Talk:Kitty Werthmann

This article is shit.
After reading the opening sentence:

"Kitty Werthmann is an Austria-born American who lived in German territory during the Holocaust. She is known for speeches against history repeating itself—which is pretty sound advice, as no rational person would ever want a second Holocaust. Unfortunately, her arguments invariably go to blaming liberals for implementing policies that would send the United States of America down the slippery slope into the Fourth Reich."

I still have literally NO IDEA who this person is and why she matters. And the rest of it doesn't tell me much more. Is she a politician? A writer? A radio host? What? And why should we care about her? She might be "known for" something, but only to the person who wrote it, not to anyone who reads it. Father Vivian O&#39;Blivion (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Historical Accuracy
The cited Skeptoid article (http://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/01/07/kitty-werthmann-history-distorted/) does not say anything about the historical validity of Werthmann's claims. The article specifically states, "Taking a historical anecdote as fact is usually pretty bad science, but it’s not like the misery of life under the Nazi boot isn’t something we’re still debating about. And while it’s entirely possible that 70 years later, she’s gotten some of the details wrong, that certainly wouldn’t invalidate her story. One of my favorite books on World War II, Guy Sajer’s autobiography about fighting for Germany on the Eastern Front, The Forgotten Soldier, has numerous historical, geographical and military-related errors, yet doesn’t suffer in the slightest for it." The author clearly has no reason to doubt Werthmann's story.

Instead, the author claims that "the real message of Kitty Werthmann’s speech is that that same tyranny is taking hold in another time and place: America, right now." He then goes on to evidence the point that "none of this is happening in the United States right now." He seeks to invalidate Werthmann's speech not by proving it false, but by proving it irrelevant.

However, this wiki article incorrectly (and irrationally) uses this article to try to falsify Werthmann's claims. Either the citation should be removed or the article should be reworked to acknowledge this. 173.74.46.113 (talk) 22:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Making a false historical analogy (or "irrelevant" in the BoN's terms) is indeed an example of lacking historical accuracy, because the claim that 1930s Germany/Austria = 2010s USA is nonsensical from both a political science and a historical viewpoint (unless you live in wingnut LaLaLand, of course). She literally has no idea what she's talking about and the article hammers this point home by, for instance, comparing her claim about a (once against false) equivalence between Austria of the Great Depression and the US of the Great Recession and how even taking her numbers at face value the comparison is simply bonkers. One pillar of historical analysis is exactly the use of analogies and comparisons over time, something which Werthmann has proven herself completely inept at. ScepticWombat (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * What SkepticWombat said. The article amply supports the original claims.---Mona- (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * There's a difference between saying "the criminal was a black man" and "this criminal is a black man, therefore all black men are criminals." One is a recount of a historical event, the other is an application of that event to evidence a point. Obviously, said conclusion drawn is nonsensical, but the historical accuracy of the fact used may not have been. Saying that she is lying about 1930s Germany because she believes it is similar to 2000s USA is like saying that the crime was not committed by a black man because the witness believes that all black men are criminals: it lacks any sort of coherent thought or understanding of the term "historical accuracy." 173.74.46.113 (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "The author clearly has no reason to doubt Werthmann's story." No, the author smells bullshit, but cannot precisely localize the offending material. Still, bullshit. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 23:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Lol. I'm pretty sure "smelling bullshit" was the same excuse the Catholic church gave for rejecting heliocentrism and right-wingers use to dismiss global warming. 173.74.46.113 (talk) 23:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I guess I've been pwned then. Have a nice day, CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Werthman's claims lack "historical accuracy" because it is bullshit to claim the hallmarks of Naziism -- both rising and implentecd -- are happening in the U.S. They could, but not as she posits, and it is not happening yet. And if it does, it is gonna entail a lot of Republicans, more so than Dems.---Mona- (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Donald Trump has often been compared to Hitler, so maybe she's right ;-) At the very least everyone has to agree that he's similar in that it's a silly man doing a lot of shouting ;-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 01:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither Trump nor Hitler were "silly," unfortunately. Very smart, canny, and great charisma.---Mona- (talk) 02:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

This "article" completely dismisses the first person experience of WW2 Hitler.
This article is not worth reading because it is too liberally biased. It goes so far as to label Werthmann, in typical witty yet dismissive liberal-speak as "anti-just-about-everything-sensible". I do not think it is rational to be so dismissive to other people's views, especially after having just conceded that "Werthmann was born in Austria and lived in German-occupied territory during the Holocaust."

Is it rational to believe that the views of a US liberal who has never lived through the horrors that Werthmann actually lived through knows anything about it at all? Please notice the lack of any facts in the dismissive treatment of Werthmann by the author. In typical delusional liberal fashion, the author's opinion is fact while Werthmann's historically accurate stories and warnings are "anti-just-about-everything-sensible".

Maybe this article would do better to just stop with the emotional bashing of Werthmann and instead link everyone to a little speech that she put up on YouTube which can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZYjgicQOJU

In that way, the rational reader can make their own judgement about the veracity of Werthmann's claims instead of leaving it to the dismissive and highly disrespectful views of a obvious liberal fool who wrote this hit piece on Werthmann. Maybe CNN will have a job for the author, but if RationalWiki wants to gain any standing as a fair and balanced information source then this hit piece should just be taken down.
 * Yeah, none of her bullshit is "historically accurate stories", which seems to be the only specific criticism of article content you've made. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Define "Liberal". Because I can garentee that you BoN, are talking out of your ass. By "Liberal" you mean "left-wing person", which in turn translates into "does not support my views, which I must never question lest I become an ideological pariah". Come back when you have something more substantial than vomited buzzwords and an ineptness in political theory. 17:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)