little earth quake can really shake things up. An astedoid.
The thin veneer of civilization.
Sieg heil.
Last edited:
As I recall it, some time back comparisons to Hitler were out of fashion, far as I can remember because people generally wanted a safer, more peaceful world and the very thought that someone might actively want aggression was perceived as offensive.
That changed sometime around 1990.
These days aggression is seem as "peaceful" and reminders of the simiiarities to Hitler and to Nazism are perceived as lacking in tact. Particularly when they are accurate, as in increasingly the case in these times of rising belligerence and nationalism.
I guess the increasing levels of self-deception in politics are not helping either. I remember seeing someone actually blaming Angela Merkel for supposedly encouraging and enabling the return of Nazism because she is not xenophobic. Talk about blaming the victim...
That changed sometime around 1990.
These days aggression is seem as "peaceful" and reminders of the simiiarities to Hitler and to Nazism are perceived as lacking in tact. Particularly when they are accurate, as in increasingly the case in these times of rising belligerence and nationalism.
I guess the increasing levels of self-deception in politics are not helping either. I remember seeing someone actually blaming Angela Merkel for supposedly encouraging and enabling the return of Nazism because she is not xenophobic. Talk about blaming the victim...
You're right. Hitler is far more competent a politician.
As long as it don't trivalise the comparision and is readonably well informed, its probably ok.
Trump's attitude to Nuclear weapons may suggest otherwise.
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
How dare you try to stop me comparing people to Hitler! You’re as bad as the Nazis!
