The Hitler vs. Coulter Quiz

You got 14 citations correct!

I got them all. I've only read about two-thirds of what Ann has written and Mein Kampf from Hitler. I thought it was pretty easy to distinguish who wrote each.

I got 13 out of 14, Dafydd. I even had trouble on the same question...and I can't claim to have an in-depth knowledge of either Hitler's or Coulter's writings.

But I can claim to recognize that one author's thought structure was much more complex than the other's....

Can you give me a quick run-down on the logical fallacy involved in claiming that this test could prove "Hitler == Coulter" ? I've got a feeling that I know what it is, but I can't quite put it into words.

Hah!

I have read neither; although I hope to read both at some point in the future... my score? 14 of 14. This ain't even hard. I wonder how the liberals are doing?

mac

I got same 13 out of 14. I looked for logic (Ann) vs. emotion (Adolf).

13 of 14; missed the same question. Can we compare Bill Keller to Benedict Arnold now?

I got 8 right... proving correctly that I am not familiar with the writings of either.

Would it be a comparably fair test to compare the writings of say, Ronald Reagan and Rep. Murtha (who , you may not know, fought in Vietnam) if we change Nurtha's line about redeploying from Iraq to Staying the Course in Vietnam?

They guy who came up with this test is as familiar with logic as I am with the text of Mein Kampf.

"The foremost connoisseurs of this truth regarding the possibilities in the use of falsehood and slander have always been the liberals..."

The "liberals" that Hitler referred to are not the "liberals" that contemporary Americans refer to. Those that Hitler referred to were the classical liberals. The modern "liberal" is a blatent fascist that Hitler (or an Islamofascist) would feel right at home with.

for details (a lot of them).

I got 10 out of 14, having not really read either of them that closely.

Kind of surprising, though. It's like the Al Gore/Unabomber test Tony Snow did a long time ago.

I really loathe the old 'conservative=Hitler' meme. This was decrepit by 1950 and has only gotten worse. How many times does one hear Kos compared with Marx or Lenin? It's the same thing or would be if it ever happened.

It's probably the biggest problem I have with the Germans - the fact that whenever they disagree with the US about something they start getting 3rd Reich flashbacks.

I have noticed several similarities between Coulter and Hitler. They both use letters to write words. In facts some of the very same words, such as "the" and "and" appear in the works of both. So obviously Coulter=Hitler.

How about this: "The Tree of Fascism must occasionally be fed by the blood of patriots" Only the original didn't say "fascism" but something else....

I tried to play this game with a few quotes from Markos Moulitsas, but he is so mind numbingly inarticulate and incoherent I couldn't make it work.

But how about this description of the person: "Compact and wiry, XXXXXX, exudes quivering intensity. He speaks in staccato paragraphs, punctuated by intense stares and a raised eyebrow. His eyes bulge slightly outward, as if reacting to the pressure of all the ideas inside his head." Hitler or Markos Moulitsas?

I have to admit, I am SHOCKED and ASHAMED!!! Not at not scoring on well on the test (I don't have time for a contrived test to prove nothing at all), but because this has some relationship to the University of Virginia - my alma mater.

I would have to guess it's a student, because Virginia is one of the LEAST liberal universities out there. In fact, if you check the news, you will see several UVA professors cited for their balance and non-liberal perspective (e.g. Larry Sabato) as well as respected environmental scientists that DO NOT subscribe to global warming alarmism.

On the topic of Hitler, I think you hit the nail on the head when you say that "stripping Hitlerian ideas of their racism and Jew hatred, you strip out their very Hitlerness" - that pretty much turns the test into nothing more than trivial pursuit. Also, we could easily come up with another 15 quotes from Harry Ried, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, etc, etc. as compared to Hilter, Stalin, Marx, etc and "prove" a similar point. And last, people must think that everything Hilter said must have been just horrible and obviously insane, but that could not have been farther from the truth (I admit now that I have not read much of anything Hilter, but more about general German history from WW1 to WW2). He stirred the passion of a nation that had been through very difficult times and was extremely charismatic - in fact, he played on peoples' feelings as victims (hmmm, sounds like democratic politicians).

I have never read more than one chapter from anything by Ann Coulter.
I don't even like her very much.
I got 13/14 correct.
I think this test only proves that liberals cannot carefully read.

13 of 14. I missed only that one question which I think should be thrown out since it was so tightly excerpted that it does not include the subject of the sentence. "...connoisseurs of this truth..." Which truth is that?

13 of 14. I missed only that one question which I think should be thrown out since it was so tightly excerpted that it does not include the subject of the sentence. "...connoisseurs of this truth..." Which truth is that?

I got 'em all, too. (Having read very little Coulter, and only a little bit of Mein Kampf. Hitler was a terrible author in addition to all his other baleful qualities.)

It's not very hard to tell the difference, if you know much about either Hitler or Coutler's worldviews and their personal obsessions.

(Also, the "one drop" rule was more of a Southern anti-Black thing than a Nazi thing. The Nazis would let you be 'not-fully-a-Jew' if you had a fewer than three Jewish grandparents, and "mixed' if one or two (in the Nuremberg laws, which is a lot more than a single drop, so to speak. This does not reduce the evil of the Nazi regime one bit, but it's best to be accurate about such things.)

How could you not get 14/14? All of Hitler's quotes are in German!

(Not in the face! Not in the face!)

I really loathe the old 'conservative=Hitler' meme

The Nazis were SOCIALISTS they are to the right of Marxist-Lenninism to the extent they were National versus International Socialists.

So guess which Party is closer to what they were? ;-)

COMPARE:

"At a time when our entire country
is banding together and facing down
individualism, the Patriots set a wonderful
example, showing us all what is possible
when we work together, believe
in each other, and sacrifice for the
greater good."

SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY, D-MASS., in a statement read
onto the Congressional Record, praising the New
England Patriots and declaring us all to be in
an American war against individualism.
----------
"Thus state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture..." Adolf Hitler, Mein_Kampf

Hmm, I guessed correctly 14/14. I have read (and generally like Ann's style) much more of Ann's work than Adolf's ;).

The

Nazis were SOCIALISTS they are to the right of Marxist-Lenninism to the extent they were National versus International Socialists.

So guess which Party is closer to what they were? ;-)

The proper answer to that question is neither party. Even the Bund movement was way different than what was going on in Germany. And they were repudiate by both parties as Oswald Moseley was repudiated in the UK.

The other major fallacy was 'liberal=communist'. No mainstream Democrat politician was a communist - not even poor Henry Wallace. Wallace was a dupe and too unwilling to believe the plain evidence of what was going on under his eyes. But no communist.

Fortunately Wallace was dumped in 1944 by the Democratic Party leadership - who clearly recognized that they were nominating two presidents because Roosevelt wasn't going to live another 4 years.

I got 14/ 14 right and though I could brag about it in the Comments, but I see that the average score is 13/ 14. What the test proves is not that Ann Coulter and Adolph Hitler are indistinguishable, but that liberal left are incapable of distinguishing Ann Coulter from Adolph Hitler. Both are equally bad to them. So to help them, here are just a few clues (for the clueless):

Ann Coulter did not start a world war. (Irritating a liberal is not the same as starting a world war.

Ann Coulter is funny and witty, even though she is sarcastic and caustic.

Ann Coulter did not kill 6,000,000 Jews.

Ann Coulter’s writings are correct (again, even though she is sarcastic and caustic). Jews.

Ann Coulter did not kill millions of other people for being Gypsies, Poles, gay, mentally retarded, freedom fighters, etc.

Ann Coulter had more best sellers.

People who throw things at Ann Coulter are not killed by the SS. They are touted as heroes for “speaking truth to power”.

The reason that the liberal, left hates and fears Ann Coulter more than they do Adolph Hitler is that Ann Coulter presents more of threat to them than Adolph Hitler does. Ann Coulter exposes them as mental and moral midgets while Adolph Hitler has been killed by the American industrial / military complex that the liberal left hates so much.

I got 14/ 14 right and though I could brag about it in the Comments, but I see that the average score is 13/ 14. What the test proves is not that Ann Coulter and Adolph Hitler are indistinguishable, but that liberal left are incapable of distinguishing Ann Coulter from Adolph Hitler. Both are equally bad to them. So to help them, here are just a few clues (for the clueless):

Ann Coulter did not start a world war. (Irritating a liberal is not the same as starting a world war.

Ann Coulter is funny and witty, even though she is sarcastic and caustic.

Ann Coulter did not kill 6,000,000 Jews.

Ann Coulter’s writings are correct (again, even though she is sarcastic and caustic). Jews.

Ann Coulter did not kill millions of other people for being Gypsies, Poles, gay, mentally retarded, freedom fighters, etc.

Ann Coulter had more best sellers.

People who throw things at Ann Coulter are not killed by the SS. They are touted as heroes for “speaking truth to power”.

The reason that the liberal, left hates and fears Ann Coulter more than they do Adolph Hitler is that Ann Coulter presents more of threat to them than Adolph Hitler does. Ann Coulter exposes them as mental and moral midgets while Adolph Hitler has been killed by the American industrial / military complex that the liberal left hates so much.

I dislike Ann Coulter. I rarely read anything she writes, other than excerpts quoted by others. However, I don't have any misconceptions that she's anything like Hitler.

I got 13 right.

You're wrong, Dafydd, it's not a test of familiarity with their writing styles. I've read no Hitler, and very little Coulter, and I still got 14 out of 14. It's really not hard.

Milhouse:

Of course you have a familiarity with their writing styles, Milhouse: you are familiar enough with Ann Coulter to know that she is a contemporary American, while Hitler was a German from the first part of the last century. You know enough to be able generally to distinguish a random contemporary American from a random German of the 1920s, '30s, and '40s.

Too, you are famliar enough to know that Hitler was a megalomaniacal dictator who rose to command an empire that started the most brutal war the world has ever seen, while Coulter is merely a conservative lawyer and writer. Again, your general familiarity with psychological types allows you distinguish between the writings of these two very different types of people.

Each of these familiarities by itself allows you easily to guess who wrote what; I only missed one because I went too quickly and got careless.

Dafydd

ROFLMAO!!! The test inarguably demonstrates that Ann, Hitler and the incredible think tank posting on this blog all share the same views about liberals. This is evident from the content of the statements, regardless of how folks score on the test. There is no indication that Ann and Hitler have identical views on every topic!

I think the logical fallacy the previous poster is looking for maybe "hastey generalization."

Example: I like this song on the this record album, therefore, I will like every song on this album. Or, Ann and Hitler agree about liberals, therefore they must agree about everything.

Ann, herself, like many posters on this site, is a master of using the "straw man."

One can set up a straw man in the following ways:

1. Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
2. Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.
3. Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.

In other words, if your argument against this test is that Hitler and Ann have many differences, you are arguing a strawman. By redefining your opponent's position, implying that the test is designed to show that Ann and Hitler are identical, you are arguing against a position your opponent never stated.

To effectively argue the point, you'll need to demonstrate that Ann and Hitler have differing opinions about liberals.

The test is composed of numerous statements about liberals. Period. This is the entire scope of the test. The only point argued by this test is that Ann and Hitler share very similar opinions about liberals. This argument is well supported by Ann and Hitler's comments on the topic. To support an actual logical arguement (not a logical fallacy), one would need numerous opposing quotes made by Ann and Hitler regarding liberals.

The test does not make any comparisons between Ann and Hitler on other topics. There are no comments relating to Jews or hairstyles or favorite foods.

Gurudude:

Actually, the logical fallacy you commit in your post is "context dropping."

Coulter is accused of being Hitlerian so many times, she almost (but not quite) rivals George W. Bush. If you read the test as only caring about their respective opinions about liberals, then I think you're the only one.

(In fact, I suspect that some of those Hitler statements were not originally about "liberals" but about Jews, and the test author altered them.)

In the context of a virtual cottage industry accusing Ann Coulter of being "as bad as Hitler," a test that compares her statements about liberals to Hitler's statements about liberals (or Jews or Communists) takes on a far more sinister meaning than simply "Ann and Hitler share very similar opinions about liberals." (Not to mention Godwin's Law.)

Which, by the way, is not even true as far as it goes: there is no evidence that Ann Coulter thinks "liberals" should literally be exterminated; yet Hitler did indeed exterminate what we might call liberals today, whatever he called them while he was alive.

I have no idea whether you, yourself are liberal; but you are using their very favorite rhetorical tactic: by dropping context, liberals (and creationists) try to compartmentalize every discussion, forcing us to start all over from square one every time. Previous liberal conduct and previous refutation of the liberal position are both ruled "irrelevant," and we're supposed to act as if there is no larger context to anything.

For example, whenever some hideous murderer is about to be executed, some liberal group will pop up with a "witness" who claims someone else did it... and they will get a court to issue a stay. That so-called witness is finally refuted; and then, just before the new execution date, up pops the same group with a different "witness" making similar claims -- and they file another writ demanding another stay.

After the third or fourth time, it's obvious they're simply bribing people to pretend to be witnesses, so they can infinitely delay the execution. But each time, they demand that we drop all context of the previous devious writs and treat each new one as if it were the very first, demanding a de novo hearing each time.

"Come on, I wouldn't lie to you fifty-seven times in a row, would I?"

Context is very important, Gurudude; it's as much a part of the argument as the specific point being raised at the moment.

Dafydd

Coulter is accused of being Hitlerian so many times, she almost (but not quite) rivals George W. Bush. If you read the test as only caring about their respective opinions about liberals, then I think you're the only one.

Look at this page

http://www.people.virginia.edu/%7Ejac3he/GiveUpQuiz/hitlercoulterquiz.html

Where on this site is there any evidence of the "context" of which you speak? My comments were logical conclusions based on the information at hand.

Your "context" would be impossible to logically infer from the available data on this web site. Your inference is an emotional one based on your fund of knowledge and your personal thoughts and feelings regarding comparisons between Ann and Hitler.

It is true that there are many web sites comparing Hitler to alls kinds of folks. However, again, arguing for a context that is not present is another strawman.

The support your give for your "context" is another logical fallacy, argumentum ad populum, appeal to the majority.

"Everybody knows that Ann and Hitler are compared more than anyone but Bush, therefore, it must be true."

A logical argument requires rational, not emotional, support. Math operates on principals of logic. Imagine this arguement, "You say 2+2=4, but I say you are taking it out of context. It's obvious to everyone but you that 2+2=5." This is the same basic argument you are making against my post.

Take this quiz by telling me who said it, Ann or Hitler:

1. Red is an ugly color.
2. When I was a kid, I broke all the red crayons.
3. Red faced people make me sick.
4. I would never own red clothing.
5. I don't even like red food like cherries or apples.

On what topic are we most likely comparing Ann and Hitler's opinions?

Gurudude:

Where on this site is there any evidence of the "context" of which you speak? My comments were logical conclusions based on the information at hand.

Your "context" would be impossible to logically infer from the available data on this web site. Your inference is an emotional one based on your fund of knowledge and your personal thoughts and feelings regarding comparisons between Ann and Hitler.

You're not reading attentively, Gurudude. The context is the larger universe in which one of the most common attacks on Coulter is that she is "just like Hitler."

Your only response is to say that on this particular webpage, she is not specifically attacked that way. That is precisely what I mean by "context dropping." That is what the phrase means: taking each utterance as a discrete pebble unrelated to all the other pebbles surrounding it.

For heaven's sake, just look at the blogsite of the guy who actually designed the quiz, the "Rev. Dr." at Give Up Blog (Jim, at the blog I linked, is a friend of his who he allowed to host the quiz on his own site as well.) If you don't understand what the Rev. Dr. thinks about Ann Coulter, then I don't know what to say; it's patently obvious... from context.

Math operates on principals of logic. Imagine this arguement, "You say 2+2=4, but I say you are taking it out of context. It's obvious to everyone but you that 2+2=5." This is the same basic argument you are making against my post.

Thank you for instructing me about math and logic. I think this conversation serves no purpose.

Dafydd

"I think this conversation serves no purpose." You are right. You are much better off posting with folks who agree with you and who aren't really interested in finding rational truth if it conflicts with their own personal prejudices.

We are arguing two different points. I am making a logical argument regarding the quiz at hand. You are creating an arguement that Ann and Adolf are different.

BTW, if you want to argue that Ann and Hitler are different, I concede. They are clearly different in many, many ways. Why on Earth would anyone argue against the idea that two people are different? It is a given that any two people will be different in many aspects and similar in many others. Supporting evidence for the differences and similarities between Hitler and Ann should be fairly easy.

However, this particular site provides some evidence to support the idea that Hitler and Ann share the same opinions about liberals. No evidence beyond comments about liberals has been provided. To argue this point, one would need to show that Ann and Hitler felt diferently about liberals.

Your pebble analogy regarding context is solid. Context IS taking into account the pebbles surrounding it. Context does NOT mean that one may take into account EVERY possible pebble. "The pebbles surrounding it," implies that these other pebbles are present within the statement at hand. The pebbles you present are simply not present and, therefore, are in no way part of the context.

In other words, if all possible pebbles are included in context, then the term "context" loses it's meaning. By nature of the concept,context requires parameters. To my understanding, context is generally limited to that which sufficiently communicates the intended idea. Moving beyond this means making generalizations, as you have, rather than making a rational point, as I have.

"...Hitler's beer hall oratory, attacking Jews, socialists and liberals, capitalists and communists, began attracting adherents."

Wikipedia

I couldn't find any credible source that substantiated in any way that Hitler supported liberals (or socialists or communists for that matter). Ideologically, Hitler appears to have been a devout Christian, nationalist, who attacked liberals, socialists and communists, as well as Jews and capitalists.

Gurudude:

Ideologically, Hitler appears to have been a devout Christian....

Sure you want to stick with that one?

Dafydd

Hmmmm.... i'll revise the comment.

Hitler publically professed to be a Christian and was considered deeply religious. Christianity was used as a propaganda tool to help define the difference between us (good Germans) and them (Jews, gays, liberals, etc.).

Privately, while always considering himself a God fearing man, Hitler is said to have also described himself as anti-Christian and certainly anti-Catholic.

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm

Gurudude:

?

Dafydd

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)