Short summary, he expresses his bewilderment at the fact people think it's taboo to compare anyone or anything to Hitler. The longer argument he makes is obviously it's a case of what you're discussing, you can't call someone Hitler for preferring a certain kind of ice cream. But firstly, people think it's extreme or childish to draw comparisons to nazism, forgetting how it actually was rather normal. There were no evil nazi monsters bursting forth from the earth and going "let's kill all Jews" - it was regular everyday people growing convinced over time that the solution to all problems was to eliminate certain social groups. Additionally he argues people will kill off any debate by going "they're not the same". He counters this by saying that making a comparison between two things is something else entirely than calling two things the exact same, and that given the current political climate we ought to be able to point out similarities.
Ja, JAAAAAA ! Endelig en der har fattet hvad en sammenligning er. Har altid fået af vide det er mig der er en idiot, fordi DE ikke forstår hvad en sammenligning er.
@@simongota17 nej det er ikke derfor. Det er fordi det er virkelig dårlig stand up. Men du er nok ikke så intelligent at du kan se det. Du er nok en lille teenager der popper bumserne og fniser når der er en der siger pik.
@@DonRocco86 der er muligvis bedre standup i den store verden. Men Martin slapper da helt og aldeles af og befinder sig i sit es i den monolog. Hvor der så til gengæld ikke bliver sagt pik eller fniset af simongota17. Et spørgsmål til dig: hvor gammel er du selv?