[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

My point is that two things dont have to be identical to come under the same heading,I.e. the argument that Trump is nothing like Hitler because he is not EXACTLY like Hitler is logically invalid. In other words, kirk pointing out the differences between the two men does not negate the fact that there are also similarities, any more than pointing out that bananas and oranges have differences stops either from being a fruit.

Trump is not "a Nazi". Trumps political platform and the rhetoric he uses to gain support has clear similarities to the emotive tactics used by Hitler; economic pride, xenophobia, scapegoating. It is valid to point that out and it is a valid concern, because it is a toxic brand of politics fuelled by fear and hatred. Some seem to believe that this is the same as simply saying "zomg trump is a Hitler Nazi oh no!!", and they seek to shoot this down (passively censor it) by bleating on about Godwin's law.

As for the final part, that's not complicated at all. My issue with terrorists being called monsters has nothing at all to do with it being a "bad term", my issue there is simply that monsters do - not - exist... And using the term "monsters" therefore distracts from the uncomfortable truth of what these people actually are. Nazis on the other hand, are unfortunately very real. It is a descriptive term for a wretched type of human, not an attempt to cognitively reject a human as "other".

People can choose to call other people monsters even if they are not literally monsters. They can choose to call them animals, even though they are not literally animals. I can't see why you would be so concerned about the syntax of other people's comments. Terrorist, in my book, ARE monsters. Figuratively, not literally.

Trump is not a Nazi and anyone comparing him to a Nazi needs to look a little harder into what a Nazi actually is.

Also, if people mention Godwin's Law it's for a reason. The fact that you consider it to be "bleating" is neither here nor there.