Comments on: Playing the Nazi card

By: Hitler and Obama: Reductio ad Irrelevantum « P.A.P. Blog – Politics, Art and Philosophy

Tue, 22 Sep 2009 08:00:23 +0000

[...] 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. [...]

By: Robert Nijssen

Robert Nijssen — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:13:27 +0000

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.

By: Philip Hölzenspies

Philip Hölzenspies — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 20:39:15 +0000

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.

By: Johan van Elst

Johan van Elst — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 06:20:17 +0000

Hawk,

Thank you for calling me a nutcase:) I am not sure I completely understood your point though. Care to eloborate?

By: Hawk

Hawk — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:38:29 +0000

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.

By: The Weekly Wilders Round-Up « Defend Geert Wilders

The Weekly Wilders Round-Up « Defend Geert Wilders — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:34:08 +0000

[...] Gibburt – Playing the Nazi card [...]

By: Johan van Elst

Johan van Elst — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 06:43:02 +0000

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.

By: Cédric

Cédric — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 09:25:39 +0000

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.

By: Filip

Filip — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 15:55:45 +0000

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.