Your opinion: Obvious or not obvious?

[Vort]

ADAM (original Facebook posting): Well, Obama won, the Republicans retained the House, gay marriage gains approved, and guess what? The world didn't end.

BOB: Well, Hitler killed six million Jews, terrorists flew airplanes into the WTC, and a family was wiped out in an automobile accident. And guess what? The world didn't end. But the fact that the world didn't end does not mean those things were not bad or hurtful.

CATHY: Oh, very nice, Bob, comparing Obama to Hitler. Nothing extreme about that. :)

BOB: Cathy, I didn't compare Obama to Hitler. I said that Adam's observation that "the world didn't end" doesn't mean the things he mentioned were of no consequence. Not sure how to make this any clearer. Did you also think I was comparing Obama's re-election to a family being wiped out? Or was it just the Hitler thing?

CATHY: You compared Obama's reelection to Hitler's genocide (and the WTC bombings). I think my interpretation was perfectly reasonable.

BOB: No, I did not. Again, I don't know how to make this any clearer.

************************

What say ye? Was Cathy's interpretation perfectly reasonable? Was Bob's invocation of Godwin's Law reasonably interpreted as a comparison with Obama?

[jerome1232]

I don't think Cathy's interpretation was reasonable, it is however the interpretation I have come to expect from most people.

[Guest]

I think the Cathys of the world hear what they want to hear.

[Backroads]

... I do agree with Cathy. Say what you will about Obama, but I think the interpretation she drew of the extremity of Bob's comment was valid.

[jerome1232]

He's saying "Look at these terrible tragedies that happened in the past and the world didn't end then, therefore, just because the world doesn't end doesn't mean it wasn't a terrible tragedy"

He's not saying "Obama is Hitler reincarnate"

[Wingnut]

Was Cathy's interpretation perfectly reasonable? Was Bob's invocation of Godwin's Law reasonably interpreted as a comparison with Obama?

Yes.

But why is this important? Really?

[Anddenex]

Obvious.

Premise...the world didn't end.

Bob's comment, albeit a harsh example, the premise...the world still didn't end, doesn't mean it isn't a bad or hurtful thing.

The analysis...the world ending isn't a good comparison to judge if everything is ok or not.

[bythelake]

Well, I don't think Cathy's interpretation was "perfectly reasonable".

But it seems like all of the three individuals said what they did, based on their own individual viewpoints. And all of the three are reacting to someone else's viewpoint. I don't see a problem, as long as they don't get too worked up about it. (But they could probably be more diplomatic, if their object is to be persuasive.)

I think the Cathys of the world hear what they want to hear.

Hey, I'm extremely offended by that, since I'm also a Cathy. .................... lol..hehe...jk

(not about being a Cathy, but about being "extremely offended").

Edited November 7, 2012 by bythelake

[NeuroTypical]

When you use the word "Hitler", you are adding unneccesary emotional inflamation to a discussion. Go ahead and do it all you want, but if your goal is a reasoned discussion based on principles of logic, introducing the word "Hitler" can make it harder to reach your goal, not easier.

Of course, if your goal is to catch and expose people making logical flaws, then introducing the word "Hitler" is a great way to go about things.

I'm a fan of good ol' practical pragmatic logic, but I also understand what gets in the way.

[slamjet]

Gordon B Hinckley:

The Book of Mormon narrative is a chronicle of nations long since gone. But in its descriptions of the problems of today’s society, it is as current as the morning newspaper and much more definitive, inspired, and inspiring concerning the solutions of those problems.

I know of no other writing which sets forth with such clarity the tragic consequences to societies that follow courses contrary to the commandments of God. Its pages trace the stories of two distinct civilizations that flourished on the Western Hemisphere. Each began as a small nation, its people walking in the fear of the Lord. But with prosperity came growing evils. The people succumbed to the wiles of ambitious and scheming leaders who oppressed them with burdensome taxes, who lulled them with hollow promises, who countenanced and even encouraged loose and lascivious living. These evil schemers led the people into terrible wars that resulted in the death of millions and the final and total extinction of two great civilizations in two different eras.

No other written testament so clearly illustrates the fact that when men and nations walk in the fear of God and in obedience to His commandments, they prosper and grow, but when they disregard Him and His word, there comes a decay that, unless arrested by righteousness, leads to impotence and death. The Book of Mormon is an affirmation of the Old Testament proverb: “Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people” (Proverbs 14:34).

The God of heaven spoke to these people of the Americas through prophets, telling them where true security could be found: “Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ” (Ether 2:12).

Don't know if it fits, but seemed appropriate. Along with the Cathy's of the world, there seems to be a shift going on in the world where it's no longer a "what can we do for others" but "what's in it for me" thus fostering an attitude of self-centeredness where supposed insult and injury is read into even the most innocuous and meaningless comment. All the while feeling at the same time, self importance and self condemnation.

Times are getting mighty strange, mighty fast, with no brakes.

[Backroads]

I still don't think Bob should get off scot-free for making an intentionally challenging comment.

[Finrock]

ADAM (original Facebook posting): Well, Obama won, the Republicans retained the House, gay marriage gains approved, and guess what? The world didn't end.

BOB: Well, Hitler killed six million Jews, terrorists flew airplanes into the WTC, and a family was wiped out in an automobile accident. And guess what? The world didn't end. But the fact that the world didn't end does not mean those things were not bad or hurtful.

CATHY: Oh, very nice, Bob, comparing Obama to Hitler. Nothing extreme about that. :)

BOB: Cathy, I didn't compare Obama to Hitler. I said that Adam's observation that "the world didn't end" doesn't mean the things he mentioned were of no consequence. Not sure how to make this any clearer. Did you also think I was comparing Obama's re-election to a family being wiped out? Or was it just the Hitler thing?

CATHY: You compared Obama's reelection to Hitler's genocide (and the WTC bombings). I think my interpretation was perfectly reasonable.

BOB: No, I did not. Again, I don't know how to make this any clearer.

************************

What say ye? Was Cathy's interpretation perfectly reasonable? Was Bob's invocation of Godwin's Law reasonably interpreted as a comparison with Obama?

Cathy's response is not reasonable because it misses the point. Bob's answer demonstrates the relative nature of tragedies and it shows that the consequences of an action or event need not be the "end of the world" before reasonable people should be concerned or worried about a consequence. For instance, Hitler killing 6 millions Jews did not cause the end of the world, however, we are still justified in being worried and concerned about that event and acting to prevent it. At the same time, a family dying in a car accident should also cause us concern and we should act to prevent things like this happening, even though a family dying in a car accident did not cause the world to end.

I believe the final point is this: President Obama was elected president. No, the world did not come to an end, but we need not wait for such an extreme consequence (world coming to an end) before good people are justified in being concerned and acting to change the direction that the country is heading and where it is being led by its leader.

Regards,

Finrock

[Backroads]

However, Bob made his point worse by dragging in the name "Hitler". As Loudmouth pointed out, most people recognize using that name--when used in a comparison--as antogonistic, usually more for drama than debate.

Also, how in the world do we stop people from dying in car accidents? Ban cars?

[Maureen]

ADAM (original Facebook posting): Well, Obama won, the Republicans retained the House, gay marriage gains approved, and guess what? The world didn't end.

BOB: Well, Hitler killed six million Jews, terrorists flew airplanes into the WTC, and a family was wiped out in an automobile accident. And guess what? The world didn't end. But the fact that the world didn't end does not mean those things were not bad or hurtful.

CATHY: Oh, very nice, Bob, comparing Obama to Hitler. Nothing extreme about that. :)

BOB: Cathy, I didn't compare Obama to Hitler. I said that Adam's observation that "the world didn't end" doesn't mean the things he mentioned were of no consequence. Not sure how to make this any clearer. Did you also think I was comparing Obama's re-election to a family being wiped out? Or was it just the Hitler thing?

CATHY: You compared Obama's reelection to Hitler's genocide (and the WTC bombings). I think my interpretation was perfectly reasonable.

BOB: No, I did not. Again, I don't know how to make this any clearer.

************************

What say ye? Was Cathy's interpretation perfectly reasonable? Was Bob's invocation of Godwin's Law reasonably interpreted as a comparison with Obama?

I see this discussion slightly different. Bob points out terrible events that did occur and the whole world did not come to an end but for those people effected by Hitler, the WTC and the car accident; their world did come to an end. So I can see how Cathy can view it her way because Adam's and Bob's comparisons are so different. As far as I can tell no one has actually lost their life because Obama was re-elected. No one's world has come to an end because of the election.

M.

[Dravin]

Some comparisons, while valid, are practically an invitation to be taken out of context. Hitler was an amateur artist, I could say to someone, "You paint like Hitler." I shouldn't be surprise if they take it further than the technical comparisons of artwork. I think Cathy's reading is unreasonable but I think Bob has learned a valuable lesson that just because a comparison or example is valid doesn't mean it is necessarily a good one to use, at least among certain audiences*.

*An academic audience may appreciate a comparison of modern political advertising to the propaganda efforts of Joseph Goebbels. I suspect your random Facebook audience is going to hear, "My examples of choice are Nazis." and not much else.

Edited November 7, 2012 by Dravin

[Bini]

I think the feelings of Adam, Bob and Cathy are all valid. How you feel is how you feel. How you express what you feel and how that is interpreted is an entirely different ball game.

[rameumptom]

Anytime a Democrat's name and Hitler are stated in the same sentence, someone is going to cry "foul", regardless of whether the two were compared. It is political correctness gone amok.

Also, most people today are generally illiterate. They can read Harry Potter, but cannot type anything beyond a Twitter feed. Cathy was unable to dissect the sentence properly.

Third, you are dealing with people on Facebook! That is often akin to the "People of Walmart". While there are a few intelligent people that walk the aisles of Walmart, more and more of them choose to shop Target in order to avoid the minions of Dogpatch, USA.

[Backroads]

(It was either thank rammy for his thoughtful post or to laugh at the all-too-true comments. I chose laugh, I hope Rammy is not offended).

[rameumptom]

Backroads, as long as you don't compare me with Hitler or Obama, you are okay....

[Bini]

I missed it.

[Finrock]

Also, how in the world do we stop people from dying in car accidents? Ban cars?

Here are some efforts from the top of my head that could potentially stop, or lower, the number of traffic fatalities:

1. Efforts to create safer cars.

2. Efforts to increase driver education

3. Efforts to end DUIs

4. Efforts to make better and safer roads

5. Efforts to have better health care and health care technology

6. Efforts to make access to hospitals better/quicker

I agree that the name Hitler can be emotive and I agree that the point could have been made without using Hitler.

Regards,

Finrock

[bythelake]

I know Hitler is the extreme example of an emotionally charged word.

But it is unfortunate that sometimes the emotional associations that words acquire can interfere with intelligent discussion.

Take the word "socialist". If you were to say that someone was a socialist, you would be thought to be engaging in name calling. And sometimes, it might be name calling, if the person saying it is just saying it, but doesn't have support for what they are saying.

In some European countries, though, the term doesn't have the same stigma. People who advocate policies that could be considered socialist wouldn't have a problem saying they are a socialist.

Here, people who favored the same types of policies would avoid being associated with the term, and would disavow it as "name calling". So it becomes something difficult to have a real discussion about.

And, let's go back to Hitler. Comparing someone with Hitler comes across as really tacky, because of the atrocities he committed.

But what about the concept of fascism...what it is, different types of fascism, things that allowed Hitler to gain the people's support (when they didn't know what he was up to) and to gain the level of power he did. Those things are entirely appropriate to discuss, or should be, because history repeats itself.

Even more than a dozen years ago, I've heard about people who had lived in pre-WWII Germany and left there to come here, because they saw what was going on. Then, many years later, they said they saw us starting to go in the same direction; but they didn't know where to go.

If this is true, then that is a discussion we should be having. But it's difficult to do.

[rameumptom]

Just to clarify one thing: Hitler was not a fascist. He was a Socialist. Mussolini was a fascist. Of course, both are totalitarian organizations which can lead to radicalism, social unrest and warfare.

[Blackmarch]

I don't think Cathy's interpretation was reasonable, it is however the interpretation I have come to expect from most people.

Speaking from experience, In general i don't expect most internet denizens to use good logic and/or reading skills. (which is one of the reasons I enjoy this site; it's a merciful respite from that). I have no idea why, but i think hate and anger are good candidates (perhaps a lack of education as well).

For cathys side of the picture, that theme gets used so much that the context she saw is what would generally be seen (and is what it was one of the initial thoughts i had with the OP quote).. however Cathy's real mistake was ignoring the follow-up explanation, or not taking that explanation into account.

Edited November 8, 2012 by Blackmarch

[applepansy]

ADAM (original Facebook posting): Well, Obama won, the Republicans retained the House, gay marriage gains approved, and guess what? The world didn't end.

BOB: Well, Hitler killed six million Jews, terrorists flew airplanes into the WTC, and a family was wiped out in an automobile accident. And guess what? The world didn't end. But the fact that the world didn't end does not mean those things were not bad or hurtful.

CATHY: Oh, very nice, Bob, comparing Obama to Hitler. Nothing extreme about that. :)

BOB: Cathy, I didn't compare Obama to Hitler. I said that Adam's observation that "the world didn't end" doesn't mean the things he mentioned were of no consequence. Not sure how to make this any clearer. Did you also think I was comparing Obama's re-election to a family being wiped out? Or was it just the Hitler thing?

CATHY: You compared Obama's reelection to Hitler's genocide (and the WTC bombings). I think my interpretation was perfectly reasonable.

BOB: No, I did not. Again, I don't know how to make this any clearer.

************************

What say ye? Was Cathy's interpretation perfectly reasonable? Was Bob's invocation of Godwin's Law reasonably interpreted as a comparison with Obama?

I had a similar conversation several months ago. All I said was "Altruism is not evil by itself, but when forced it is evil? The person I was talking to read "Obama is evil" and responded "I"m not friends with people who think my president is evil." Then she unfriended me.