www.ditl.org

Yeah, they are usually talking about his "communist ideals" which shows how much they know about Hitler, or for that matter history in general.

Mikey wrote:

SolkaTruesilver wrote:Like you, I find it abhorrent to actually diminish the horror that was Hitler's regime as a mere political slander.

Didn't you post the OP?

*Sees the ditch dug by Solka's backtracking* He did.

Now, now, he is merely exploring all of the myriad facets of the argument, that's all.

Mikey wrote:

SolkaTruesilver wrote:Like you, I find it abhorrent to actually diminish the horror that was Hitler's regime as a mere political slander.

Didn't you post the OP?

Uhh... yes? How is that in contradiction?

The Onion's article was a jab at the people who use said slanderous analogy, which I find perfectly okay. If you can't make fun of the people who abhor, who can you make fun of?

And Striker, how the fuck was I backtracking?

By posting the article at all, whatever your intent, you are promulgating the ideas in it. The fact that the humor was poor and obfuscated adds to that effect. More to the point, the whole point of the alleged "joke" involves using Hitler as a light-hearted object of comparison, which is disgusting and sad, not to mentione puerile. By doing so, then claiming to deride the ideas thus put forward, you are engaging in what Striker mentions as "backtracking."

Thanks, Mikey. yes, that.

Mikey wrote:By posting the article at all, whatever your intent, you are promulgating the ideas in it.

I'd disagree with this as a sweeping statement, as a lot of people have posted stuff from Fox, the Sun, Daily Mail, etc, with the explicit intent of taking the piss out of the idiocy in the article. However, in the case of someone posting an article, especially an editorial, without such explicit piss-taking (as with the OP), I agree wholeheartedly with your statement.

I guess we simply see the OP article in different light, then. The point of putting a rational jugement of Obama's presidency in opposition of said puerile behavior made it quite explicit that they wanted to make fun of the latter. The inherent humour is in the pseudo-serious delivery, which made it for me (not for the majority of you, apparently).

It's not like they tried to find apologies for the people using the Hitler argument. They just delivered it as a "matter of fact", showing just how distorded and twisted these people's view of reality is by putting it next to what can be considered a genuine neutral analysis of the situation.

Hit or miss point of humour. Although I am puzzled why you guys took so fucking seriously an article that came from THE ONION and was posted in the "Humour, Trivia and Puzzles" subforum. If a mere 30-seconds joke put here in good faith hoping to make you laugh (but failed) infuriates you so much, how sad are your lives?

Lighten up, people!

SolkaTruesilver wrote: ...Lighten up, people!

Are you suggesting I'm fat?

I think he is.

Solka, you're missing the whole point, which is another symptom of why I expect you don't understand why people are seeing you as the chief mover in this thread of disseminating the Onion's ideas. It isn't the fact of the Onion's little joke - it's the fact that the structure of this alleged joke makes light of Hitler's actions... and you follow it up by asking us to "lighten up" about the free usage of Hitler as a source of humor.

I'd argue that my main problems were there was no punchline, what wasn't there wasn't funny, and it was two years late to actually be topical.

The Hitler thing kinda sucks too though.

Without the punch line there's no real point to the joke. It then just becomes a rude comment. The first being funny, the second being me.