[atoav]

As both an former art student and Austrian living in Germany I don't think it is forbidden to think about how Hitler became Hitler.

Because for some time of his life Hitler was just some angry guy until he turned to a fully fledged genozidal fascist dictator.

Hitlers antisemitism was partly created by his rejection in the viennese academy and his hurt ego made him want to pay them back for the rest of his life.

Why should forbid ourselves from talking about that psychological mechanism? Because Hitler is not seen as a human but a demon? Because accepting Hitler as a human would mean this could happen again, with us in the role of the baddies?

When your main reaction to personal rejection is to search for a scapegoat, because you can't handle it otherwise you are going down a similar path. Surely most will calm down on the way, surely most will not do so in a political and historical environment that allows them to become violent or even genocidal, but why not talk about it?

[ALittleLight]

There are many, many, more people who blamed scapegoats or were angry than became Hitler or Hitler-like figures. Likening Torba to Hitler because both of them are angry is an extreme and unproductive association. I think it's enough to say "You should treat people with respect" or "You shouldn't say that Mr. Torba", or even "Andrew Torba is a racist/transphobe/etc" without having to liken him to Hitler.

Hitler didn't switch from angry guy to legitimate problem overnight. He did things like forming a political party replete with armed forces and attempting a coup. I don't think building a mostly-failed Twitter clone is comparable.

[heckerhut]

Well, it’s exactly what you would do in today’s society, actually. You’d build a social network first. That is also why Zuckerberg is so dangerous.