![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2021\/02\/HitlerPolitics.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
I posted two days ago,\u00a0Mandatory COVID Vaccines & Facebook Fascist Censorship<\/a>, which told my story of what Facebook deemed worthy to censor on my Facebook page. Yesterday, I received critical feedback<\/a> on this article from\u00a0Andre Menzies<\/a>, whose words will be in blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n But first, let me react to Facebook\u2019s first attempted (and the only other) censorship of something I posted, which was equally ridiculous and groundless (if not even more<\/em> so). They censored the picture at the top, which has a long history<\/a>, documented at Know Your Meme<\/em> (see also info. on the particular version<\/a> I posted). Facebook, in its infinite [fascist] wisdom, decided to remove it on 12-10-20 because it didn\u2019t \u201cfollow\u201d their \u201ccommunity standards\u201d. It had been online on my page since 2-10-17.<\/p>\n The ludicrosity of this decision is rather obvious. Observers from all parts of the political perspective (anyone who values free speech and a free exchange of ideas) have loathed the fact that so often, opponents who disagree on something or other are immediately compared to Hitler or Nazis. This is not merely a \u201cright-wing\u201d thing at all<\/em>. I posted it, not primarily because I am a political conservative, but first and foremost because I am a long-time lover of satire (going all the way back to National Lampoon<\/em> and Monty Python<\/em> in the early 70s, and the original Saturday Night Live<\/em>), and because \u2014 most relevantly \u2014 I have also written many times<\/a> about \u201cInternet discussion ethics\u201d from the time I went online in 1996.<\/p>\n The phenomenon is discussed on Wikipedia at length in its article, \u201cGodwin\u2019s Law\u201d<\/a>:<\/p>\n Godwin\u2019s law<\/b>, short for\u00a0Godwin\u2019s law<\/b>\u00a0(or\u00a0rule<\/b>)\u00a0of Nazi analogies<\/b>,[1]<\/a><\/sup>[2]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0is an Internet\u00a0adage<\/a>\u00a0asserting that \u201cas an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a\u00a0comparison involving Nazis or Hitler<\/a>\u00a0approaches 1<\/a>\u201c.[2]<\/a><\/sup>[3]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0That is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to\u00a0Adolf Hitler<\/a>\u00a0or his deeds, the point at which effectively the discussion or thread ends.<\/p>\n Promulgated by the American attorney and author\u00a0Mike Godwin<\/a>\u00a0in 1990,[2]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0Godwin\u2019s law originally referred specifically to\u00a0Usenet newsgroup<\/a>\u00a0discussions.[4]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0He stated that he introduced Godwin\u2019s law in 1990 as an experiment in\u00a0memetics<\/a>.[2]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0It is now applied to any\u00a0threaded online discussion<\/a>, such as\u00a0Internet forums<\/a>,\u00a0chat rooms<\/a>, and comment threads, as well as to speeches, articles, and other rhetoric[5]<\/a><\/sup>[6]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0where\u00a0reductio ad Hitlerum<\/a><\/i>\u00a0occurs.<\/p>\n In 2012, \u201cGodwin\u2019s law\u201d became an entry in the third edition of the\u00a0Oxford English Dictionary<\/a><\/i>.[7]<\/a><\/p>\n Mike Godwin himself has also criticized the overapplication of Godwin\u2019s law, claiming it does not articulate a\u00a0fallacy<\/a>; it is instead framed as a memetic tool to reduce the incidence of inappropriate, hyperbolic comparisons. \u201cAlthough deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of\u00a0mathematics<\/a>,\u201d Godwin wrote, \u201cits purpose has always been\u00a0rhetorical<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0pedagogical<\/a>: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler to think a bit harder about\u00a0the Holocaust<\/a>.\u201d[11]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n In December 2015, Godwin commented on the Nazi and fascist comparisons being made by several articles about\u00a0Republican<\/a>\u00a0presidential candidate\u00a0Donald Trump<\/a>, saying: \u201cIf you\u2019re thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler when you talk about Trump, or any other politician.\u201d[12]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0In August 2017, Godwin made similar remarks on social networking websites\u00a0Facebook<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0with respect to the two previous days\u2019\u00a0Unite the Right rally<\/a>\u00a0in\u00a0Charlottesville, Virginia<\/a>, endorsing and encouraging comparisons of its\u00a0alt-right<\/a>\u00a0organizers to Nazis.[13]<\/a><\/sup>[14]<\/a><\/sup>[15]<\/a><\/sup>[16]<\/a><\/sup><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Mike Godwin doesn\u2019t appear to be a political conservative. He\u2019s a free speech libertarian, for sure. We see above that he was not averse to using Hitler comparisons in the case of President Trump. In other words, he is right in line with Facebook\u2019s and Big Tech\u2019s leftism<\/em>: though not their censorship tactics. As his own Wikipedia article<\/a> notes: \u201cIn August 2020, he and the Blackstone Law Group were filing a lawsuit against the Trump administration on behalf of the employees of\u00a0TikTok<\/a>.[7]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n When I posted the meme seen above, of course I was expressing precisely the same thing<\/em>: it was a mocking parody of the same attitude that Godwin and many others decry. Wikipedia also has a related entry, \u201cReductio ad Hitlerum<\/em><\/a>\u201c:<\/p>\n Reductio ad Hitlerum<\/i><\/b>\u00a0(\/\u02c8<\/span>h<\/span>\u026a<\/span>t<\/span>l<\/span>\u0259r<\/span>\u0259<\/span>m<\/span>\/<\/a><\/span><\/span>;\u00a0Latin<\/a>\u00a0for \u201creduction to Hitler\u201d), also known as\u00a0playing the Nazi card<\/b>,[1]<\/a><\/sup>[2]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0is an attempt to invalidate someone else\u2019s position on the basis that the same view was held by\u00a0Adolf Hitler<\/a>\u00a0or the\u00a0Nazi Party<\/a>.[3]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0One example would be that since Hitler was against smoking, this implies that someone who is against smoking is a Nazi.[4]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n Coined by\u00a0Leo Strauss<\/a>\u00a0in 1953,\u00a0reductio ad Hitlerum<\/i>\u00a0borrows its name from the term used in logic called\u00a0reductio ad absurdum<\/a><\/i>\u00a0(\u201creduction to the absurd\u201d).[5]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0According to Strauss,\u00a0reductio ad Hitlerum<\/i>\u00a0is a form of\u00a0ad hominem<\/a><\/i>,\u00a0ad misericordiam<\/a><\/i>, or a\u00a0fallacy of irrelevance<\/a>. The suggested rationale is one of\u00a0guilt by association<\/a>. It is a tactic often used to derail arguments because\u00a0such comparisons<\/a>\u00a0tend to distract and anger the opponent.[6]<\/a><\/sup><\/p><\/blockquote>\n See also the somewhat related Wikipedia article, \u201cNazi Analogies.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n Bottom line: I had done nothing wrong. Facebook grossly overreacted, just as it did when I simply said I was not taking the COVID vaccine, for my own personal reasons (without telling anyone else<\/em> what they should do or knocking the thing itself<\/em>).<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Now onto the criticism I have received:<\/p>\n Dave, you are just as bad as they are.<\/span><\/p>\n Nonsense, as I will show.<\/p>\n If you don\u2019t want to take the vaccine, don\u2019t take it.<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s impeccable logic. We agree!<\/p>\n Stop blathering on about Social Media \u2013 stop using it.<\/span><\/p>\n I have<\/em> to use it, to some extent, because it\u2019s where people are<\/em>, and my apostolate is about reaching as many people as I can with the Gospel and the message of the fullness of Catholicism. And so I wrote on Facebook when I returned to it:<\/p>\n Can\u2019t Live With Facebook; Can\u2019t Live Without It<\/i><\/p>\n Well, folks, after 16 days only at MeWe, it\u2019s clear that it won\u2019t work for my situation as a full-time Catholic apologist. I was trying to build up contacts, but it seems to have stalled at 161 (compared to 8000 friends and followers here). That\u2019s a factor of 50-to-1.<\/p>\n It just isn\u2019t enough people. At least here I get lots of likes for baby pictures and tons of response to prayer requests (though \u2014 frustratingly \u2014 just a few responses to my papers). At MeWe I can\u2019t get responses to\u00a0anything<\/i>: whether my new articles or more personal material.<\/p>\n I had thought that there would be a large exodus from Facebook, of people as disgusted with its censorship and oppressive algorithm as I am, but that doesn\u2019t seem to be the case. So the algorithm and absurd censorship oppose my goals here, and the dinky numbers in effect oppose it at MeWe.<\/p>\n What\u2019s one to do? I have no choice but to return to Facebook. There are far too many people I will only come in contact with here, and too many good friends only here. Several hundred of my friends and followers didn\u2019t even seem to be aware that I left (because they see my posts so rarely in their feeds).<\/p>\n I need more contact also for personal and social reasons. I\u2019m already isolated enough, working at home, now 50-60 miles away from our two married sons and granddaughter (although we have seen them a lot), and during this bizarre time of the pandemic.<\/p>\n It remains the case that (like any other writer or anyone offering any product or service) I need lots of likes, shares, and comments, in order to spread word of my articles as much as I can. And I need generous donations, too, from folks who have been helped by my writing, or who want to support it for the sake of evangelization and teaching of others. That\u2019s always been the case, no matter how little I talk about it.<\/p>\n So I\u2019m back, for better or ill . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It is really silly and ironic how at the bottom of this \u201carticle\u201d you have social media buttons for both Twitter and Facebook. Stop using them.<\/span><\/p>\n I never did<\/em> use Twitter except to merely post links<\/em> to my blog papers. I think Twitter is stupid, and have always said so. If you go see my Twitter page now<\/a>, you\u2019ll see that I haven\u2019t even done\u00a0that f<\/i>or over a year, because Facebook (bless its heart again) stopped automatically cross-posting at Twitter.<\/p>\n Stop hoping they will bend to your will.<\/span><\/p>\n I never did hope that. But I hoped they would at least not oppose free speech. It\u2019s too late for that. The vast majority of liberals don\u2019t give a damn about free speech or fair and open inquiry and exchanges anymore.<\/p>\n Stop calling entities \u201cfascists\u201d just because these private super-congloms decide to Moderate your post.<\/span><\/p>\n It is fascist to shut down opposing viewpoints, in a social media platform designed to accommodate the public at large. There was nothing<\/strong> <\/em>in this post of mine that was ban-worthy: even by Facebook\u2019s ridiculous double-standard standards. If you think there was, please tell me what it is. As I noted, I didn\u2019t say anything that was inconsistent even with Dr. Fauci\u2019s opinions. Yet I\u2019m deemed as dangerous for saying I won\u2019t take a vaccine, when Fauci said no one should be forced to.<\/p>\n You are a \u201cmoderator\u201d does anyone call you a fascist?<\/span><\/p>\n I have one dinky little page. Facebook has hundreds of millions of users and they are attempting to completely shut down large portions of mainstream politically conservative opinion. That\u2019s hardly comparable. What I do is disallow uncivil and rude trollers: just as anyone would kick them out of a house party at their house.<\/p>\n And I have been called a fascist and a billion other insults. All that\u2019s relevant is whether such titles are deserved<\/em> and true<\/em>.<\/p>\n I mean dude, you know what a fascist is?<\/span><\/p>\n Yes, dude. Here\u2019s the second definition (the one I am using) at Merriam-Webster<\/em> online<\/a>:<\/p>\n \u201ca tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It\u2019s not just some buzz word to label someone or something that doesn\u2019t meet your own subjective vision of what is right or wrong.<\/span><\/p>\n I am using a standard dictionary definition. What else can one\u00a0do<\/i>? Dictionaries serve an important purpose.<\/p>\n I bet you $1000 that you will not post this response because you deem it \u201cfascistic\u201d just because it dares to criticize the pointlessness and ignorance that it took to write it.<\/span><\/p>\n Cool! Please send the money to my PayPal account. My email address is apologistdave [at] gmail [dot] com<\/p>\n Thanks so much! Money is always needed around here.<\/p>\n I will post any lousy or misguided or foolish argument, along with my rebuttal. I\u2019ve done so consistently for 24 years online. You obviously don\u2019t know much about me. But hey, I\u2019ll put up with this to win a $1000 bet. Thanks again! You comment isn\u2019t fascistic at all; just dead\u00a0wrong<\/i>\u00a0on many scores.<\/p>\n You are going for the sensational just to get a rise out of people, just as the ones you criticize are.<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s a lie. I never do anything<\/em> for that reason. In fact, it\u2019s a matter of deep principle to me. Facebook has also literally harmed my livelihood as an apologist. I was able to easily raise $5000 every September for three straight years (2012-2014), to support my apostolate of apologetics. Then Facebook changed its algorithm and I couldn\u2019t do so at all in 2015, and started getting much less feedback because people never saw my posts in their feed. So Facebook has literally cost me $30,000 in lost income.<\/p>\n You are a slave to Facebook.<\/span><\/p>\n To some extent I am. But I have to be in the present circumstances, to maintain an active online presence.<\/p>\n You are a slave to Twitter.<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019ve never used it. [except to post links, as noted]<\/p>\n Stop. Step away. Put the cell phone down.<\/span><\/p>\n I don\u2019t have a cell phone.<\/p>\n Stop judging people and institutions that don\u2019t fit into your personal world vision.<\/span><\/p>\n Plenty of people are giving Big Tech hell these days: and by no means just conservatives. Liberal commentator Kirsten Powers wrote a book six years ago, even before the Big Tech controversies, entitled\u00a0The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech<\/a><\/i>.<\/p>\n This article is pointless and does more harm than good.<\/span><\/p>\n Your criticisms are stupid and do more harm than good. You haven\u2019t dealt with a single substantive point in my article. This is typical of what passes today for \u201cdialoguue.\u201d All you\u2019ve done is throw a lot of horse manure in an attempt to smear me and make out that I am a fanatic. It\u2019s playbook tactics.<\/p>\n It is just a vain attempt at retribution to a corporation that doesn\u2019t care.<\/span><\/p>\n I never said they\u00a0did<\/i>\u00a0care. My only point was to take the article they censored and post it on my blog, with an explanation and expansion. What the\u00a0hell\u00a0<\/i><\/b>is wrong with\u00a0that<\/i>? You would prefer that I just shut up<\/em> and don\u2019t<\/em> do so? I posted my article (which I obviously wanted to share with the public, since I posted it) and then explained why there was nothing whatever wrong with it<\/em>, even by liberalism\u2019s \/ Facebook\u2019s\u00a0own standards<\/i>. That\u2019s free speech. My allowing you to disagree with me is free speech. My refutation of your nonsense is also free speech and reasoned debate.<\/p>\n It is a vain attempt to get your personal message out anyway possible.<\/span><\/p>\n Whether you think it\u2019s \u201cvain\u201d or not is a matter of complete and utter indifference to me. I posted what I did on my blog because I have a right to do so<\/em> as an American citizen, and because I think that what I said is right and unobjectionable<\/em>. I will not<\/em> be shut up<\/strong>. They did at Facebook, but they can\u2019t control me or how I think\u00a0here<\/i>. So ultimately I was\u00a0not<\/i>\u00a0shut up, if by that one means that\u00a0no one<\/i>\u00a0had a chance to hear my expressed opinion.<\/p>\n To think I was going to contribute to Patheos financially. But as a cradle Catholic, I am not sure I can do that.<\/span><\/p>\n Patheos is a huge platform with viewpoints of every stripe. You should contribute to chosen\u00a0individuals<\/i>\u00a0who write there, with whom you agree (obviously not myself). On the other hand, you\u2019ve already generously contributed $1000 to my cause. I\u2019m sure others would also appreciate such generous magnanimity.<\/p>\n The fact they let you post this shows that they are okay promoting vitriolic ramblings.<\/span><\/p>\n I am free to post anything, as the blogmaster of my own blog at Patheos (one with a continuous 24-year history), where free speech is actually allowed and cherished. This is what I respect about it the most. I\u2019m my own editor. No one else is telling me what to write or what not to write.<\/p>\n Anyway. God Bless<\/span><\/p>\n Same back atcha! Thanks for your financial support.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n See you guys deleted my post\u2026\u2026 does that make you a fascist? The irony.<\/span><\/p>\n I did not. Disqus moderated it, as it does many posts: usually for bad reasons.<\/p>\n This is now the third accusation I have received along these lines, in a few days. The other two apologized.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n I will respectfully apologize if there is anything specifically I said below that missed the mark.<\/span><\/p>\n You have ample opportunity now, after my lengthy reply.<\/p>\n Clearly one\u2019s personal preference to take or not take the vaccine is a good discussion, one that needs to be discussed.<\/span><\/p>\n We agree. Good.<\/p>\n But how is calling your fellow brothers and sisters \u201cfascists\u201d just because they are beholdent [sic]<\/span> to their terms of use, regardless of whether or not you agree with that? Referring to businesses that don\u2019t hold your person views as on par with Hitler, Mussolini, concentration camps, and genocide, is horrible taste and just shows your vindictiveness.<\/span><\/p>\n This is bull manure. I did no such thing. As explained, I was using the second dictionary definition of \u201cfascism\u201d which is \u201ca tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control\u201d. That\u2019s exactly what Facebook is doing, with their massive censorship and Big Brother tactics. No one could have described it better with so few words. I love dictionaries . . .<\/p>\n You are owned by social media giants Facebook and Twitter as is evident by your promotion and use of the tools that you yourself call \u201cfascist.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n As I informed you, I have never used Twitter, except to simply post links (i.e., more advertising for my work). I don\u2019t\u00a0promote<\/i>\u00a0Facebook, I\u00a0use<\/i>\u00a0it, because it\u2019s where \u201ceverybody\u201d is. Life often entails making less-than-ideal choices out of necessity. It was a really fun place till Facebook decided to politicize it and alienate about 40% of the population: just as liberals have to pathetically politicize\u00a0everything<\/i>\u00a0these days: sports, first grade, humor, the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, women\u2019s athletics, bathrooms, etc.<\/p>\n Let me ask you honestly Dave \u2013 How can you continue to be a part of and contribute to an organization that you call fascist? Doesn\u2019t that make you culpable?<\/span><\/p>\n No; I don\u2019t give them any money; no more than buying things from China makes me culpable for slave labor, concentration camps, and forced abortion there, or taking the vaccine would make one complicit in abortion (the Church said we are not). I use Facebook for my apologetics \/ evangelistic purposes, just as past generations used radio, television, telephones, the printing press, etc. It\u2019s part of the latest ways to communicate. So is the Internet itself, which includes this blog.<\/p>\n I don\u2019t know, the flaming books photograph, playing victim when you could easily just disengage from all the evil those platforms foment is just puzzling.<\/span><\/p>\n It is for\u00a0you<\/i>. I think most people can easily understand my point of view on this, agree or not. You simply haven\u2019t thought through the issue deeply enough.<\/p>\n Instead you try to fight back through what should be a clean and beautiful Catholic website that fosters truth and love in the name of Christ.<\/span><\/p>\n My readers are quite content with what I do. If you don\u2019t like it, then get the hell\u00a0away<\/i>\u00a0from it: per your own advice that I should get away from Facebook. No one\u2019s stopping you. By all means stop reading what I write. I have posted every single word of your criticisms, with my replies, and they will be part of a new blog paper tomorrow. I\u2019m delighted to be able to further clarify my point of view, by responding.<\/p>\n It\u2019s not all about you, Dave.<\/span><\/p>\n No kidding. Thanks for another idiotic, gratuitous insult.<\/p>\n Be good.<\/span><\/p>\n Peace be with you<\/span><\/p>\n After you insult, you end with the pious platitudes . . .<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Hilarious. Hilariously sad.<\/span><\/p>\n I feel for you brother. I really do.<\/span><\/p>\n You got a personal agenda and are working every angle. Constantly trying to be more clever than others, must get tiring. When you finish reading this repeat to yourself 10x \u2013 \u201cI am a tower builder, I am a tower builder.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Anyway, let\u2019s just say \u201cyou win!\u201d Hope that will suffice for your ego.<\/span><\/p>\n * Forgive me for not knowing who you are, I am sure that matters to someone somewhere other than you. I did check your Bio \u2013 and I am sorry to inform you (that\u2019s an apology) I am sorry to inform you that you have an imposter. Because this guy looks waaaay older than your Avatar you have here on this handle \u2014 and with far less hair.<\/span><\/p>\n You need to get to the bottom of this right now. I mean, your imposter has a Twitter page. (see image below).<\/span> [see it in the combox comment<\/a>] This certainly can\u2019t be you. Good luck with your idol worship Facebook. Count me out.<\/span><\/p>\n Perfectly irrelevant, as explained. But we\u2019re way past mere reason by now.<\/p>\n Proverbs 9:7<\/b>\u00a0(RSV) He who corrects a scoffer gets himself abuse . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n ***<\/p>\n