[coldcode]

"His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it." Hitler's rules sound vaguely familiar.

[Shubley]

Bear in mind that this is contemporary writing. They likely wrote it in such a way with the goal of forming this comparison in your mind.

I think one needs to look at older writings to get a take that isn't designed to reinforce the constructed media narrative du jour.

Even then its hard to get decent info on this topic because its always been so morally charged. Nothing obscures reality worse than moral concerns.

Edit: I think you can also apply that description to several parties in the modern media environment.

[makomk]

Indeed, it's important to remember that publications like Wired do have a narrative they want to push. My favourite example of this is still these two articles about the possibility of hacking election machines to rig the election:

https://www.wired.com/2016/10/wireds-totally-legit-guide-rig... - from before the election, claiming it was basically impossible and would require a massive conspiracy

https://www.wired.com/2016/11/hacked-not-audit-election-rest... - from after the election, arguing the safeguards against hacking are ineffective and casting doubt on the security of the election

Both articles are backed up by a convincing-sounding set of facts and expert opinions, yet despite the available evidence not actually changing they come to completely opposite conclusions. All that changed was that before the election "hacking voting machines is impossible" was the better anti-Trump narrative, and after he won there was suddenly a reason to cast doubt on the results. It's all about the narrative. (Which is one reason you should question the endlessly-repeated claim that there's "no such thing as alternative facts". Careful selection of which facts to include and exclude is a great way to create a narrative.)

[hosh]

There are also subtle narratives in the mind that, like fish swimming in water, it is generally not noticeable. Even facts can be co-opted to support those stories:

"I am a good person."

"I am a just person."

"I do the right things."

"I am a hero."

"I am right because the facts support me."

"I am not to blame."

"I am to blame."

"I am successful."

"I am a failure."

It's the lies people tell themselves that make room for allowing opening for lies other people want to say. "Here, you repeat the lies I want to hear about me, and I'll repeat the lies you want to hear about you."

[wwweston]

And yet they didn't single out a specific figure, nor did the poster above. As you say, there may well be more than one party someone might apply this description to.

Apparently a specific comparison formed in your mind, though, for some mysterious reason.

Probably just "constructed media narrative du jour," right? Certainly not because the person might actually be a quintessential example that stands out from everyone else so well that you already knew who people were likely talking about without anyone being named (yet, strangely, apparently want to deny that person should be considered for such a comparison at all).

> Nothing obscures reality worse than moral concerns.

It's not really clear that it's possible to separate human concerns from moral concerns, and I can only imagine someone arriving at the conclusion that "nothing obscures reality worse" by searching a pretty narrow set of reality-obscuring hazards.

[furyofantares]

> Apparently a specific comparison formed in your mind, though, for some mysterious reason.

Doesn't seem mysterious. The claim you are responding to is that, intentional or not, the author described Trump but said they were describing Hitler. That Trump came to mind is unsurprising.

Trump is commanding an absurd proportion of the media and social media's attention. Readers and authors are overprepared to see Trump everywhere in a world where it's hard to load a web page without seeing his name and face on it. Sometimes I go to a news site and load each section one by one to see if there is a single section that doesn't feature him prominently -- sometimes the sports or entertainment sections manage to avoid Trump, but not always.

I personally find the Hitler comparisons to be about as absurd as the birther movement was. And yet when I read the word "Hitler", my first thought is "Trump" and not "holocaust" or "tiny moustache". That isn't because I find the comparison apt -- I find it absurd. It's because Trump is so prominent in my attention and because absurd comparisons to Hitler have been made so many times that it's becoming expected.

[pavlov]

It's worth reading this article by Ron Rosenbaum, author of Explaining Hitler:

https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/normalization-lesson-mun...

He agrees that "to compare Trump’s feckless racism and compulsive lying was inevitably to trivialize Hitler’s crime and the victims of genocide", but also explains in substantial detail how Trump's playbook closely follows Hitler's.

[aaron-lebo]

It's not that great of a leap for the person you are replying to because "Hitler" and his supporters have been called nazis since the summer of 2015 and every comment connected to him inevitably turns into a discussion about neo-Nazis.

It's pretty clear who was being referring to.

concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it

If we really want to get picky it's worth pointing out that the person we aren't mentioning attacks multiple people at the same time and lies about little things all the time.

Said person is a jackass and an authoritarian but to compare him to a regime that killed millions using the loosest historical analogies does them a disservice and muddies the water.

[curun1r]

The thing to remember about Hitler was that his outcome happened in stages, each progressively more unlikely than the one preceding it. Comparisons to him should really have a date attached to them. It's easy to focus on the killed-millions-of-people ending, but it's likely that wasn't the inevitable conclusion of his tactics, views or whatever aspect of him is being compared. If someone compared a young chess prodigy to Bobby Fisher, we wouldn't think that it's being suggested that he'll die a paranoid schizophrenic loner. And yet when someone compares someone to an early-stage Hitler, we automatically assume the comparison is hyperbolic and can be dismissed by showing how unlikely the person being compared is to end like Hitler.

[EasyTiger_]

DOes this sound 100% like the Democratic Party to anyone else?