GibburtPlaying the Nazi card
With the increasing number of blogs, forums and other means of throwing opinions into the public space, the need for tools to sift the wheat from the chaff also increases. This can be done by looking at the arguments that are being used, and check what rhetorical tricks, also known as logical fallacies, are being pulled.
One of the more obscure and dirty fallacies is the reductio ad Hitlerum. It occurs, when the statement of the opponent is compared to Nazi Germany or Hitler in order to bring the opponent into discredit and point to the danger of the statement.
Traditionally this delusive reasoning can be observed in discussions with rigid standpoints on both sides, like abortion and gay marriage. Recent examples of this phenomenon are the discussion about ObamaCare in the U.S., and the public discourse that revolves around Member of Parliament Geert Wilders in the Netherlands. Even more examples can be found here.
It is not remarkable that trolls use this kind of reasoning. What strikes is that even respectable blogs sometimes find it necessary to pull this trick.
In popular culture, the use of this type of logical fallacy is often referred to as “Godwin’s Law“. This ‘law’ states that as discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. See here for an example of Godwin’s Law at work.
Using a reductio ad Hitlerum should be done with great care, if it used at all. The least of its dangers is that even when the comparison has some claim to be justified, the writer puts his own credibility on the line. Far worse however is that the opponent of the discussion can justly claim that he’s being demonised and thus counter the Nazi card with the powerful victim card.
Since I’m the target of this criticism (the “respectable blog”; by the way thanks for the label
allow me to respond. I do in fact compare Wilders’ actions to some of Hitler’s. (Banning books is banning books…) But in criticizing me for this you step into a fallacy of your own, one which could be called reduction ad egalitarium: you reduce a comparison to an equation. Since when is it no longer allowed to compare anything or anyone to Hitler? And I stress “compare”; I didn’t equate Wilders and Hitler. I agree that we too often use the label “facism” for things which are simple “bad” in our eyes. But when someone starts to advocate the banning of books, it’s quite reasonable to point to historical precedent.
Thanks for your reaction!
The point I tried to make is not that one should never make the comparison with the Third Reich, but that such a comparison tends to kill the debate and give the opponent the opportunity to weasel out of the discussion.
The most effective tactic against a populists like Wilders is to try to keep the discussion focused on facts and arguments, because that’s where he’s most vulnerable.
Comparing him with a mass murderer that also banned books gives him the opportunity to leave the arguments behind, strut in his underdog position and reinforce his self proclaimed cordon sanitaire.
Cedric,
Interesting article. But what you say then is that it is from a practical point of view not advisable to use the reduction ad Hitlerum because you give your opponent an advantage the debate.For me the principle aspects are the problem: the value of a certain line of reasoning should be discussed by itself more than by its coincidental similarity to a certain event from the Nazi period.
[...] Gibburt – Playing the Nazi card [...]
Johan, how about you discuss the value about me finding you an nutcase.
Even if you go analysing why someone seems to have the same mustache and greasy hair as Hilter, the discussion isn’t anymore about why this bleached hair guy is wrong, but about the merits of comparing him with some kraut dude.
Hawk,
Thank you for calling me a nutcase:) I am not sure I completely understood your point though. Care to eloborate?
The most notable downside of playing the Hitler-card is that it is usually quite arbitrary. Filip says there’s no problem with making historical comparison, but the reference is still rather arbitrary, for me. Except for the industrialized destruction of Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals (the emphasis is on the industrialized bit), most things that tease out a Hitler-card reference can be compared to many oppressions in history. In the case of book banishing (let alone book burning), I would think more of centuries of Vatican influence. If you want something more recent: American fundamentalist evangelicals (most commonly they just hate books on evolution, but there’s also quite a lot of literature they would like to see burned). Playing the Hitler-card, though, gives the default emotional connotation; when it was what the Nazis did, it must be bad, because by now EVERYONE must realize that the Nazis were bad.
I agree with Cédric that it’s a discussion killer and it offers an easy out for the accused. I would go one further: when not referencing something very specific to the Third Reich (as opposed to most historical oppressions), the Hitler-card is, for lack of a better term, a cheap shot.
Philip,
Good comment, I agree that in the case of book burning one can wonder wether there aren’t any less suggestive historical examples available to us.
[...] The classic escape of the politically desperate: compare your opponent to Hitler/fascists/nazis, even if the only thing they have in common is an irrelevant detail. This is usually called, in dog Latin, a reductio ad Hitlerumor reductio ad Nazium, and I’ve been accused of it myself. [...]