Something Shane said in his last video negates the Nazi fallacy (in my opinion). As a reminder, the Nazi fallacy says that once you bring up Nazis, you lose the argument. What Shane said was that if the argument you're using to support (whatever) "could" be used to justify some wrong thing in the past, then the argument doesn't stand. Since that is the only context I've ever encountered the Nazi argument...
It has to be one way or the other: Either pointing out that (point) could be used to justify Nazis means the person opposing the argument is wrong or the fact that (point) could be used to justify Nazis means the person proposing the argument is wrong.
No, it's actually Godwin's Law, and what it means is that, as a discussion goes on, the chances increase that one side will COMPARE THE OTHER TO NAZIS. It is generally thought, then, that this is the side that has lost the argument as they had to result to such a desperate ad hominem attack.
It has NOTHING to do with legitimate comparisons to the Nazis or looking at the history of Nazi Germany to learn lessons from it. That's the reaction of people who don't like the consequences of their positions being pointed out.
All I said was that it's a good rule of thumb that if your defense of the state could be used to support Nazi Germany, or slavery, or any other such atrocity, then it probably isn't a good one. Godwin's Law doesn't apply.
Just think of how limited we would be if we weren't allowed to reference one of the most significant events in history in historical discussions!
A bit after-the-fact, but here's the transcript of that bit for the sake of clarity:
Shane Killian
"...remember: you don't get to claim any kind of intellectual superiority just because you're the status quo. That could have been used to justify slavery up to the point slavery was abolished. That's actually a pretty good rule of thumb: take your argument, go back in time a few centuries, and see what that very same argument would have defended. And understand that if that same argument could have been used to defend a past atrocity, even one we all agree today's an atrocity, then that is an argument that will not in any way convince us."
The point of the Nazi fallacy is that something didn't become an atrocity just because the nazis did it, rather the nazis were evil for the atrocities the committed. Shane is saying that any serious arguments for the state and/or against the free market cannot stand on the same manner of reasoning Nazi Germany used to justify the atrocities they committed.
For example, take any statist argument, and if the logic of such an argument could have been used to justify slavery/genocide/etc when they were in vogue, then that argument will not work:
"Without government, who will build the roads?"
"Without slaves, who will build the roads?"
"If businesses are left unregulated, they will poison our food and drinking water!"
"If the jews are left unregulated, they will poison our food and drinking water!"
Well, I'm sure others out there can provide better examples, and I know there are bogon emitters out there who will try to twist this around, but hopefully that helps clear things up.