Why is it that it is apparently okay for folk to yell “Godwin’s Law!” at people who compare them to Nazis, but those same folk have no problem leaping into print loudly and nastily comparing other people to the Norwegian mass murderer.
Here’s how it works. If someone is advocating the extermination of another race (or some other subset) of people then you get to call them a Nazi, or compare them to Hitler. I’m totally fine with that. But if someone inconveniences you in some trivial way – like, say, by demanding they you obey the laws around election advertising – and you play the Nazi card, then that’s not appropriate. The Nazi’s aren’t an historic synonym for evil because they went around mildly inconveniencing people.
Comparisons to the Norwegian mass murderer work the same way. If (for whatever reason) some company or government department requires you to fill in a form and you respond by clawing at your eyes and screaming, ‘This is just like that mass murder in Norway’ (I use this hypothetical example because Peter is highly likely to act this out in real life, if he hasn’t already) then that’s not acceptable, because making someone fill in a form is not really like a terrorist atrocity. But if someone makes statements about race or Islam or immigrants that are identical to those made by the Norwegian mass murderer then it’s okay to make an observation to that effect.
I guess what this boils down to is that in rhetorical terms it’s okay to say one thing is similar to another if they are, and it’s not if they aren’t. I hope this clears things up for PC.