3 ms·

Sure, we should be vigilant against hate speech. But not by banning speech, and not by manipulating it. And saying that we shouldn't allow a specific faith into

Sure, we should be vigilant against hate speech. But not by banning speech, and not by manipulating it. And saying that we shouldn't allow a specific faith into the United States, even on a temporary basis, is certainly against the American ethos. But it's not Hitler. I would say a more apt comparison to Hitler is the language used in the parent to my comment: "If that's the man Thiel wants to stand with so be it. But I won't forget." An implied long-term threat against someone for voicing political support for the Republican candidate for President of the United States. Now that is a tactic straight out of the Joseph Goebbels playbook.

josho 10y ago
I find it interesting that you went to "banning speech". I don't equate anything the parent said with wanting to ban speech. Further I thought the comparison to Hitler was thought provoking as many German intellectuals looked the other way when Hitler and began instituting their policies. The "First they came.."[1] poem comes to mind. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
- CptJamesCook 10y ago
  No one is coming for anyone. No one has said a thing about American citizens. Your comparison is unfair. Comparing people whose policies you disagree with to Hitler is McCarthyism. Hitler: Before he even gained power, he said he wanted to gas the devil jews. Before he won power democratically, he tried to seize power in a violent coup that left 15 people dead. Once he gained power, he quickly imposed a series of laws that made it illegal for jews to work in academia, own property, work as judges, work as doctors, etc. Trump: Enforce immigration laws that are already on the books, provide extra scrutiny to Muslims ("most of whom are wonderful people") before they are allowed into the country.
joshkpeterson 10y ago
We're not banning or manipulating speech, we're simply labeling what Trump said. It's demagoguery. And no, your attempt to turn the tables and characterize the parent comment as Hitlerish is not convincing (it's obviously utter bullshit). But, it does actually undermine your original argument that it's bad to compare things to Hitler. If it's so unfair, then why are you doing it?

josho 10y ago

I find it interesting that you went to "banning speech". I don't equate anything the parent said with wanting to ban speech. Further I thought the comparison to Hitler was thought provoking as many German intellectuals looked the other way when Hitler and began instituting their policies. The "First they came.."[1] poem comes to mind. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

CptJamesCook 10y ago
No one is coming for anyone. No one has said a thing about American citizens. Your comparison is unfair. Comparing people whose policies you disagree with to Hitler is McCarthyism. Hitler: Before he even gained power, he said he wanted to gas the devil jews. Before he won power democratically, he tried to seize power in a violent coup that left 15 people dead. Once he gained power, he quickly imposed a series of laws that made it illegal for jews to work in academia, own property, work as judges, work as doctors, etc. Trump: Enforce immigration laws that are already on the books, provide extra scrutiny to Muslims ("most of whom are wonderful people") before they are allowed into the country.

joshkpeterson 10y ago

We're not banning or manipulating speech, we're simply labeling what Trump said. It's demagoguery. And no, your attempt to turn the tables and characterize the parent comment as Hitlerish is not convincing (it's obviously utter bullshit). But, it does actually undermine your original argument that it's bad to compare things to Hitler. If it's so unfair, then why are you doing it?