To promote rational rather than emotional discussion, one should avoid argumentum ad Hitlerum. The general point seems to be unrelated to Nazism, so I propose rewriting the post using a more neutral background story. Something like
“You are General Grant. It is 1865. Colonel Y proposes to outlaw Democratic Party for its support of slavery...”
I would normally agree, but I don’t see a good solution in this instance. The example must be relatively uncontentious which I don’t think this one is, and the symbols and such have got to be well known, which isn’t true of Pol Pot. I do appreciate the problem you’re talking about, but sadly I can’t see a good substitute.
To promote rational rather than emotional discussion, one should avoid argumentum ad Hitlerum. The general point seems to be unrelated to Nazism, so I propose rewriting the post using a more neutral background story. Something like
“You are General Grant. It is 1865. Colonel Y proposes to outlaw Democratic Party for its support of slavery...”
I would normally agree, but I don’t see a good solution in this instance.
The example must be relatively uncontentious which I don’t think this one is, and the symbols and such have got to be well known, which isn’t true of Pol Pot. I do appreciate the problem you’re talking about, but sadly I can’t see a good substitute.
But do we actually have an emotional discussion now? I hope the community is sufficiently immune to the standard mind-killers.
We demonstrate our vulnerability every time someone stresses rationality without actually meaning rationality.
Any discussion in which the points are not made explicitly is an emotional one, because logic and reason are not being engaged.