3 ms·
I used to think as you outlined here, and then I realised that I would only care if they made a Third Reich comparison that I disagreed with. If they said Milo
by brongondwana 5y ago
I used to think as you outlined here, and then I realised that I would only care if they made a Third Reich comparison that I disagreed with. If they said Milo is literally Hitler, I'd... well, I would have been very confused because Milo is a tasty chocolate drink. But I wouldn't have considered it an offense... so the offense wasn't actually the use of unspeakable comparisons, it was the sin of doing so while disagreeing with me!
So I try not to judge quite so quickly now, though I probably still fail plenty...
- FridayoLeary 5y agoThe only things that should be compared to Nazis and Hitler should be the Nazis and Hitler themselves. I don't think that's unreasonable. [Edit: some people think it is reasonable, but they don't want to explain themselves]
- bryanrasmussen 5y agoI guess I'll disagree with that, Nazis and Hitler are not some holy or taboo things that must never be compared to anything else, the problem is that comparison between things becomes difficult the more emotionally charged the things being compared are, so if you are going to compare Nazis and Hitler with something else you better be really clever at making comparisons and able to fight when folks come unglued.
- FridayoLeary 5y agoand who can do that? Logically what you are saying makes sense, but when applied practically it falls apart. Leading me to suggest a blanket taboo considering how hugely disrespectful and inconsiderate there comparisons are.