Mr. Luskin has posted a brief addendum to his article, ostensibly to answer criticism of his article, but he completely misses the point. He writes:
There is very little that needs to be said in response how some people on the internet are responding to this article. The fact that some people are actually defending the tactic of making comparisons to Holocaust deniers completely speaks for itself, and so little response is necessary. Additionally, I applaud those from all sides who have joined in this truce to agree that such comparisons do not belong in this debate.
Some have blown my claims out of proportion when my simple claim is merely this: it's inappropriate to use comparisons to Holocaust deniers no matter what the issue or the facts are. Like Laura Hillman said "It's a bad analogy. Definitely a bad analogy." Regardless of one's viewpoint, if one wants to make a comparison to make a point, find a different one than comparisons to Holocaust deniers. Apparently the Anti-Defamation League would probably agree with me that it is inappropriate to use comparisons to Holocaust deniers in political debates, as ADL National Director Abraham H. Foxman wrote:
"[Y]our analogy to those who deny the Nazi murder of 6 million Jews and millions of others is insensitive and painful. Usage of Holocaust imagery to score political points at any time is unacceptable."
Foxman's comment was made in regards to some issue that came up during the last Presidential election. However, my point here is identical to that of ADL Director Abraham Foxman. Those who disagree with my point here might also want to consider taking a public stand against Mr. Foxman and the Anti-Defamation League.
Point missed. Completely. The point, Casey, is that if you are going to criticize ID opponents for comparing some of the rhetorical strategies used by IDers to those used by holocaust deniers, then you sure as hell better be even more critical of your fellow IDers who have been comparing me and my colleagues directly to the Nazis themselves, as well as to Stalinists and other assorted bad guys. But not only does your article not mention that, it quotes admiringly several of the people who have continually used those comparisons. It's a hypocritical argument that you're making, plain and simple.
By any sane criteria, it is far worse to be compared to those who slaughtered millions of innocent people than to be compared to those who deny that it happened. Yet on that, you fall dead silent. The only possible reason for this inconsistency is that you are protecting your friends and trying to distract attention from their far more invidious comparisons by pointing to the much less offensive and more defensible comparisons being made by those who oppose you. I would suggest, Mr. Luskin, that the only person here who is using holocaust imagery to score political points, as Foxman put it, is you. You are wrapping yourself up in Holocaust victimology in order to point your finger at your opponents and say "See what horrible people they are" while you absolve your friends who have done far worse by the exact same criteria you use to justify your position. It is rank intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy on your part.
I would suggest, Mr. Luskin, that the only person here who is using holocaust imagery to score political points, as Foxman put it, is you.
Very well said. That is exactly what is going on here Ed. And this tactic echoes one seen more and more on talk shows and in winger essays respondng to criticisms of socially conservative policies, that basically plays the persecution card along the lines of "These over the top liberal freaks have no g-d decency, they're comparing us to Nazi Jew Killing psychos merely to score cheap political points ... help, help, I'm being repressed, get them off me, arrrghh .."
Casey prefers to ignore the process (apologetics) which involves starting with a conclusion and emphasizing only evidence which supports the conclusion. This is an undeniable similarity between holocaust denial and ID. I suggest lumping all the creationists into "bioapologetics" to emphasize the process.
The fact that some people are actually defending the tactic of making comparisons to Holocaust deniers completely speaks for itself, and so little response is necessary.
If that were the case you wouldn't have wasted your time with a response. The fact that you did waste your time with a response demonstrates that it was in fact necessary; people don't do things that are complete unnecessary. It was necessary because most people don't see comparing the tactics of two groups as being unreasonable. If the comparison is false, then state why it is. If it's not, then you have no right to complain about being called out on it.
Wrapping yourself in the cloak of the holocaust is completely pathetic on your part. If the criticisms are invalid, state why. Don't use the holocaust as a shield for your own inadequacies.
Some have blown my claims out of proportion when my simple claim is merely this: it's inappropriate to use comparisons to Holocaust deniers no matter what the issue or the facts are.
No one compared IDers to holocaust deniers. They have compared your tactics, because they are near identical in every way. Tactics are not sensitive subjects. There is no emotion involved when comparing tactics. If someone were to say that IDers are on the same level with holocaust deniers as people, then I would agree with you. However, claiming that two groups share similar tactics has nothing to do with the groups as people, or what the group is claiming. Whether or not the tactics are shared is a simple true/false statement. If the answer is false, and you do not share tactics with holocaust deniers, please state why.
Otherwise, you have no case. No one is bringing up any holocaust imagery, except for you, in your attempt to dodge criticism. I for one hope no one gives in to this attempted bullying, stating what types of arguments can and can not be made (the ones that hurt your case, of course, are insensitive and should be restricted). It would be a shame if they did, because the comparison really is spot-on.