|
|
|
|
|
|
by jsmcgd
4749 days ago
|
|
|
I totally get your point that people often make fallacious comparisons. In the interest of making a concise point I omitted stating it myself. However just because some people do not debate with integrity, or they make mistakes in their reasoning, it should not prevent others making comparisons which are pertinent. I disagree that with your last point, that people should make the argument purely on its own merits. "So what if people are monitoring our communications?" I might ask this question myself if I had never read any history books. The worrying thing for me is that we've been here before. Hitler did not come to power via some dramatic coup. He tried that and it failed. Instead he took the long, slow, legal and democratic route. Many legitimate comparisons with early 1930's Germany are there. I'm not saying it's a facsimile, it never would be. But with each civil liberty we sacrifice in the name of security the state becomes more oppressive, more open to abuse, an evermore viable breeding ground for tyranny. Worst of all, it can all happen without a shot being fired and well meaning onlookers saying, 'It will never get that bad'. I'm going on a bit now, but for me the really terrifying aspect is that with all our modern technology (which I do love) it is possible for the state to create an apparatus to suppress the population that which we could never extricate ourselves from. To quote BoC, "Defend your constitutionally protected rights. No one else will do it for you." |
|
|
No, that's exactly the problem. Other nations has at radically different time been in a vaguely similar situation.
Looking at Hitler doesn't tell you anything about the surveillance state that it doesn't also tell you about vegetarians and boy scouts. The reason we're not opposed to vegetarians and boy scouts (at least not based on their relation to nazism) is that we're approaching those cases on the merits. It's ludicrous to suggest a causal bond between those and Auschwitz.
Also, pure tactics: Anyone who's studied WWII civil oppression can spend hours detailing just how radical the differences between the Gestapo and the NSA are. You're basically handing your opponent the rhetorical petard he will hoist you by.