Talk:New Hitlers

That last paragraph about taking an overly rosy view seems really strange to me. I'm not sure why, but it seems to be missing something, aside from the fact that as far as I know, Hitler wasn't demonized that way in the 30's, nor did the world at large understand the extent of his plans. So that much doesn't really apply here. Maybe something about people arguing against the use of the term are often accused of being 100% in favour of their acts, including torture, terrorism and so forth, as we saw in the case of Iraq. --Kels 17:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

No, you're right--Hitler was not universally demonized in the 1930s--and in part because of that, he became the touchstone reference for a type of absolute evil that cannot in any way be appeased/talked to/negotiated with: there's a great article that I wish i could find on the semantics of the word "appeasement" and how the word shifted after Munich to mean something that it really did not before: from giving up something in good faith that it would bring about a positive outcome to weak-kneed bowing to a dictator's will. The idea is that it's easier to build consensus for a particular stance re: a political enemy if you can enframe them as representing a particular kind of evil. That's not to say Saddam and Ahmedinajad are great guys; but the histories and politics behind their actions/policies/stances are conveniently erased and they become pure evil, which doesn't need to be politically accounted for...Amin7b5 17:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

(EC) One example of a person who was treated this way was Salvador Allende; when he was booted and Pinochet took his place, many people seemed to leave out that he had himself made enough civil rights abuses that the Chilean legislature practically invited Pinochet to take over. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this an actual term,

Or just another way to say Godwin's Law? If it's a real term, then I suggest the authors of this page and other interested parties add in some references. If not, I recommend deletion, since we already have stuff covering hyperbolic Nazi comparisons--"Shut up, Brx." 08:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

How is this either 'jargon', 'buzzword' or 'slogan', as it's currently categorized? Give references, or it's not notable and should be deleted. Nullahnung (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

What's the point of this article? Listing people who've been compared to Hitler? So what? Delete this. Sophie^Wilder 19:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed; delete. - GrantC (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

If it's any thing at all, it's a political epithet: "Anonymous user is the new Hitler." I removed it from the Language category when cleaning that up. At any rate, I tend to agree; it's not particularly informative, and about a self-explanatory expression. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems kinda pointless. Why not list of people compared to Stalin? Or Churchill? (Seems to have quite a few links in though which would need to be fixed after deletion.)--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 20:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I think I'm the guy who started this article. I think it might have potential, but I'm not about to put the effort in. Let it go.... PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 20:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. (You didn't, from the history.) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 03:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I did. That was me at one point. Pretty soon I'll be somebody else. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 04:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)