This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
...***BREAKING NEWS*** ... ***BREAKING NEWS***
Adequacy News Service (Holland)-- Serb leader and alleged war criminal Slobodan Milosevic was freed today in a shock development which has thrown the War Crimes Tribunal here in the Hague into chaos. Invoking the controversial doctrine of "Godwin’s Law", the erstwhile dictator made his startling legal intervention during the fifth day of the prosecution's opening argument. Legal experts stood on aghast as Milosevic interrupted counsel for the tribunal:
Counsel for the tribunal: … were rounded up and placed in concentration camps.In a state of some distress, the board of international judges were forced to rule that, on the technical merits of the case, counsel for the tribunal had indeed mentioned the Nazis, and thus that Milosevic was correct to invoke Godwin's Law.
"Something must be done", commented one onlooker.
This news item brought to you by the adequacy.org news service. Please note that we guarantee nothing. Please also note that, due to circumstances beyond our control, some links above may be directed to World Championship Wrestling at wcw.com rather than War Criminal Watch at wcw.org
The situation above was perhaps fictitious, but its online equivalent happens every day of our lives. Someone is caught in possession of an indefensible view, but manages to get out jail free by provoking his interrogator to make reference to the Nazis and then invoking Godwin's Law. Well, not on this site. The official policy on adequacy.org is that we call a rose a rose, a spade a spade and a Nazi a Nazi. Or sometimes a "fucking Nazi", if we're in the appropriate mood. We encourage the posters to our discussion boards to do likewise.
After all, there are numerous people out there who have views which, in a very real sense, have relevant points of comparison with the Nazis. In the abortion debate, for example, it is senseless to pretend that this comparison is not relevant. One side of the debate is trying to claim that a certain class of being is not human (as the Nazis did) as a justification or pretext for slaying them in their millions (as the Nazis did). The comparison is entirely warranted; the sensible response for the pro-abortion side would be to calmly point out that, if the Nazis had been correct to view the Jews as not human then there would have been no problem. As it happens, the Jews are humans, and it is extremely evil to massacre them. But that doesn't carry any particular implication for foetuses.
Similarly, the Confederate States of America was an explicitly racist regime, based on an unfair economic system, with a national ideology which appealed to such traditional fascist grounds as homeland, history, etc. The parallels with Nazi Germany are obvious. Hence, comparisons between the Confederate Flag and the Swastika are obviously accurate.
All manner of other historical parallels can be drawn. A number of leading Nazis were, indeed, gay. Hitler was, indeed, a vegetarian. Hitler banned guns, but on the other hand no he didn't. So as luck would have it, both sides can use the useful Nazi analogy there.