That's not how analogies work, so this is completely missing the point.

For example, if you say the Colosseum is to Rome what a roller coaster is to an amusement part, you are not saying that the Colosseum is similar to a roller coaster. No, what you're comparing is the Colosseum's relationship to Rome and the rollercoaster's relationship to the amusement park.

xg15's analogy isn't meant to equate Black people in America in 2020 to Jewish people in Nazi concentration camps. Rather, it's meant to compare the irrelevance of intra-Jewish violence in the face of Nazi violence to the irrelevance of intra-Black violence in the face of police violence.

Always surprising to me how the basic structure of analogy is so commonly misunderstood.

This was no analogy, as my point illustrated - not any more than name dropping any atrocious historical event into the discussion for rhetorical shock value.

The article discussed here specifically builds a significant part of its argument on the way violence inside black communities is silenced because it does not fit the current narrative. The article does not talk about police brutality itself, but about the way reality is bent and picked to fit a minority viewpoint.

No, it was one, csallen explained that quite well. I was trying to illustrate the point using an event were we should be all in agreement systematic discrimination and oppression happened. In that context, it's irrelevant how the oppressed behave.

> Always surprising to me how the basic structure of analogy is so commonly misunderstood.

It's what happens when people don't have a rebuttal to the point being raised. It's generally a good sign that they're no longer engaging in good faith.

The analogy might be stronger if intra Jewish violence killed 10x more than nazis.

That's completely irrelevant to the analogy, and you are making the same exact mistake as flyinglizard: treating an analogy as a simple comparison instead of as… an analogy.

For example, let's try another analogy: If a plane crashes and kills a bunch of people, we investigate the cause of the accident and demand to know what happens. We don't decline to investigate, fail to assign blame, or neglect to comfort the families because "well, people kill people more than planes kill people."

Note that this analogy holds even though homicides account for 1600x as many deaths annually than plane crashes… because that's irrelevant to what's actually being compared in the analogy.

Yes, if planes were killing more people than people, we probably wouldn’t investigate them as thoroughly. But people would probably stop flying, so kind of an unstable reality.