My very minor status as an authority on Adolf Hitler comparisons stems from having coined “Godwin’s Law” about three decades ago. I originally framed this “law” as a pseudoscientific postulate: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.” (That is, its likelihood approaches 100 percent.)
… We had the luxury of deriving humor from Hitler and Nazi comparisons when doing so was almost always hyperbole. It’s not a luxury we can afford anymore.
…
What’s arguably worse than Trump’s frank authoritarianism is his embrace of dehumanizing tropes that seem to echo Hitler’s rhetoric deliberately. For many weeks now, Trump has been road-testing his use of the word “vermin” to describe those who oppose him and to characterize undocumented immigrants as “poisoning the blood of our country.” Even for an amateur historian like me, the parallels to Hitler’s rhetoric seem inescapable.
He’s said the same thing before. Back in 2016, in fact. He never meant it to mean “any comparison to Nazis is wrong” despite a bunch of fools on the internet thinking that’s what it means.
Technically, Godwin’s law was used to mark the point where a conversation was over because most comparisons to nazis are unwarranted and the argument was that once the tone has become this incendiary it’s pointless to continue, not that all nazi comparisons were intrinsically wrong.
deleted by creator
If it steps like a goose
Then what?! For God’s sake, then what!
throw new NotADuckException();Nothing in that catch block, though.
It’s a goose
Goose step!
Rake in the lake.
Pluck it and its a man?
Dude is literally quoting Hitler
I heard Hitler also quoted himself quite often.
That does it! He’s crossed a line no man should cross.
Godwin, not Goodwin.
Fixed. Thanks
“And Trump’s express, self-conscious commitment to a franker form of hate-driven rhetoric probably counts as a special instance of the law: The longer a constitutional republic endures — with strong legal and constitutional limits on governmental power — the probability of a Hitler-like political actor pushing to diminish or erase those limits approaches 100 percent.”
I was just watching a video that claims parliamentary systems are much less susceptible to that kind of fuckery than presidential ones. The US is apparently doing remarkably well for a country with a presidential system, because they usually turn into outright dictatorships pretty quickly.
I would expect a parliamentary system to also be friendlier to multiple political parties. Currently in the US a minor political party can’t really gain any power, whereas in a parliamentary system, it seems like a minor party could be a critical part of building a coalition
Glad we have permission to call a thing what it is.
Imma file this under Winners v. Losers exception ;)
