When you start using Hitler and Jews... You lost it..
Other commenter expounded to your the error of your choice. It is up to your to figure if you care where he or she is coming from.
That analysis is solid IMHO tho
When you start using Hitler and Jews... You lost it..
Other commenter expounded to your the error of your choice. It is up to your to figure if you care where he or she is coming from.
That analysis is solid IMHO tho
AnyOldName3@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Godwin’s law isn’t claiming that it’s fallacious to compare things to Hitler or that the person who first mentions Hitler is wrong, it’s just observing that comparisons to Hitler eventually happen if an argument goes on long enough. It’s kind of obvious, too. Reductio ad absurdum is a valid form of argument, and as long as whoever you’re discussing something is isn’t ludicrously off the deep end, they’ll agree that Hitler is obviously bad, so if someone says something, and that thing when taken to its logical conclusion would imply (in the logically guarantees sense rather than subtly suggests sense) that Hitler wasn’t bad, it’s quick and easy to point that out as a demonstration that the thing must be wrong.
In this specific case, though, it’s even simpler. Hitler and Thatcher are both obviously bad, and they were putting words in my mouth about Thatcher when objecting to a comment where I’d explicitly called her evil to suggest that I was claiming she wasn’t evil.