[ExI] why not stalin?

[spike at rainier66.com]

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat <extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org> On Behalf Of Ben
Zaiboc via extropy-chat
...
> 
>>... Ben perhaps those who keep hammering on the Hitler/Mussolini 
> comparisons are not entirely certain that Stalin and Mao were such bad 
> guys.  The DSA might not be sure of it.


>... there's no Stalin or Mao equivalent of Godwin's law.
---
Ben

_______________________________________________


There should be.  

Fun aside: the Hitler comparison killed the annoying term "literally."  It
was common yankee teen-speak to say everything was literally this or
literally that, where the term was really used to mean extremely.  Teens
love extremes, so anything that was extremely anything was literally that
thing.  It became most entertaining as they would say the president was
LITERALLY HITLER.  

Then of course any geezer would make some Snidely Whiplash comment such as
"Dang that guy looks good for 127."  

Of course the younger crowd didn't understand because their history classes
do not cover Hitler, or if so, not nearly enough.  I am sad to report that
last part.  Yankee students know very little American history.

There was a happy ending however.  One hears the annoying term "literally"
far less often now and if so, there is a higher chance it is being used
correctly.

spike