Why Trump/Hitler Comparisons are Unfair

[theprestige]

Speaking of context, we largely don't compare the Allied offensive to Napoleonic imperialism because the Allied offensive was not imperialistic. There was never any intent to form an Allied Empire. Arguably, the Allied aim was exactly the opposite of that.

Tell that to the International Communists in the Soviet Union. But at least you're making a nuanced argument that takes context and consilience into account...

A comparison you could make, and many people have made, is between Hitler and Napoleon, whom Hitler admired, specifically because of their imperial ambitions.

Now, if you want to argue against my comparison based on some context, feel free. To reiterate,

I'm still waiting to see an argument for your comparison. Compare a specific US policy to a specific Nazi policy, and let's see what happens.

 

[Upchurch]

I'm still waiting to see an argument for your comparison. Compare a specific US policy to a specific Nazi policy, and let's see what happens.

See, I did that. It's that thing I pointed out, twice, that equally describes aspects of both Trump's and Hitler's policies. For Hitler, it was the Jews, blacks, gays, the disabled, etc. For Trump, it is the brown immigrants from south of the border (arguably also the brown immigrants from certain middle east countries). But the approach is the same (for the third time, now):

single out a powerless minorities in society, vilify them far out of proportion to anything they could actually have done, make their “crimes” as a people the source of all the nation’s woes, and make them, as a people, illegal.

eta: ugh, just noticed a typo I've copied and pasted twice now.

 

[theprestige]

See, I did that. It's that thing I pointed out, twice, that equally describes aspects of both Trump's and Hitler's policies. For Hitler, it was the Jews, blacks, gays, the disabled, etc. For Trump, it is the brown immigrants from south of the border (arguably also the brown immigrants from certain middle east countries). But the approach is the same (for the third time, now)

No.

You're making broad, general allusions, to claim a similarity of approach.

I'm asking you for specific policies -- actual implementations of approach -- so that we have something concrete to compare.

 

[The Atheist]

...
My point is that sometimes such comparisons are necessary if we’re going to prevent the mistakes of the past from happening again. You know, “never again.”

Mate, you've been around the internet long enough to understand Godwin, and why the law exists.

That's all comparisons with Hitler do - ensure they're ignored.

Just stick to the facts. If it's an abuse of human rights, that should be enough for most people and you don't need to stick a toothbrush mustache on them.

Ahhh, the Mind-Reader Tell for cognitive dissonance.

Here is the only mention of race he had in his ad:

About that...

This:

But his conviction for refusing black tenants in his apartment buildings does give us a clue.

And, I do believe the Central Park suspects were fairly dark-skinned? Do you think DJT would have taken the ad if they'd been five white college boys drunk out of their minds? Hell, he woulda put up bail.

Anyway, you've been given plenty of evidence.

If it's true that you have a history of saying "outrageous crap just to stir things up", I'm surprised you're objecting to my question so much.

No, what I object to is people asking idiotic questions on the basis of even more idiotic assumptions - without any evidence at all, I must add.

Not a single post of mine suggest I don't know the Holocaust was a fact. If your comprehension skills are weak enough to think otherwise, I'm not going to make it my problem.

@OP - Why should any comparison be fair?

The "unfair" part is a little glib for you, maybe.

Fairness is politics is only skin deep right now, so how fair it is isn't the point.

The point is, such comparisons are counter-productive.

You've seen today where the SCOTUS is headed over confirming Trump's muslin ban, and another six years of Trump will ensure a raft of similarly insane majorities. Thank christ, I don't live in USA, but I have a lot of mates who do, and they're all people on the wrong margin to live in a fascist paradise.

Heh. I've actually been asking about this for a while. Bush was already Hitler, remember? Where do you go from there? Is Trump supposed to be Double Hitler? Hitler 3000?

Ming.

Isn't that obvious?

Trump did just start a Space Patrol, after all, and Ming must be far, far worse than Hitler - little Adolph only messed with one planet, Ming eats half a dozen for breakfast.

 

[The Atheist]

eta: ugh, just noticed a typo I've copied and pasted twice now.

Don't you hate it when that happens!

The danger with your picking examples is precisely this:

I'm asking you for specific policies -- actual implementations of approach -- so that we have something concrete to compare.

You get asked for minutiae that isn't relevant, and might eventually concede one policy is the same.

So what?

Trump isn't behaving like Hitler; he still has an election to defend in a couple of years; he doesn't yet have thousands of blackshirts wearing homoerotic armbands; the comparison is pointless.

 

[The Atheist]

I don't like to brag, but I called it.

Clever boy!

Award yourself one of those gold stickers for being so clever.

Next time, mummy will decide when you win, ok? It's not fair on the other children that you judge your own jumps.

 

[ahhell]

I think Mussolini is a much better comparasion.

Say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos. Which is the real problem with comparing Trump to either Hitler or Mussalini, they actually had an ideology, Trump just spouts out what ever comes to his mind with any kind of ethos.


I like comparisons to Berlusconi or Hugo Chavez better.

 

[Ziggurat]

Clever boy!

Award yourself one of those gold stickers for being so clever.

Next time, mummy will decide when you win, ok? It's not fair on the other children that you judge your own jumps.

I'd let someone else judge, but nobody else here is qualified. I didn't want the burden, it was thrust upon me by history.

 

[dudalb]

Mate, you've been around the internet long enough to understand Godwin, and why the law exists.

That's all comparisons with Hitler do - ensure they're ignored.

Just stick to the facts. If it's an abuse of human rights, that should be enough for most people and you don't need to stick a toothbrush mustache on them.



About that...

This:



And, I do believe the Central Park suspects were fairly dark-skinned? Do you think DJT would have taken the ad if they'd been five white college boys drunk out of their minds? Hell, he woulda put up bail.

Anyway, you've been given plenty of evidence.



No, what I object to is people asking idiotic questions on the basis of even more idiotic assumptions - without any evidence at all, I must add.

Not a single post of mine suggest I don't know the Holocaust was a fact. If your comprehension skills are weak enough to think otherwise, I'm not going to make it my problem.



The "unfair" part is a little glib for you, maybe.

Fairness is politics is only skin deep right now, so how fair it is isn't the point.

The point is, such comparisons are counter-productive.

You've seen today where the SCOTUS is headed over confirming Trump's muslin ban, and another six years of Trump will ensure a raft of similarly insane majorities. Thank christ, I don't live in USA, but I have a lot of mates who do, and they're all people on the wrong margin to live in a fascist paradise.



Ming.

Isn't that obvious?

Trump did just start a Space Patrol, after all, and Ming must be far, far worse than Hitler - little Adolph only messed with one planet, Ming eats half a dozen for breakfast.

You know, you whole snide attitude about a very serious time in American ..and the World's history...stop being amusing a long time ago.
You suffer from Kiwi Disease..that New Zealand is somehow apart and immune from what happens to the rest of the world, and you can sit back and be snarky about it.

 

[Upchurch]

Mate, you've been around the internet long enough to understand Godwin, and why the law exists.

Heck, I've been around the internet long enough to understand that even Mike Godwin, himself, understands that there are limits to his law when self-proclaimed Nazis are in play.

I'm asking you for specific policies -- actual implementations of approach -- so that we have something concrete to compare.

I'll assume you're familiar with enough with Hitler's implementations so I'll point out Trump's, which are also well known and should be obvious, but here we are.

Most recently, Trump instituted a zero tolerance policy on improper border crossing, which is a misdemeanor unless the person surrenders themselves seeking asylum. However, Trump has also greatly restricted who qualifies for asylum. These two policy changes were directly aimed at making southern migrants specifically "illegal", when they might not otherwise be and certainly not to the degree to which they are being treated, which was intentional in order to galvanize fear and hatred of them.

Meanwhile, Trump is meeting with "angel families" in a propaganda stunt to vilify all migrants as violent killers. This continues the language he uses to dehumanize migrants with terms like animals who infest America.

In short, as I've said, Trump has singled out a powerless minorities in society, vilified them far out of proportion to anything they could actually have done, made their “crimes” as a people the source of all the nation’s woes, and made them, as a people, illegal.

 

[Craig4]

Lol, what does it matter anymore!?


And nothing was learned in 2016

On the contrary. I learned a lot from 2016.

 

[Fudbucker]

On the contrary. I learned a lot from 2016.

Wow did we learn a lot. Living in SoCal, I simply had no idea what was going on in a lot of the country.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I'm getting a certain impression here. Do you think the holocaust, as reported in mainstream publications, happened?

The Athiest has a certain reputation for saying outrageous crap just to stir things up.

That might but true, but where is the denialism? I'm not seeing it.

 

[Mumbles]

As does his birtherism and apparent qualifications for "****-hole countries"

I pointed out back in 2011 that his entire "he's not qualified" extended tirade against Obama was simply a list of things that racist white people have said about successful black people throughout US history.

If you didn't get it then, you simply did not understand US-style white supremacism.

One final note: Dolt 45 asked for a 120-day Muslim ban to "figure out what the hell is going on". He's been in office over 500 days since then. He could have figured it out by now. He hasn't, because that wasnever the plan, it was simple pandering to the same bigots who hated Obama, Trayvon Martin, Colin Kaepernick (who, you'll note, protested state violence with civility), and so forth.

 

[Upchurch]

I pointed out back in 2011 that his entire "he's not qualified" extended tirade against Obama was simply a list of things that racist white people have said about successful black people throughout US history.

It's so weird to have participated in a thread and, yet, have no specific memory of it.

 

[Delvo]

Ages ago in a History or Social Studies class, I read about some dictator's or emperor's rise to power in whatever country it was, which contained a sentence simply stating that he "disbanded the legislature". The concept of an individual disbanding a whole other entity he's not even a member of and has no power over stuck with me better than the details of the specific case did. My mind just kept going "How could that possibly work? Surely the law in that country didn't have anything in it that the legislature only exists as long as the head of state feels like letting it continue existing. I suppose they could all just quit going to work, but why would they? He can't just tell them to and have it magically happen just because he said so..." There were other specific cases that felt the same way to me, like the Communists apparently not being allowed to run for office in the election that put the Nazis in power (what on Earth does a political party not being allowed to do what political parties do even mean‽), but the one with that casual, unexplained, well-of-course-that-can-just-happen use of the verb "disbanded" seems to be the one that stuck with me the most, as if the guy who "disbanded" them could just wave his hand at them snap his fingers and have them float away.

If the office that guy was in had been defined in the first place as all-powerful like a king, it would make sense, but this idea of claiming powers that your office doesn't have didn't. Acquiring more power than you already had would mean first you must have the power to acquire that power, in which case it's not a matter of acquiring it because you must already have it, but you supposedly don't yet, which means you can't acquire it... It's a self-contradiction, an impossibility. People only have the power they're given by others, and acting as if you had power you don't have doesn't make them give it to you; it even tends to cause them to take you less seriously than before.

Well, Trump (and to some extent the Republican Senate near the end of Obama's term) has finally demonstrated for me the answer to my more-than-30-year-old question. Pretending you have extra power that isn't there doesn't make people give it to you, but sometimes, they'll do so anyway. The individual doesn't rise to power or take new powers; others around him put him there by just acting as if he were already there anyway. So the limits of what someone in that office can and can't do don't matter when that happens; if you dictate and they obey, you get to be a dictator in effect anyway, regardless of what you can and can't do according to the (now circumstantially irrelevant) law.

I don't know which other dictator that makes Trump more like than some other dictators, since I know they're not all the same but can't even name all of them who have ever dictated, nevermind actually describing them indivudally. But none of the possible answers to that question fail to be massively disturbing.

Has there ever been a dictatorship that ended peacefully? Has there ever been a republic/democracy that took a few dictatorial first steps like this and turned back?

 

[Mumbles]

Ahhh, the Mind-Reader Tell for cognitive dissonance.

Here is the only mention of race he had in his ad:

ANd please ignore that this was the most plainly racial crime stories of the entire decade, or that Cheeto Benito (who, as I recall, saw fit to pardon Joe Arpaio despite his habit of hassling Hispanic people to the point of ignoring child rape cases - huh, another GOPer that's cool with child molestation...) insisted that they belonged in jail even after they had served their sentences, and been cleared by DNA evidence that pointed to a single rapist, who was at the time serving in prison himself for raping and murdering other women, and who feely confessed that he, and he alone, committed the famous Central Park attack.

Nope, nothing racial there, nosiree.

You'd have to be a real chump to actually believe that.

 

[dudalb]

The Franco dictatorship ended with a peaceful change to democracy.
The Collapse of the Soviet Empire was not nearly as violent as anyone would have predicted.
So far The US has not taken any irretrievable steps,but I am afraid we might.

 

[dudalb]

ANd please ignore that this was the most plainly racial crime stories of the entire decade, or that Cheeto Benito (who, as I recall, saw fit to pardon Joe Arpaio despite his habit of hassling Hispanic people to the point of ignoring child rape cases - huh, another GOPer that's cool with child molestation...) insisted that they belonged in jail even after they had served their sentences, and been cleared by DNA evidence that pointed to a single rapist, who was at the time serving in prison himself for raping and murdering other women, and who feely confessed that he, and he alone, committed the famous Central Park attack.

Nope, nothing racial there, nosiree.

You'd have to be a real chump to actually believe that.

Or you would be trying very hard NOT to see any bigotry. Willful ignorance.

And of course Donnie would not scream racist slurs at the top of the voice.That would scare away people. You do it by euphemism,by hints, by inference, by a wink and a nod,by code words.
Drew BOt fails, big time.
People here are defending Trump and sanctioned a racist government because they want their goddamn tax cuts, and don't give a crap about everything else.

 

[Upchurch]

So far The US has not taken any irretrievable steps,but I am afraid we might.

Separating infants and toddlers, who have trouble saying their own names let alone anyone from their families, from their parents, might be pretty damn irretrievable.