[user104658]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

i seem to remember that Farage for this and no doubt in French forums Le Pen gets this all the time, in fact I doubt that there has been any right wing popular politician who has not been compared to Hitler, ever

Well surely they can be. I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding of the word "comparison" to be honest, like I said, with people believing that "compare" and "equate" mean the same when they don't. "There's no comparison!!1!!1"... Well... Of course there is. I could write a lengthy post comparing Hitler to a banana sundae, if the mood were to strike. Or anything else. There may be no similarity at all... That would be a part of the comparison?

So yes, compare any right wing politician to a facist dictator and you will inevitably find similarities to highlight. That's inevitable. Just as it's inevitable that you will be able to find similarities between left wing politicians and hard socialism / communism / Marxism. The Tories for example absolutely love to do just that?

So, it is in fact perfectly valid to compare Trump with Hitler. There's no inherent problem with it, if it's just part of the conversation and explained. There ARE similarities in the reasons that they rose to popularity, there ARE similarities in their rhetoric. Should it be off limits to say so just because of the wider implications? In my opinion, no, but I guess it depends on your audience and your intent. Pointing these things out is not the same as saying "Trump = Hitler! Trump is a Nazi!"

IMO Godwin's law comes into play, then, when "Nazi" or "Hitler" is used as the descriptor itself without further examination or elaboration. When the entire argument is "X is a Nazi", "Y is Nazi propaganda" etc.

There's no inherent problem with comparison.