For the record, if you want a sure way to get people to stop listening to you, compare someone to hitler or the nazis.

That being said, I think (hope) the point he's making is this is just another 'them.' In this century alone it's been the Germans and Japanese, the Communists, or the terrorists. They're always somehow 'shadowy and lurk among us' and there's always a 'constant threat of ending civilization as we know it.' It's all crap-spewing, and the saddest thing of all is that the boy crieds wolf. What little danger IS there is not corrected in any worthwhile fashion, it's beaten with a hammer.

Goodwin's law originally stated that as a thread grows longer, the probability of someone mentioning Hitler or Nazis approaches one.
This has drifted to be that in any thread, as soon as someone says "that's what the Nazis/Hitler would do/say" that person automatically loses the argument and the thread ends.
HOWEVER! There is also Quirk's exception, which states that Hitler and Nazism may be mentioned without activating Goodwin's law, if it is actually relevant to the topic.

I think in this thread, it was relevant. Bandito was talking about the desire for an external enemy. Consider the following quote:
Islam is the new communism.

Halliburton. duh.

I don't buy it man. After our, and many other countries, sacrifices during WW2, to compare our current government with that of the Nazi's because you hate Bush or whatever the fuck is pissing you off is fucking stupid and you ought to be stoned to death.

:lol: that last :lol: comment is something :lol: a nazi would say :lol:

That was a joke.

Serious reply:
True, there are vast differences between Hitler and Bush, between the Nazis and the Republicans.
But I also think it is true that lots of governments (Australia's current PM Howard as well as Bush, for example) like to play on fear of an external threat to boost their popularity, and aren't above twisting the facts to suit their purposes.
Since this is widespread, we might argue that Quirk's exception doesn't apply here and we should invoke Goodwin's law. But the Nazis were particularly explicit in this strategy, and so I still think this is a legitimate mention.
This is not to say that the Bush administration is in every respect like the Nazis.

Stoned to death? I've tried, but I kept running out.

It wasn't a comparison of Hitler-Bush. Who wants to do that again? Go through all that guff.

It was that external, ultra-demonic enemy, used against a populace to inspire nationalism and fervour, allowing the governing body to do what they want.

Islam is the new Communism - damn right. Hell, I'd go so far as to say Islam is the new war on drugs.

Does Islam deserve it? I don't think so. No more than the Jews during WWII. Does any People deserve it?

Well said Bandito.

It has very little to do with Islam. It has to do with a minority of radical elements who have co-opted the cause and a majority who are afraid to speak up. There is no way you can compare the democracy of today to the Nazi's and Facists of yesteryear. It is like people who believe in Bible code. Parallels can be drawn from many situations.

I think the comparison was between the democracy of today, and the democracy of Pre-WWII Germany.

Which lead to the rise of Facism and Nazism? No deal. I don't buy the comparison that our current democracy is in someway akin to what lead to the events in Germany and the rise of such evil.

Nah, people in the US would never support Hilteresque practices.

Neither would have the pre-war Germans.

Americans aren't some sort of super-race that can feel free to use the tactics of fear and nationalism and expect the fundamental goodness of our country to protect us from their ill effects.

I don't think they don't expect anything, nor do Americans think they are a "super-race". It is MHO that the "ill effects" are overblown.

Sorry, I can't see youtube propaganda at work.

yeah, that is a great example of the average american.:rolleyes: