The Comparison That Ends the Conversation

[cKGunslinger]

Washington Post

Someone should post a sign in the Senate cloakroom or wherever Important People Who Should Know Better will see it. The sign would warn politicians against comparing anything to the Nazis or Hitler or the Holocaust. These comparisons are not a good idea. Repeat : Not a good idea. It will only bring a massive headache, as Sen. Richard Durbin has learned (he'll take that Tylenol IV drip now, thanks).

Durbin, the Democratic whip, became the latest politician who couldn't make his point without comparing the matter at hand -- the alleged mistreatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba -- with the methods of the Nazis (and those of Pol Pot and the Soviet gulags, too).

...

All of this is consistent with the escalation of political rhetoric in general, says Deborah Tannen, a professor of linguistics at Georgetown and an expert on political discourse. She mentions the Senate debate over filibusters, in which the "nuclear option" loomed. And conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh, who rails against "feminazis." "It's all part of the same verbal inflation," Tannen says, adding that feminists generally refrain from torturing people.

It's a faily decent article (I didn't post it all, obviously), and even mentions Mike Godwin near the end. Jon Stewart did a similar bit last week, I beleive.

It's obvious though, when you immediate resort to Nazi/Hitler comparisons - unless you are talking about world politics during the early-to-mid part of the 20th centrury - you drag the whole debate down about 35 IQ points (which, to be honest, many of us can't afford to lose.)

Stick with the facts at hand. Trust me, with today's politics, there is plenty of bad stuff to point out and compare with, without having to mention the holocaust.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Washington Post

Someone should post a sign in the Senate cloakroom or wherever Important People Who Should Know Better will see it. The sign would warn politicians against comparing anything to the Nazis or Hitler or the Holocaust. These comparisons are not a good idea. Repeat : Not a good idea. It will only bring a massive headache, as Sen. Richard Durbin has learned (he'll take that Tylenol IV drip now, thanks).

Durbin, the Democratic whip, became the latest politician who couldn't make his point without comparing the matter at hand -- the alleged mistreatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba -- with the methods of the Nazis (and those of Pol Pot and the Soviet gulags, too).

...

All of this is consistent with the escalation of political rhetoric in general, says Deborah Tannen, a professor of linguistics at Georgetown and an expert on political discourse. She mentions the Senate debate over filibusters, in which the "nuclear option" loomed. And conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh, who rails against "feminazis." "It's all part of the same verbal inflation," Tannen says, adding that feminists generally refrain from torturing people.

It's a faily decent article (I didn't post it all, obviously), and even mentions Mike Godwin near the end. Jon Stewart did a similar bit last week, I beleive.

It's obvious though, when you immediate resort to Nazi/Hitler comparisons - unless you are talking about world politics during the early-to-mid part of the 20th centrury - you drag the whole debate down about 35 IQ points (which, to be honest, many of us can't afford to lose.)

Stick with the facts at hand. Trust me, with today's politics, there is plenty of bad stuff to point out and compare with, without having to mention the holocaust.

They are taking political direction from the likes of Soros and Moveone.org.

While that is great to please the far left nutjobs it pisses off the moderates. People lose any msg you are trying to convey and immediately dismiss your argument due to the shear idiocy of the comparison.

But it doesnt appear to be getting any better for the democrats. They just dont get it. For the party of the self enlightened the simple nature of pleasing the moderates escapes them.

 

[phantom309]

No Republican ever compares liberals with communists, or calls them traitors.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: phantom309
No Republican ever compares liberals with communists, or calls them traitors.

This thread was not intended to have any political slant. The article shows both Repubs and Dems jumping abord the "Nazi" bandwagon.

Members of all parties are guilty of simplifying things down to absurd levels. It's especially relevant in here. *ALL* members of P&N could learn a bit from this advice.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: phantom309
No Republican ever compares liberals with communists, or calls them traitors.

I wouldn't say never, but there is certainly no comparison to the vile rhetoric coming out of moveon et al.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: phantom309
No Republican ever compares liberals with communists, or calls them traitors.

Heh, of course not.

But actually that highlights another reason not to make those kinds of overly broad, obviously incorrect, generalizations. Not only does it make you look stupid, but it gives your opponent the perfect way to discredit your whole argument. Most of us have done this before, I know I have. Look at Durbin. His concerns about Gitmo are certainly worth noting, and I don't think this is something that should be dismissed without further examination, but that's exactly what is happening. The conservatives can simply point out how stupid the comparison to gulags and Nazis is, and for many people, the conclusion is that there is nothing to worry about down at Gitmo.

Which is of course the problem with extreme comparisons. Often there might be a point to be made, but it's easy to dismiss that point when it's wrapped in a dumb comparison. Durbin suggested that Gitmo is something to be worried about, and that it is as bad as what the Nazis or Soviets did. Those of us with fully working brains realize that the fact that the part in italics is a stupid comparison does not mean the first part couldn't be true. But you really have to think about it, the first reaction is to listen to the Republican noise and dismiss the whole argument.

And just as a sidenote to Genx, it appears the democrats get it all too well, I have yet to hear anyone defending Durbin's comment as the right thing to say. Most seem to come down on him pretty hard, for exactly the reasons I pointed out. Once again, don't generalize the entire left or the entire party over one comment made by one guy.

 

[Steeplerot]

in other words the right hates it when you point their bs and get all whiney. they have no qualms dishing it out though.

cry me a river, if they don't like people drawing the obvious parallels making them out to be fascists then quit the warmongering freedom grabbing BS

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: phantom309
No Republican ever compares liberals with communists, or calls them traitors.

I wouldn't say never, but there is certainly no comparison to the vile rhetoric coming out of moveon et al.

I disagree. I have a hard time thinking of a worse insult to any patriotic American than calling them a traitor or saying they hate America. And I hear it all the time. That's not to excuse that sort of thing coming from the left, either. It's all bad, and as adults I think we can get past the idea that our side is so much better in terms of that crap.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: phantom309
No Republican ever compares liberals with communists, or calls them traitors.

Heh, of course not.

But actually that highlights another reason not to make those kinds of overly broad, obviously incorrect, generalizations. Not only does it make you look stupid, but it gives your opponent the perfect way to discredit your whole argument. Most of us have done this before, I know I have. Look at Durbin. His concerns about Gitmo are certainly worth noting, and I don't think this is something that should be dismissed without further examination, but that's exactly what is happening. The conservatives can simply point out how stupid the comparison to gulags and Nazis is, and for many people, the conclusion is that there is nothing to worry about down at Gitmo.

Which is of course the problem with extreme comparisons. Often there might be a point to be made, but it's easy to dismiss that point when it's wrapped in a dumb comparison. Durbin suggested that Gitmo is something to be worried about, and that it is as bad as what the Nazis or Soviets did. Those of us with fully working brains realize that the fact that the part in italics is a stupid comparison does not mean the first part couldn't be true. But you really have to think about it, the first reaction is to listen to the Republican noise and dismiss the whole argument.

And just as a sidenote to Genx, it appears the democrats get it all too well, I have yet to hear anyone defending Durbin's comment as the right thing to say. Most seem to come down on him pretty hard, for exactly the reasons I pointed out. Once again, don't generalize the entire left or the entire party over one comment made by one guy.

:thumbsup:

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
in other words the right hates it when you point their bs and get all whiney. they have no qualms dishing it out though.

cry me a river, if they don't like people drawing the obvious parallels making them out to be fascists then quit the warmongering freedom grabbing BS

Give it a rest.

 

[Steeplerot]

you would like that I bet.

 

[arsbanned]

Yet the Republicans feel more than justified labeling those who disagree with Bush "Terrorists".

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Yet the Republicans feel more than justified labeling those who disagree with Bush "Terrorists".

LOL - I give up. You guys are potentially mentally retarded.

Ignore the entire thread, where it is pointed out many times that both sides are guilty of this cheap tactic. Better for you to get your quick quip in while you can! Woohoo!

 

[0marTheZealot]

Yea, it's not like the Government is overstating a threat or using subterfuge to gain tons of powers it otherwise would not have.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

As much as I don't support most of our 'war' on 'terror', anyone with a modicum of reason or knowledge knows Gitmo =/= Auschwitz.

 

[oculus]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
in other words the right hates it when you point their bs and get all whiney. they have no qualms dishing it out though.

cry me a river, if they don't like people drawing the obvious parallels making them out to be fascists then quit the warmongering freedom grabbing BS

Give it a rest.

Steeplerot is missing an important point.

The whole idea here is to be a bit pragmatic and realize that the comparison does not help communicate a point. Discussing that period in our history causes people to react in a certain way... so no matter how relevant the comparison (not suggesting that Durbin's was), it simply brings the entire discussion down a notch.

However, Steeplerot is also kind of right. From my experience standing on the outside, it seems like conversatives have no problem tossing "anti-american", "traitor", or "commie" around freely in the midst of discussion... yet they also seem to handle getting it thrown back in their face the worst. That's not really on topic though...

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
in other words the right hates it when you point their bs and get all whiney. they have no qualms dishing it out though.

cry me a river, if they don't like people drawing the obvious parallels making them out to be fascists then quit the warmongering freedom grabbing BS

LMAO, no political slant, right

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: oculus

Steeplerot is missing an important point.

I vote that the understatement of the year.

The whole idea here is to be a bit pragmatic and realize that the comparison does not help communicate a point. Discussing that period in our history causes people to react in a certain way... so no matter how relevant the comparison (not suggesting that Durbin's was), it simply brings the entire discussion down a notch.

However, Steeplerot is also kind of right. From my experience standing on the outside, it seems like conversatives have no problem tossing "anti-american", "traitor", or "commie" around freely in the midst of discussion... yet they also seem to handle getting it thrown back in their face the worst. That's not really on topic though...

Yes, like I mentioned, both sides are equally guilty of dragging down discussions with gross overgeneralizations and simplifications. Whereas this article chose to focus on the "Nazi" references, I agree that "traitor" is just as damning a retort, and one equally as absurd.

But I fear this article and thread will not be heeded by anyone here who could best learn from it's message.

 

[kogase]

I consider myself passionately opposed to the use of Nazi analogies in conversations (and the steady influx of Holocaust period movies, will they never end?). However, I still find myself stooping to the level of using them every once in a while, mostly because they are just such a constant and universal symbol -- that is to say, instantly recognizable.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
As much as I don't support most of our 'war' on 'terror', anyone with a modicum of reason or knowledge knows Gitmo =/= Auschwitz.

Problem is with the bolded text.

 

[2cpuminimum]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
in other words the right hates it when you point their bs and get all whiney. they have no qualms dishing it out though.

cry me a river, if they don't like people drawing the obvious parallels making them out to be fascists then quit the warmongering freedom grabbing BS

Amen

 

[cwjerome]

cK, I totally appreciate your attempt with this topic. As I said recently in another thread, whoever happens to bring up some Nazi/Hitler (or Soviet gulag for that matter) reference in a discussion loses. They lose automatically by intellectual default... end of debate.

There are some -in here even- that laugh it off and remain steadfast in their eratic, licentious comparisons. Personally, I like it when they do, it makes a good case against their confused ramblings. But I do feel compelled to speak out to those less extreme (or they at least appear more reasonable) people who excuse it or otherwise give it a pass. Those are the people that need to be held to a higher level of rational discourse.