user104658 |
28-06-2020 01:55 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Livia
(Post 10871326)
So.… comparisons with Nazi Germany should just be sucked up? Because you think it unacademic, illogical and damaging.
It's funny to be how gentiles repeatedly tell me what I should be thinking in case I don't understand. Even more insulting.
You may wrongly think that making comparisons between Trump, who's probably finished after his Covid performance, and Hitler is perfectly acceptable. That's your prerogative. But please don't tell me that I'm wrong to disagree. Especially in light of your sig....a bunch of completely out of context Googled quotes from the man who saved this country from the Nazis. Also your prerogative...
|
I'm not telling you what to think or what your opinions should be - but you're not saying that you are insulted by it, or that you find it offensive, you're stating as fact that it IS inherently insulting and offensive in an attempt to shame people out of doing it. There's one person here trying to shut down opinion and dictate "appropriate conversation" Livia, and it certainly isn't me. I fully accept your right to find these comparisons and conversations difficult and offensive. I don't accept your attempts to shame other people out of having those conversations, and making those comparisons.
You also, presumably, know fine well that comparison and pointing out precedent in no way involves suggesting equivalency? That pointing out that there are valid comparisons to be made between current global politics and early-20th-century politics (which seems undeniable, to me) is not in the slightest the same thing as saying they're identical, nor is it an attempt to argue that Trump is identical to Hitler. The "comparison = equivalence" counter arguments are usually a strawman tactic employed by people who find the comparison confronting or uncomfortable.
I can compare apples to oranges, pears, plums, carrots, and small red family hatchbacks whilst acknowledging that none of them are the same thing.
You're in law. You understand that. You know that pointing out precedent in a previous case is not a claim that two cases are identical. Why do you keep pretending that you're mystified by the concept?
|