And yet they didn't single out a specific figure, nor did the poster above. As you say, there may well be more than one party someone might apply this description to.
Apparently a specific comparison formed in your mind, though, for some mysterious reason.
Probably just "constructed media narrative du jour," right? Certainly not because the person might actually be a quintessential example that stands out from everyone else so well that you already knew who people were likely talking about without anyone being named (yet, strangely, apparently want to deny that person should be considered for such a comparison at all).
> Nothing obscures reality worse than moral concerns.
It's not really clear that it's possible to separate human concerns from moral concerns, and I can only imagine someone arriving at the conclusion that "nothing obscures reality worse" by searching a pretty narrow set of reality-obscuring hazards.
> Apparently a specific comparison formed in your mind, though, for some mysterious reason.
Doesn't seem mysterious. The claim you are responding to is that, intentional or not, the author described Trump but said they were describing Hitler. That Trump came to mind is unsurprising.
Trump is commanding an absurd proportion of the media and social media's attention. Readers and authors are overprepared to see Trump everywhere in a world where it's hard to load a web page without seeing his name and face on it. Sometimes I go to a news site and load each section one by one to see if there is a single section that doesn't feature him prominently -- sometimes the sports or entertainment sections manage to avoid Trump, but not always.
I personally find the Hitler comparisons to be about as absurd as the birther movement was. And yet when I read the word "Hitler", my first thought is "Trump" and not "holocaust" or "tiny moustache". That isn't because I find the comparison apt -- I find it absurd. It's because Trump is so prominent in my attention and because absurd comparisons to Hitler have been made so many times that it's becoming expected.
He agrees that "to compare Trump’s feckless racism and compulsive lying was inevitably to trivialize Hitler’s crime and the victims of genocide", but also explains in substantial detail how Trump's playbook closely follows Hitler's.
It's not that great of a leap for the person you are replying to because "Hitler" and his supporters have been called nazis since the summer of 2015 and every comment connected to him inevitably turns into a discussion about neo-Nazis.
It's pretty clear who was being referring to.
concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it
If we really want to get picky it's worth pointing out that the person we aren't mentioning attacks multiple people at the same time and lies about little things all the time.
Said person is a jackass and an authoritarian but to compare him to a regime that killed millions using the loosest historical analogies does them a disservice and muddies the water.
Apparently a specific comparison formed in your mind, though, for some mysterious reason.
Probably just "constructed media narrative du jour," right? Certainly not because the person might actually be a quintessential example that stands out from everyone else so well that you already knew who people were likely talking about without anyone being named (yet, strangely, apparently want to deny that person should be considered for such a comparison at all).
> Nothing obscures reality worse than moral concerns.
It's not really clear that it's possible to separate human concerns from moral concerns, and I can only imagine someone arriving at the conclusion that "nothing obscures reality worse" by searching a pretty narrow set of reality-obscuring hazards.