If an alien came to earth and we gave them a day to learn about our culture through the internet, they could not be faulted if they thought that Hitler was the most influential person in all of history, and somehow lived all these years to 2018.
Have you heard of Godwin’s Law?
It is an infamous adage, coined by Mike Godwin in 1990 that says: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches 1”
Essentially what this means is, the longer we argue about a subject, it becomes more and more likely that someone, or something is going to be compared to Hitler in some way.
This was back in 1990! The internet was barely an infant child at this time, taking its first steps with the help of Yahoo.com and AOL! How much more true must it be today? I wonder if someone hasn’t already determined a mathematical solution for how quickly the comparison happens, or how often it happens on a daily basis.
Everybody does it.
Whether they’re joking or being completely serious. Whether they mean it as a compliment, an insult, or a call to action.
It’s the universal exclamation point at the end of every failed debate and signals the conclusion of any rational thought.
What I’m trying to say, is that using Hitler as a comparison or a debate point in any situation is wrong. Most of the time it’s going to be misleading and inflammatory, (if that’s the news organization’s goal, then you need a new source of news). Or it’s going to rally those despicable humans who idolize the mass murderer.
Both of those scenarios seem less-than-ideal to me.
If you’re an intelligent person, with a valid position, and a drive to convince others, you should be able to share that position without resorting to Hitler in any fashion.
Until the person you’re calling Hitler has:
-Personally issued an order to kill millions of certain minority groups.
-Personally invaded dozens of countries, integrating them into a “Fatherland” after promising he/she would not.
-Organized violent riots throughout the country, destroying business, and killing (or threatening to kill) any news organizations who opposed their viewpoint.
-Rallied the poor in their country and blamed all their country’s woes and problems on the rich business owners, confiscated their property and drove them out of the country, giving all their possessions to the native countrymen.
Your “insult” means nothing.
All it really does is highlight your inability to form a defensible position around your idea and muster a coherent argument. It shows that your whole position rests on the opposition of someone you don’t like. It shows that you either don’t have a position of your own, or don’t understand your position enough to argue its valid points. It shows that you let your emotions control what you say and do, rather than thoughtful research and thinking.
What you’re really saying is, “This guy is bad, in my opinion, so you should hate him because Hitler was bad too.”
Essentially, running to “So-and-so is literally Hitler” is the modern political equivalent of “I know you are but what am I?”
Those who continually refer to Hitler as a comparison for their enemies, keep him alive and active as much as he was when he was actually walking this earth.