conuly

There was one in relation to an article I hadn't read, which asked why "unlike [some politician in Israel] we can't compare atrocities against Palestinians to the Holocaust", and the letter-writer stated that this is because politicians here have learned that's unacceptable because it's Just Plain Wrong, and that in fact, the Israeli politician had learned the same lesson and retracted his statement.

I have no idea what was said or not, but what struck me is that what the letter-writer was saying basically added up to "Even if it were comprable to the Holocaust, you couldn't say that".

That's a pretty interesting statement, don't you think? I mean, Godwin's law is all well and good, but if we deny the possibility that it could happen again, it's *sure* to happen again. Hitler wasn't an anomaly. The Nazis weren't an anomaly. And genocide, strange as it may seem, was not an anomaly.

Now Kevin Leitch is making a comparison between some current rhetoric about the monetary costs of autism and rhetoric used by the Nazis against the disabled. (He's not the first, either, nor is he likely to be the last.)

I'm not going to sit here and debate whether or not it's a valid comparison. I think we all can agree that reducing people to a monetary value is, at best, crass and disturbing. I'm just wondering - when is it okay? Because, while I don't think people will seriously argue for infanticide (though they will certainly sympathize with unofficial murderers, which pisses me off - if you're seriously thinking of killing your child, go get help, kk?), I can imagine that within my lifetime or the next generation, we'll be seeing serious arguments about abortion. (Again.) And these posters will get dragged up. (Again.) And... well... it's a serious accusation, one which can drive people away from you.

So, if you're going to say it, I'm just saying, it should be right.