Like it or not, using that quote associated Moms for Liberty with Hitler. Of course, it was going to bring forth a backlash given the negative connotations. It was bad judgment on her part and it fed the fears of those who think that these groups are really just a trojan horse for authoritarianism. Of course, a disclaimer and apology was necessary. You see the same dynamic in other situations. For example, many of my fellow evangelicals still don't understand that the increase in negative attitudes toward us reflect the choice to tie the movement to Trump. And so, all of his negatives are ours due to association. But, instead of realizing it, they are just doubling down unlike the Moms for Liberty. It's just so sad.
In apologizing, MFL conceded the (unwarranted) point. That's where they went wrong, rather than using an AH quote to warn against state indoctrination of children.
Who is guilty of a Godwin here? The people who used an AH quote, or the people who accused the quoters of being Nazis, no matter that their point was anti-Hitler?
Godwin is irrelevant here. That one would even think of using a Hitler quote to make a point shows bad judgment. The problem is that there are such negative connotations around Hitler that you have to expect people to react negatively no matter how you were trying to use the quote.
I believe that by standing down, apologizing for the AH quote was a mistake and a teachable moment lost. Using that quote was clearly meant to emphasize the dangers of where we stand in this country today. I believe that they should have stood their ground and honed their point. The attempt by the left to demonize parents who are concerned and defending their children, is in attempt to divert the point. Parents should not blink. The left is afraid of the power of mobilized concerned parents. They should be afraid of that.
Unfortunately, logic can be trumped by emotion. Trying to turn it into a teachable moment would not have worked. The negative connotations associated with Hitler are so great that it would only have made things worse.
It’s “interesting” that David French seems to have gone full on Max Boot. I can remember when French spoke out against the NYT and how they treated Bari Weiss... now, he writes for the NYT.
Like it or not, using that quote associated Moms for Liberty with Hitler. Of course, it was going to bring forth a backlash given the negative connotations. It was bad judgment on her part and it fed the fears of those who think that these groups are really just a trojan horse for authoritarianism. Of course, a disclaimer and apology was necessary. You see the same dynamic in other situations. For example, many of my fellow evangelicals still don't understand that the increase in negative attitudes toward us reflect the choice to tie the movement to Trump. And so, all of his negatives are ours due to association. But, instead of realizing it, they are just doubling down unlike the Moms for Liberty. It's just so sad.
In apologizing, MFL conceded the (unwarranted) point. That's where they went wrong, rather than using an AH quote to warn against state indoctrination of children.
Who is guilty of a Godwin here? The people who used an AH quote, or the people who accused the quoters of being Nazis, no matter that their point was anti-Hitler?
Godwin is irrelevant here. That one would even think of using a Hitler quote to make a point shows bad judgment. The problem is that there are such negative connotations around Hitler that you have to expect people to react negatively no matter how you were trying to use the quote.
Would they have gotten the same backlash if they had quoted Lenin?
Almost certainly not.
My point is that we've allowed that negative reaction to pre-empt certain conversations. I'd like to help undo that.
I think they would have gotten a similar reaction though not to the same magnitude because Lenin's crimes are not as well known as Hitler's.
Which was Peter’s point.
I took it differently but that could be me.
I believe that by standing down, apologizing for the AH quote was a mistake and a teachable moment lost. Using that quote was clearly meant to emphasize the dangers of where we stand in this country today. I believe that they should have stood their ground and honed their point. The attempt by the left to demonize parents who are concerned and defending their children, is in attempt to divert the point. Parents should not blink. The left is afraid of the power of mobilized concerned parents. They should be afraid of that.
Unfortunately, logic can be trumped by emotion. Trying to turn it into a teachable moment would not have worked. The negative connotations associated with Hitler are so great that it would only have made things worse.
It’s “interesting” that David French seems to have gone full on Max Boot. I can remember when French spoke out against the NYT and how they treated Bari Weiss... now, he writes for the NYT.
French has a band of passionate detractors on the Right. I can't get myself worked up over any particular pundit, though.
That wasn’t my reaction when I saw it. I guess it would be a crapshoot for MFL.