Referencing Hitler in arguments

[CentaurJF]

I was speaking to a PHD professor and we came to the conclusion that:

Referencing Htiler and the Nazi Regime in arguments is actually counter productive, because it is so extreme and has many good and bad ideas. I will give a few examples for good ideas, because the bad ideas are quite obvious.

examples for good:

Separating a man from his work can benefit both sides - (Hitlers paintings aren't worth nearly as much as a painter of the same caliber although they are beautiful, well made, and very articulate)

Nationalism can help win people over (propaganda or not)

You can come up with a huge array of stuff for all ends of the spectrum on this topic, so i think its just best to FIND ANOTHER example, instead of appealing to Hitler as a GO-TO. Believe me, i understand the urge but finding other examples will make you a better philosopher.

 

[BloderModer]

But what if the person in question is the leader of a Nazi party? Wouldn't it be fair to compare this person to Hitler?

 

[Thor]

I was speaking to a PHD professor and we came to the conclusion that:

Referencing Htiler and the Nazi Regime in arguments is actually counter productive, because it is so extreme and has many good and bad ideas. I will give a few examples for good ideas, because the bad ideas are quite obvious.

examples for good:

Separating a man from his work can benefit both sides - (Hitlers paintings aren't worth nearly as much as a painter of the same caliber although they are beautiful, well made, and very articulate)

Nationalism can help win people over (propaganda or not)

You can come up with a huge array of stuff for all ends of the spectrum on this topic, so i think its just best to FIND ANOTHER example, instead of appealing to Hitler as a GO-TO. Believe me, i understand the urge but finding other examples will make you a better philosopher.

I don't really understand the OP. I feel like if I understood it better I could chip in more, but I will say that I think referencing Hitler in arguments is not counterproductive if they're arguments about Hitler.



If I am understanding it properly, I'd have to say that I think there is something to be said for comparing facets of what he and the Nazis did to current actions and why those actions are dangerous, even if they aren't perceived as such. I also know some people throw out terms that associate things they dislike with Nazism rather poorly ("feminazi" does have its place [believe it or not] but is massively overused - most people have never met a feminazi). To back up my assertion that feminazis exist, here's an example of a feminazi post: http://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/spot-the-man-behind-the-man/

I've also ran into a few in debate, who suggest making a seperatists society for only women, and that's the least offensive suggestion, but I won't go into details.

And I think "Feminazi" is a good term for these people because of the way they have radicalized themselves to the point where they assume everything is merely (as Hitler/Nazis maybe would put it, they doubtless have their own expressions) "a Jewish lie/attempt at control" and part of the system, not someone who is, you know, actually a human being.

My thoughts.

 

[BloderModer]

I don't really understand the OP. I feel like if I understood it better I could chip in more, but I will say that I think referencing Hitler in arguments is not counterproductive if they're arguments about Hitler.



If I am understanding it properly, I'd have to say that I think there is something to be said for comparing facets of what he and the Nazis did to current actions and why those actions are dangerous, even if they aren't perceived as such. I also know some people throw out terms that associate things they dislike with Nazism rather poorly ("feminazi" does have its place [believe it or not] but is massively overused - most people have never met a feminazi). To back up my assertion that feminazis exist, here's an example of a feminazi post: http://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/spot-the-man-behind-the-man/

I've also ran into a few in debate, who suggest making a seperatists society for only women, and that's the least offensive suggestion, but I won't go into details.

And I think "Feminazi" is a good term for these people because of the way they have radicalized themselves to the point where they assume everything is merely (as Hitler/Nazis maybe would put it, they doubtless have their own expressions) "a Jewish lie/attempt at control" and part of the system, not someone who is, you know, actually a human being.

My thoughts.

Feminazi is a pejorative that plays on the Hitler-card argument. The REAL Nazis were against the women rights movement, so it's kind of ironic that the term is mainly used by rightwing conservative/liberals.

A much better term for those people you call feminazi would be misandrists or hypocrites.

The thing that also bugs me is that we have a neo-nazi movement in Europe that is growing larger. In my town, five feminist were brutally beaten, attacked with knives and brought to a hospital on the international womens day, the perpetrators were members of the nationalsocialist party. The thing that bothers me is that people actually think it's okay to compare naive young tumblr-bloggers (not just misandrists) to Nazis, and knee-jerkingly accuse anyone that talks about feminist/equality-issues for being social-justice warriors, white knights and feminazis. They are actually doing the bigots and real nazis a great service inventing new pejoratives to use on debaters when the arguments run dry.

In short: Feminazi is an awful term, since it has nothing to do with real nazis or feminism.

 

[Thor]

In short: Feminazi is an awful term, since it has nothing to do with real nazis or feminism.

I know it has nothing to do with "real" feminism, although that term is misleading, as there are several different variants, many of them in conflict with each other - there are plenty of nice, smart feminists I know - it has something to do with the real Nazis though, who were irrationally hateful and opposed to certain groups for reasons of who they were born as. The group I pointed out is the same way, calling men "homo rapiens", parasites and other derogative and saying that humanity will go through an evolution in which there are far fewer men/no men, and in the SCUM Manifesto, that women should aim to kill all men off (these are sometimes also known as lesbian seperatists, although not all go this far, I don't think...).

Viewed compared to Hitler's view of the Jews (and Gypsies and gays and disabled), as a group of inferiors who deserve to die, as these groups do, feminazi is a startlingly accurate term for this subset of feminists, and far more effective than misandrists, as in one article they were more or less reveling in the term (I can go find it if I need to) and the term hypocrites is trite and vague - feminazis draws the parallels and draws them well and accurately.

The REAL Nazis were against the women rights movement, so it's kind of ironic that the term is mainly used by rightwing conservative/liberals. A much better term for those people you call feminazi would be misandrists or hypocrites.

The thing that also bugs me is that we have a neo-nazi movement in Europe that is growing larger. In my town, five feminist were brutally beaten, attacked with knives and brought to a hospital on the international womens day, the perpetrators were members of the nationalsocialist party. The thing that bothers me is that people actually think it's okay to compare naive young tumblr-bloggers (not just misandrists) to Nazis, and knee-jerkingly accuse anyone that talks about feminist/equality-issues for being social-justice warriors, white knights and feminazis. They are actually doing the bigots and real nazis a great service inventing new pejoratives to use on debaters when the arguments run dry.

The real Nazis were attempting to suppress the rights of all who weren't them, more or less. This type of feminism is the same - if you are a man (not a woman) you deserve to die and be derided for being born a man. It's not an ironic use of the term because it's about what the Nazis did, not what they stood for, when it's used. I do agree the term is vastly overused to refer to people who are sane and trying to help, but it's also fitting (from what I have argued) for these "men are evil and deserve to die" groups of women.

As to your second paragraph I quoted, that's disturbing and sad to hear about the feminists and the fact that neo-nazis are resurging, given the horrors they've already inflicted.

I don't know what the "naïve yong tumblr-bloggers" are, and I don't knee-jerkingly accuse people talking about feminism//equality as being a _____nazi or whatever. I accuse people who make statements like men are "Demons," "parasites," etc. to state that the kind of bigotry they display, and the solutions they propose, are in a form highly reminiscent of Nazism, and I call it as such. You've marked me off as someone I'm not, but I was admittedly somewhat vague in my first post - hopefully this clears up the issue.

 

[BloderModer]

I know it has nothing to do with "real" feminism, although that term is misleading, as there are several different variants, many of them in conflict with each other - there are plenty of nice, smart feminists I know - it has something to do with the real Nazis though, who were irrationally hateful and opposed to certain groups for reasons of who they were born as. The group I pointed out is the same way, calling men "homo rapiens", parasites and other derogative and saying that humanity will go through an evolution in which there are far fewer men/no men, and in the SCUM Manifesto, that women should aim to kill all men off (these are sometimes also known as lesbian seperatists, although not all go this far, I don't think...).

Viewed compared to Hitler's view of the Jews (and Gypsies and gays and disabled), as a group of inferiors who deserve to die, as these groups do, feminazi is a startlingly accurate term for this subset of feminists, and far more effective than misandrists, as in one article they were more or less reveling in the term (I can go find it if I need to) and the term hypocrites is trite and vague - feminazis draws the parallels and draws them well and accurately.



The real Nazis were attempting to suppress the rights of all who weren't them, more or less. This type of feminism is the same - if you are a man (not a woman) you deserve to die and be derided for being born a man. It's not an ironic use of the term because it's about what the Nazis did, not what they stood for, when it's used. I do agree the term is vastly overused to refer to people who are sane and trying to help, but it's also fitting (from what I have argued) for these "men are evil and deserve to die" groups of women.

As to your second paragraph I quoted, that's disturbing and sad to hear about the feminists and the fact that neo-nazis are resurging, given the horrors they've already inflicted.

I don't know what the "naïve yong tumblr-bloggers" are, and I don't knee-jerkingly accuse people talking about feminism//equality as being a _____nazi or whatever. I accuse people who make statements like men are "Demons," "parasites," etc. to state that the kind of bigotry they display, and the solutions they propose, are in a form highly reminiscent of Nazism, and I call it as such. You've marked me off as someone I'm not, but I was admittedly somewhat vague in my first post - hopefully this clears up the issue.

I'm sorry if it sounded like an attack on you. I was referring to people in general. The problem with the term feminazi is that it is in practice used as a pejorative against feminists (not just extreme ones), often by people who are against feminism and equal rights in general, like Nazis. In my country, the green party are called the "green talibans" by nazis and social conservatives. They claim that they only refer to the most extremist environmental activists, but in practice, they write off the whole movement as extremists, and it's a real debate-killer, just like feminazi is.

Feminazis (like green talibans) are distorted caricatures that are easy to attack. It's not a term for a real movement or interest-group that has any political input in any country in the world. It's use as a term for extremist feminists is very limited and in practice only used as a pejorative when the arguments run dry.

A man hater is a misandrist, not a feminist, nazi or feminazi.

 

[Thor]

I'm sorry if it sounded like an attack on you. I was referring to people in general. The problem with the term feminazi is that it is in practice used as a pejorative against feminists (not just extreme ones), often by people who are against feminism and equal rights in general, like Nazis. In my country, the green party are called the "green talibans" by nazis and social conservatives. They claim that they only refer to the most extremist environmental activists, but in practice, they write off the whole movement as extremists, and it's a real debate-killer, just like feminazi is.
Feminazis (like green talibans) are distorted caricatures that are easy to attack. It's not a term for a real movement or interest-group that has any political input in any country in the world. It's use as a term for extremist feminists is very limited and in practice only used as a pejorative when the arguments run dry.
A man hater is a misandrist, not a feminist, nazi or feminazi.

As someone who debated on a high school debate team for 4 years, I've had to do a lot of definition legwork and figuring out what's appropriate and not appropriate. I do deplore the inaccuracy and venom which most people have with common English (and other languages sometimes) and that it's mostly used as a pejorative against general feminists, ironically from people who more closely resemble anti-rights groups.

While it is probably a debate-killer, there are also groups you can't reason with and they aren't really open for debate in the first place, as was linked to in that atrocious excuse for an opinion piece/informative article on a blog, because they've stopped using facts as they exist, and blatantly ignored other facts (there was, in one article I read for example, a complete disregard of gay men, and several other issues, but I won't list them here).

I'm grateful that they lack political power. But when discussing the most extreme, the ones who want to kill all men, strip them of their rights, and deride them for even existing, and make men slaves so that women can live on without men interfering, I think that's more than the term misandrist can properly encapsulate.

 

[Sucumbio]

Has anyone looked at Godwin's Law?

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1" -Mike Godwin

Seems like a good place to start if you're discussing this subject.

 

[FirestormNeos]

If he's being referenced because the debater is trying to press everyone's "stop thinking and destroy element connected to hitler" button, then no it doesn't hold weight.

Otherwise, it's at risk of being dismissed for said reason above, but other then that, it could pass.

 

[Sparklepower]

I'm sorry if it sounded like an attack on you. I was referring to people in general. The problem with the term feminazi is that it is in practice used as a pejorative against feminists (not just extreme ones), often by people who are against feminism and equal rights in general, like Nazis. In my country, the green party are called the "green talibans" by nazis and social conservatives. They claim that they only refer to the most extremist environmental activists, but in practice, they write off the whole movement as extremists, and it's a real debate-killer, just like feminazi is.

Feminazis (like green talibans) are distorted caricatures that are easy to attack. It's not a term for a real movement or interest-group that has any political input in any country in the world. It's use as a term for extremist feminists is very limited and in practice only used as a pejorative when the arguments run dry.

A man hater is a misandrist, not a feminist, nazi or feminazi.

I have to disagree with "the term feminazi is often used by people who are against feminism and equal rights in general."

I think that most people who disagree with feminists aren't really against the feminist ideology, but the feminist movement. The feminist ideology in itself is simply just that 'Women are equal to men,' which I think is the general consensus of every population in the developed countries. People who use the term 'feminazi' to refer to the feminist movement are not necessarily against feminism and equal rights.

Back on topic, though: I think it's very possible to compare someone to the qualities of Hitler and the Nazi movement without comparing their views to Hitler or the Nazi movement. Do misandrist feminists have views comparable to Nazi's? No, of course not, we all realize this. Are their views ridiculous and objectionable to a magnitude comparable to how ridiculous and objectionable a Nazi's views are? A lot of times, they are.

 

[LightlyToasted]

FIND ANOTHER example, instead of appealing to Hitler as a GO-TO. .

JEEZ Those CAPS, Commanding us to find other examples for our arguments? What 20th century Fascist German dictator does that remind me of...

 

[Sucumbio]

It's tricky not to use Hitler if you're American, history is a nap time block and no one pays attention.

You could use Fidel Castro, Joseph Stalin, or anyone on this list.

http://list25.com/25-of-historys-deadliest-dictators/?view=all

 

[LightlyToasted]

My go to is "You are acting like a total Caeser right now!"


It covers a lot of bases.

 

[Lichi]

Referencing Hitler or the Nazi-Regime is not wrong per se, but it is quite often used the wrong way. Most people just want to express something like "the worst you could imagine", because what happened under his government is generally spoken of as the pinnacle or inhuman behaviour (which is quite right). But comparing something to the very end of the spectrum is most likely an exaggeration and therefore not useful when discussing serious topics. The Hitler name also carries a lot of connotations, sometimes even personal connections (likely through family), national pride and my other things. These influence your argumentation and usually not to your benefit. There's usually better fitted comparisons.

 

[DunnoBro]

Framing has it's issues. And referencing nazis/hitler is kind of like a magnifier for those issues. It -shouldn't- be as counter-productive as it is, but generally it is. It can be abused to arbitrarily find overlap with a subject and Hitler/Nazis to try and discredit the subject as a whole. Or can conflate the issue by denying the overlap since people sure do hate being compared to nazis.

Sometimes though, the invalidation IS the overlap and pointing that out is an effective way to explain that. Recently there was a freelance journalist that said something along the lines of "All gamers should be gas chambered" And while he never redacted that statement, obviously when the debate came to be about how it was okay because he was "Right" and the Nazis weren't, while obviously the Nazis believed they were right too, he began to see some sense of irrationality.

Also that "he wouldn't do the gassing himself" when Hitler generally didn't do the gassing or killing himself either.

Sometimes the framing is necessary because people just don't understand why something is wrong.

Essentially it's like this, references and comparisons mean nothing if they're faulty to begin with. And Hitler/Nazis should be a last resort. It's also better to compare ideas/actions to other ideas/actions, rather than one person to Hitler. People are far more complex than their ideas and you'll conflate the issue if you try to discuss the people and not the subject.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Using Hitler or the Nazi regime as a point in an argument pretty much voids one's case. Unless the topic is about the Nazis or a group similar to Nazis, there's really no reason to use them. It's for that reason I look for other sources to reference; Google is not a hard thing to use.

 

[DunnoBro]

Using Hitler or the Nazi regime as a point in an argument pretty much voids one's case.

Fallacy fallacy. (of ad hominem generally)

I agree it's often intellectually dishonest and generally part of an invalid argument, but the voiding comes from the lack of logic. Not Hitler.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Fallacy fallacy. (of ad hominem generally)

I agree it's often intellectually dishonest and generally part of an invalid argument, but the voiding comes from the lack of logic. Not Hitler.

It's both actually. Some people want to resort to using Nazis as a comparison to whatever it is they're debating, and when that happens, it is voided, reasons notwithstanding. It isn't a fallacy, it's verity, because unless the debate has anything to do with Hitler, or a topic that is similar to the Nazis, then why bring them up at all?

 

[DunnoBro]

It's both actually. Some people want to resort to using Nazis as a comparison to whatever it is they're debating, and when that happens, it is voided, reasons notwithstanding. It isn't a fallacy, it's verity, because unless the debate has anything to do with Hitler, or a topic that is similar to the Nazis, then why bring them up at all?

In the world of debate, aren't fallacies (or the avoidance of them) essentially verity?

However, bringing up Hitler/Nazis should not be considered any more taboo than bringing up any other topic not directly related to the subject at hand. When it's done in a disingenuous manner, call it out. The deflection, tangent, ad hominem, or just plain faulty logic.

"You're wrong because you're a nazi" and "You're wrong because you called me a nazi" are equally wrong in my view.

 

[Claire Diviner]

"You're wrong because you're a nazi" and "You're wrong because you called me a nazi" are equally wrong in my view.

Therein lies a problem, in which case both parties would be pretty stupid. In the case of the bolded quote, if someone knows someone is guilty of Godwin's Law, they really need not point it out, as it's very apparent. If anything, they can just keep debating, using counterarguments against the lawbreaker's Nazi argument without referencing said law just to make their argument stronger. It doesn't take much effort.

 

[Chinaux]

There's no doubting that Hitler was actually a great leader in the situation of Germany at the time, but his glory started going downhill towards the end of the war.

Comparing someone to Hitler can be seen as comparing someone to a great leader. At the same time, it can be used as an insult, so.....

 

[DunnoBro]

The qualities Hitler utilized that made him an effective, universally "good" leader, weren't really unique to him compared to other, less controversial leaders and as such using him as a point of comparison with them available, while he's generally recognized for... less than desirable qualities, wouldn't be very wise on any level.

 

[Thor]

It's tricky not to use Hitler if you're American, history is a nap time block and no one pays attention.

You could use Fidel Castro, Joseph Stalin, or anyone on this list.

http://list25.com/25-of-historys-deadliest-dictators/?view=all

Stalin did technically kill more, but most people in America don't know that, so Hitler's name is indeed more effective at provoking the desired reaction.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Stalin did technically kill more, but most people in America don't know that, so Hitler's name is indeed more effective at provoking the desired reaction.

Probably because he impacted more of the world than Russia did, if memory serves me well.

 

[LightlyToasted]

"You're wrong because you called me a nazi" are equally wrong in my view.

Unless the argument/discussion is that you are saying they are wrong about whether or not you yourself are a Nazi...

Probably because he impacted more of the world than Russia did, if memory serves me well.

Israel would be a much different country, if even existing at all had it not been for the Holocaust. I'd say that alone has been one of the largest impact world leaders in the 20th century have had.

 

[Nino Rybicki]

Comparing someone or something to Hitler, Nazis, or the Holocaust often makes the argument lose credibility. It's not the fact that it's Hitler, but the fact that comparisons to Hitler are so overused that it's a full-blown cliche. It's strange considering that other political leaders have done equally reprehensible things (such as Stalin, Mao Zedong, Saddam Hussein, Hendrik Verwoerd, Hideki Tojo, Jorge Rafael Videla, Slobodan Milosevic, etc.) are never held to the same standard.

I think Stalin isn't complained as much because he was a member of the Allies, even though he basically matches Hitler in vileness - come on, the guy terrorized people with his secret police and gulag, sent people to Siberia and Central Asia to die, weeded out all opposition, banned religion, destroyed thousands of churches, mosques, and synagogues, and forced entire ethnic groups to move. And yet Stalin has no equivalent of a Godwin's law.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Comparing someone or something to Hitler, Nazis, or the Holocaust often makes the argument lose credibility. It's not the fact that it's Hitler, but the fact that comparisons to Hitler are so overused that it's a full-blown cliche. It's strange considering that other political leaders have done equally reprehensible things (such as Stalin, Mao Zedong, Saddam Hussein, Hendrik Verwoerd, Hideki Tojo, Jorge Rafael Videla, Slobodan Milosevic, etc.) are never held to the same standard.

Truth be told, using any of them (let alone Hitler) as a comparison to anything that doesn't fit the debate topic makes the person's argument lose credibility in my eyes.

As for those other people not being used as comparisons the way people use Hitler, it's because Hitler was a more high profile figure during WWII and the holocaust. That and media attention was focused primarily on him, so that too has an impact. I'm sure generations from now, some loser will do something either as terrible or even more so vile in scale, that people would not necessarily forget Hitler, but not use him in comparisons. Eventually, even Hitler's infamy will give way to some other moron.

I think Stalin isn't complained as much because he was a member of the Allies, even though he basically matches Hitler in vileness - come on, the guy terrorized people with his secret police and gulag, sent people to Siberia and Central Asia to die, weeded out all opposition, banned religion, destroyed thousands of churches, mosques, and synagogues, and forced entire ethnic groups to move. And yet Stalin has no equivalent of a Godwin's law.

- See paragraph above -

 

[Sucumbio]

Yeah, like George Bush, Jr. or Donald Rumsfeld.