Talk:Reductio ad Hitlerum

Term was created by a conservative
Mr. Leo Strauss (September 20, 1899 – October 18, 1973) created the term, he was a conservative and not pro the freedom of avg person. Let the truth be known so we comprehend why the term is often used to lambaste liberals and others who seek to end racism, classism, sexism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:DDC0:DF00:8D84:B105:5E76:F813 (talk) 05:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * This is unhelpful to the page. Also, please sign your comments. Thank you! Gravestep (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Argument by analogy
It seems to me that this is generally of the form of argument by analogy. But for argument by analogy to 'work', the two things need to be 'relevantly' similar. So when talking about Hitler, or Nazis, in relation to particular political or philosophical beliefs, the argument can be valid (in the week sense). There is also some other problem whereby the assumption is made that since a comparison to Hitler has been made, the argument MUST be invalid. Which is of course, absurd. All of this relies however on some deeper analysis of what specifics of Hitler are relevant. And that is where things can get all too grey. Certainly, for example, we could talk about elements of the Zionist movement of the 30s being like the Nazis, in 'nationalistic' fervour, group identity, paramilitary organisation etc. This argument is rather more nuanced, and relies on examining the nature of Nazism, and ultimately making another argument that the similarities are relevant and that, for example, strong group identity can lead to atrocities like the Holocaust. 103.1.7.171 (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Great points! So we're not all stupid at all. Thanks for sharing. For a minute I thought I was the only one not sleeping in this article/feedback.--2604:2000:DDC0:DF00:8D84:B105:5E76:F813 (talk) 05:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

"Reductio ad Stalinum"
What about opposition to policies based on their perceived similarity to communism, such as ObamaCare and increasing the minimum wage (especially common in America)? Here's one. 149.89.161.103 (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The usual statement is "That's socialism" and it is used AFAIK in the U.S. It wouldn't make sense for example for the Labour Party to accuse the Tories of being socialists and vice versa.  But I don't know if there is a term for it.  People are called Stalinists as an epithet, but usually they are doctrinaire Communists.  TFD (talk) 03:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * There are more examples below of the term Stalinism being used to bash social democrat policies in Europe, so it's not just an American thing. Maybe add a 'Variants' section?
 * New Statesman - Reductio ad Stalinum: Boris compares the 50p tax with Stalin's campaign against the kulaks
 * Spectator - Alex Massie: Memo to Columnists: The EU does NOT have much in common with the USSR
 * ConservativeHome - The EUSSR and other inappropriate comparisons
 * Daily Telegraph - Ed West: OK, so maybe we shouldn't call it the EUSSR. How about Euroslavia?
 * Deepred6502 (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The relevant article is Red-baiting. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Putin examples
The "Invocations of the fallacy" lists illustrative cases where public figures have been specifically accused of constructing an argument which uses a form of reductio ad Hitlerum. Including examples of public figures who have drawn Hitler comparisons without drawing any such criticism is WP:OR ("any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources"), however obvious the reductio might personally seem to Wikipedia editors. --McGeddon (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have just deleted the Beck content for this reason. 92.10.80.23 (talk) 03:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Hitlerum or Hitlerem?
Assuming Hitler is declined as a third declension noun, shouldn't they be called reductiones ad Hitlerem? RoseOfVarda (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with you. A proper noun that ends in consonant is always declined as a third-declension noun. Strauss, however, didn´t care about Latin grammar; apparently he used the second declension in order to establish a parallel with the similar logic phrase reductio ad absurdum.---Darius (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Some second declension masculine nouns end in "-er". Given these exceptions (puer, -i, ager, -i, cancer, -i, magister, -i, Alexander, -i), it seems clear to me that Hitler would decline into Hitleri and its subsequent Hitlerum. Dark Looon (talk) 11:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I might be wrong according to ChatGPT:
 * ```While it is possible to Latinize the name "Hitler" by adding a Latin suffix, such as "-us" or "-ius", it is important to note that there is no standard or recognized Latin declension for the name "Hitler". As such, the Latinized forms "Hitleri" and "Hitlerum" may not necessarily be considered correct or appropriate by experts in the Latin language.```
 * ChatGPT also notes that:
 * ```Proper nouns are a category of words that include names of people, places, and things that are unique and specific. Proper nouns do not typically follow the same grammatical rules as common nouns, which are a category of words that refer to people, places, and things in general. Latin proper nouns, like proper nouns in other languages, often do not decline in the same way as Latin common nouns.
 * Comparing a non-Latin proper noun like "Hitler" to Latin common nouns like "magister," "puer," and "cancer" is not an accurate or useful comparison because they are fundamentally different types of words. It would be more appropriate to compare "Hitler" to other non-Latin proper nouns or to create a Latinized form of "Hitler" that follows established conventions for Latinizing non-Latin names.``` Dark Looon (talk) 12:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

"Nazism and contemporary liberalism both promote healthy living is as meaningless a finding"
This quote taken out of context is in general a wrong statement. I can readily imagine the context where this comparison makes sense: (A) Start talking that liberalism is evil. (B) But why this evil is so attractive? (C) Because it lures people with promotion of healthy living, just like the statute of Hitlerjugend.

In other way "reductio ad hitlerum" here would amount to proving that healthy living is bad. But apparently this is not what was meant.

Therefore either our definition of RaH is wrong/incomplete. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Can you define "healthy living", and provide an example of how "liberalism" promotes this? Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I clicked a couple ext links in the article and see it is written fundamentally diverging from sources given and must be rewritten. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Reductios ad hitlerum aren't supposed to make sense. TFD (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)