Grammar Nazi

[curiousguy221]

Would anyone here describe themselves as Grammar Nazis? i know a lot of people who are like this and I often find that i correct others and insist on speaking correctly.

[BentOverBitch]

Yes, I am a charter member of the Grammar Police. lol

[curiousguy221]

nothing wrong with that.

[smc]

Originally Posted by curiousguy221

Would anyone here describe themselves as Grammar Nazis? i know a lot of people who are like this and I often find that i correct others and insist on speaking correctly.

I have certainly been accused of being someone who corrects others a lot. And so, I'm going to take this opportunity to "correct" you on your use of the word Nazis, which I find to be an affront. I want to point out that I do not ascribe to you any malice in your use of the term, only a lack of sensitivity.

It has become commonplace to use the word "Nazi" in this way, as defined in The Urban Dictionary:

2. more recently, it has become a slang term used to described people who are overly concerned about details (in an unhealthy way), and like to correct others on every occasion they get. Especially evident on internet forums, blogs, and youtube

The Seinfeld TV program, for instance, gave us the "Soup Nazi" -- the proprietor of a small takeout restaurant (serving soup) who was very temperamental and insisted that customers follow strict rules of behavior when ordering his product.

Now, think about it. The term "Nazi" comes from Nationalsozialismus, the German word for the ideology of the political party of the same name led by Adolph Hitler. I don't think I need to recount what the Nazis stood for, and what their supporters today continue to espouse.

When the term "Nazi" is used as in "Soup Nazi" or "Grammar Nazi," it is a double-edged sword of inappropriateness. On the one hand, it elevates the idea of insisting on protocols for ordering soup or using proper grammar to the level of how the Nazis dealt with the things they wished to change, which is patently ridiculous. On the other hand, it diminishes the distinction between the true meaning of the word Nazi and these "lesser" uses. Over time, doing that in language tends to cause people to forget important things about what words represent.

Some may call me some kind of "Nazi" for posting this in response to your question, but I will risk that misuse of the term for the opportunity to make the case that we ought to think carefully about such careless bandying about of words.

[smc]

Originally Posted by BentOverBitch

Yes, I am a charter member of the Grammar Police. lol

"Grammar Police" is a fine alternative to the term chosen by the OP (see my post above).

[curiousguy221]

... so... how about 'Grammar Obsessive' then

[smc]

Originally Posted by curiousguy221

... so... how about 'Grammar Obsessive' then

It's not clear whether your question/suggestion is posed in response to my post, but I will say that in my opinion Grammar Police more clearly articulates the point you are making. Police take an active role in "correcting" the behavior of others. Obsessives may do so, but are more likely to exist in their own little worlds. Whereas a member of the Grammar Police may contact the symphony manager to inform her that there was a dangling participle in the program of last night's concert, a Grammar Obsessive may simply revel in having found the dangling participle, or perhaps sit in his seat unable to enjoy the music because he is obsessing over the dangling participle.

[curiousguy221]

i understand what you mean (while i am known to correct others, my grammar is still far from perfect, at least when writing in this sort of thing. i never use words like 'lol' or anything like that though)

[smc]

Originally Posted by curiousguy221

i understand what you mean (while i am known to correct others, my grammar is still far from perfect, at least when writing in this sort of thing. i never use words like 'lol' or anything like that though)

Well, I still don't know what you think about my long post. But if you agree, perhaps you would send a PM to a moderator (I am no longer a moderator) and request that the title of the thread be changed.

[curiousguy221]

i think you have a point, and i agree. but i find that overall, 'Grammar Nazi' is just a better term to use for the title. i did think about it before posting, and i decided that 'Grammar Police' seemed too weak a title for such a post. i understand that the term 'Grammar Nazi' does have bad connotations, i have had trouble with Neo-Fascists in the past (some with racial leanings and some without). i think most people will not be offended by the title, but i offer my sincere apologies to anyone who is.

[smc]

Originally Posted by curiousguy221

i think you have a point, and i agree. but i find that overall, 'Grammar Nazi' is just a better term to use for the title. i did think about it before posting, and i decided that 'Grammar Police' seemed too weak a title for such a post. i understand that the term 'Grammar Nazi' does have bad connotations, i have had trouble with Neo-Fascists in the past (some with racial leanings and some without). i think most people will not be offended by the title, but i offer my sincere apologies to anyone who is.

Sorry, and with all due respect, you DON'T agree with my point. If you did, there is no way you could then go on to state that despite the "bad connotations" of the term you think it is a "better term to use for the title," since that view completely cancels out any claim of agreement.

Count me among the offended.

[curiousguy221]

Originally Posted by smc

Sorry, and with all due respect, you DON'T agree with my point. If you did, there is no way you could then go on to state that despite the "bad connotations" of the term you think it is a "better term to use for the title," since that view completely cancels out any claim of agreement.

Count me among the offended.

then i offer my sincere apologies.

[smc]

Originally Posted by curiousguy221

then i offer my sincere apologies.

I'd rather you rescinded your agreement than issue an apology, because the issue of clarity with what words mean -- and the long-term societal impact of using such charged terms inappropriately -- was the entire point of my post. Clearly, you don't see it that way.

Does anyone else agree that the word Nazi is offensive in this context? Many will read, we know, but few will post either way. I encourage those who do to say so.

[curiousguy221]

Originally Posted by smc

I'd rather you rescinded your agreement than issue an apology, because the issue of clarity with what words mean -- and the long-term societal impact of using such charged terms inappropriately -- was the entire point of my post. Clearly, you don't see it that way.

Does anyone else agree that the word Nazi is offensive in this context? Many will read, we know, but few will post either way. I encourage those who do to say so.

i do not think the word is offensive in this context. the National Socialists were well known for their restrictive behavior and general controlling nature. making fun of the Nazi's is not offensive in my view. making light of what they did certainly is.

and i think you are right in that apparently i do not agree with you, though i do see your point.

[smc]

Originally Posted by curiousguy221

i do not think the word is offensive in this context. the National Socialists were well known for their restrictive behavior and general controlling nature. making fun of the Nazi's is not offensive in my view. making light of what they did certainly is.

and i think you are right in that apparently i do not agree with you, though i do see your point.

Just to be clear, and then I will leave the discussion to others: I did not raise an objection because the word is offensive (although it is). My objection is to the effect that using a word like effectively compares something relatively innocuous (correcting people's grammar) to something horrific (putting people to death for being non-Aryan, for instance), thus diminishing the power of the word's original meaning over time.

[GRH]

Originally Posted by curiousguy221

i understand what you mean (while i am known to correct others, my grammar is still far from perfect, at least when writing in this sort of thing. i never use words like 'lol' or anything like that though)

I was going to point out the irony of someone claiming to be a stickler for proper grammar who doesn't bother to capitalize proper nouns (i.e. "I") or use punctuation.

[curiousguy221]

Originally Posted by GRH

I was going to point out the irony of someone claiming to be a stickler for proper grammar who doesn't bother to capitalize proper nouns (i.e. "I") or use punctuation.

i menat in more of a spoken fashion (i'm rubbish with computers), but i don't think of myself as over concerned with grammar, everyone else seems to think i do though. i mostly correct pronunciation and usage.

[smc]

Originally Posted by curiousguy221

i menat in more of a spoken fashion (i'm rubbish with computers), but i don't think of myself as over concerned with grammar, everyone else seems to think i do though. i mostly correct pronunciation and usage.

I can't help but wonder: what is your point with starting this thread? I ask that in all seriousness.

[curiousguy221]

Originally Posted by smc

I can't help but wonder: what is your point with starting this thread? I ask that in all seriousness.

i was called a 'Grammar Nazi' a few days ago and i wondered if anyone else felt that they were, had been called something similar or knew someone else they would class as such.

If you don't mind me joining, here, even though a bit late. I think we all have to remember how absolutly abominable an event the Shoah was in particular, and WW2 in general. We're talking about the worst mass murder event in a history already horrific in itself with incessant blood sheds and carnages, cities demolished to the ground, entire populations wiped, women and children taken in slavery, etc, etc, etc. That's, in my opinion (and i don't think i'm being too unfaithfull to smc's view on this), the focal point of the matter. We're talking about such a terrible, unparalleled event, it's almost beyond comprehension. I apologize if i seem over zealeous in words, here, but the historical reality is such indeed that it defies expression. (Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan are not just movies). That is why, in my opinion, the word "nazi" should never be used lightly, and especially not for any futile object. It has become almost a farcical commonplace applied to anything, and it's terrible. We have to remember what's at stake here to this very day, we have to remember the horror nazisim caused to the world and the sacrifices we've had to make to overcome it. It's part of who we are now. Young or old, we should never fail to remember. Our use of words in such matters is symptomatic of our historical consciousness.

curiousguy221, i know you weren't malintentioned in all of this. But once again i agree with smc: we should close this thread...

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Just to be clear, and then I will leave the discussion to others: I did not raise an objection because the word is offensive (although it is). My objection is to the effect that using a word like effectively compares something relatively innocuous (correcting people's grammar) to something horrific (putting people to death for being non-Aryan, for instance), thus diminishing the power of the word's original meaning over time.

While it may diminish the word Nazi, the purpose was to exaggerate the term grammar police, which is already an exaggeration of what those who are sticklers for grammar do, to even greater extremes. And that's ok. While the term grammar nazi may confuse a cheap AI program, the human mind is able to figure out what is meant by the term.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by curiousguy221

i was called a 'Grammar Nazi' a few days ago and i wondered if anyone else felt that they were, had been called something similar or knew someone else they would class as such.

As you can see, there are varying degrees of grammar nazis. If you are a grammar nazi, what would you call someone who is even more of a grammar nazi than you?

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

While it may diminish the word Nazi, the purpose was to exaggerate the term grammar police, which is already an exaggeration of what those who are sticklers for grammar do, to even greater extremes. And that's ok. While the term grammar nazi may confuse a cheap AI program, the human mind is able to figure out what is meant by the term.

Tracy, we're talking about an event that took close to 70 million lives. You don't think some people might be deeply offended by such a frivolous use of the word ? Even "fascists" would be better in such instance, however awful it would still be an hyperbola. Of course we understand it's an exageration... of course the human mind can grasp it. That's precisely the point: it's the dimensions of the event that makes the comparison shoking to an extreme.
It's as if we all forgot how abominable an event WW2 was. The word "nazis" evoke such a horrific reality we cannot possibly use it to define a mild fixation on grammar. That's smc's point, i think. And i share it. We have to take part and responsability to history even in the present, don't you think ? I'm affraid there's no way to be innocent, here.

[GRH]

This reminds me of a recent incident with Maine's governor Paul LePage. He was talking about the new healthcare act and made some off-colored comment on how the IRS were America's Gestapo-- or something to that effect. He caught some flak on it, because regardless of whether he was LITERALLY saying the IRS was equivalent to the Gestapo or not, words still have meaning. After being called on it, he backpedaled and pointed out that he didn't believe the IRS would actually kill anyone intentionally, but that people would indirectly be killed via healthcare rationing. He later apologized.

Some words carry such a charged or deep socio-political meaning that we have to be mindful of their use. I could be talking among friends about African American history. During the course of this conversation, the word "nigger" may arise in relation to describing how blacks were treated, talked to, etc. My intent may be completely benign (discussing history). However, I would have to be mindful of how my benignly intended use of a word may make others feel. In other words, this conversation may be fine to have in the privacy of my home; the same conversation may be less appropriate on a public street in Harlem.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by danthepoetman

Tracy, we're talking about an event that took close to 70 million lives. You don't think some people might be deeply offended by such a frivolous use of the word ? Even "fascists" would be better in such instance, however awful it would still be an hyperbola. Of course we understand it's an exageration... of course the human mind can grasp it. That's precisely the point: it's the dimensions of the event that makes the comparison shoking to an extreme.
It's as if we all forgot how abominable an event WW2 was. The word "nazis" evoke such a horrific reality we cannot possibly use it to define a mild fixation on grammar. That's smc's point, i think. And i share it. We have to take part and responsability to history even in the present, don't you think ? I'm affraid there's no way to be innocent, here.

Do you also complain when someone says they're on a "crusade" to go do something?

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

While it may diminish the word Nazi, the purpose was to exaggerate the term grammar police, which is already an exaggeration of what those who are sticklers for grammar do, to even greater extremes. And that's ok. While the term grammar nazi may confuse a cheap AI program, the human mind is able to figure out what is meant by the term.

Of course, "the human mind is able to figure out what is meant by the term." But my point was about the diminishing of the term, as you note in the beginning of your post. As we "normalize" the use of highly charged terms over time, and they lose their original specificity, we create -- I argue -- a problem that we could have avoided. Apparently, you don't think so, but can you really argue that over a long period the human mind's figuring out will be full and accurate?

[smc]

Originally Posted by GRH

This reminds me of a recent incident with Maine's governor Paul LePage. He was talking about the new healthcare act and made some off-colored comment on how the IRS were America's Gestapo-- or something to that effect. He caught some flak on it, because regardless of whether he was LITERALLY saying the IRS was equivalent to the Gestapo or not, words still have meaning. After being called on it, he backpedaled and pointed out that he didn't believe the IRS would actually kill anyone intentionally, but that people would indirectly be killed via healthcare rationing. He later apologized.

Some words carry such a charged or deep socio-political meaning that we have to be mindful of their use. I could be talking among friends about African American history. During the course of this conversation, the word "nigger" may arise in relation to describing how blacks were treated, talked to, etc. My intent may be completely benign (discussing history). However, I would have to be mindful of how my benignly intended use of a word may make others feel. In other words, this conversation may be fine to have in the privacy of my home; the same conversation may be less appropriate on a public street in Harlem.

Putting aside that LePage appears to be a nearly complete idiot, I do not think his comment was an accident. Those of his political ilk seem to revel in making these kinds of analogies. They reveal an ahistorical perspective on the world that, coupled with their policy prescriptions and their tendency toward stupidity ("Get your government hands of my Medicare!"), makes them particularly frightening.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Do you also complain when someone says they're on a "crusade" to go do something?

By the way, the use of the word "crusade" IS also subject to some contreversy, Tracy. Don't you remember how president Bush put his foot in his mouth at the beginnig of the operations in Irak ?
Besides, i don't want to give you any history lessons on the matter. But the situation related to what we call "The Crusades" is much more complex. Both the Greeks and the Roman colonized the syrio-palistinian corridor, during what we call the hellenistic period, during the life and after the death of Alexander (IVth century BCE), for the formers, during the first century BCE for the latters. "Christianity" was the word used from the beginnig of the fourth century on, to discribe our world, to which this region belonged, instead of what it became, "Europe", as history progressed... The djiad that succeded in spreading Islam was largely military in the region an everywhere. Parts of southern Europe were invaded, Sicily for instance, and Spain was occupied (at least partly) all the way through the XVth century of our era. We're talking about military confrotations over a very long strech of time, and the slow adjustments of two large cultural blocs in "sharing" a common world. This is why the word "crusade" eventualy came to have a more banal meaning.
However, yes, indeed, you're right: these WERE nontheless absolutly terrible events. But it doesn't have anything to do in magnitude and intensity with the unspeakable butchery WW2 was to humanity, including the systematic, industrial like, elimination of a whole People... Nothing... (I remind you that four fifth of the Jews in Europe disapeared from the face of the earth in a matter of a few years; Poland was bled of around 6 million of it's citizens; Russia of at least 21 million, and so on. Do you reallize, Tracy ?) "Nazi" should not be given an innocent use.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by danthepoetman

Do you reallize, Tracy ?) "Nazi" should not be given an innocent use.

It would be bad if Nazi were only used in innocent conversation, and it would also be bad if Nazis were completely forgotten and along with it the lesson of what they did so that it never happens again. But people are people, and we do joke around sometimes and society evolves. I see no reason to jump all over someone for using the term grammar-nazi as long as society continues to also discuss the horrors of WWII and talk about what the Nazis were - which should be done anyways.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

It would be bad if Nazi were only used in innocent conversation, and it would also be bad if Nazis were completely forgotten and along with it the lesson of what they did so that it never happens again. But people are people, and we do joke around sometimes and society evolves. I see no reason to jump all over someone for using the term grammar-nazi as long as society continues to also discuss the horrors of WWII and talk about what the Nazis were - which should be done anyways.

I am trying so very hard not to draw the conclusion that you are deliberately "missing" the point.

Yes, people joke around. Yes, society should continue to discuss the horrors of World War II and what the Nazis were and did. But what you've ignored is the reality of what happens when words are used in a manner that diminishes their meaning to people as the distance in years between events and when those words are being used grows greater. So, do you agree that such a phenomenon may unfold? And if so, do you stand by your defense of the use of the term?

It's okay to disagree, but at least disagree with the point actually being made, and then defend your position in that context.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

It would be bad if Nazi were only used in innocent conversation, and it would also be bad if Nazis were completely forgotten and along with it the lesson of what they did so that it never happens again. But people are people, and we do joke around sometimes and society evolves. I see no reason to jump all over someone for using the term grammar-nazi as long as society continues to also discuss the horrors of WWII and talk about what the Nazis were - which should be done anyways.

"Jump all over someone" ? Come on ! Tracy. What i'm doing is precisely what you suggest in your very post: making sure we neither forget nor diminish the significance of the event. Explaining is not comdemning by any means. I never attributed curiousguy any malicious intentions.
I'm sorry we disagree on this; I like fun just as much as anybody, but i just cannot see this as a "joking" matter, and not either as a pleasantry, and i can't understand how anyone can.
I must admit that generally speaking, when we can't laugh about something, it might mean we're falling into some kind of extremism. But there's a certain number of topics i find not to be laughing matters. This is definitly one of them.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by danthepoetman

"Jump all over someone" ? Come on ! Tracy. What i'm doing is precisely what you suggest in your very post: making sure we neither forget nor diminish the significance of the event.

I mean separately. If the horrors of WWII and the Nazis are discussed then people get it. They don't have to be reminded when using Nazi in idle chatter what the Nazis really did because that would also be discussed in society. There's room for both types of discussion.

Originally Posted by danthepoetman

Explaining is not comdemning by any means. I never attributed curiousguy any malicious intentions.
I'm sorry we disagree on this; I like fun just as much as anybody, but i just cannot see this as a "joking" matter, and not either as a pleasantry, and i can't understand how anyone can.

But you're not just explaining. You are criticizing the use of the word. You're free to do that, but let's be clear on what you're doing.

Originally Posted by danthepoetman

I must admit that generally speaking, when we can't laugh about something, it might mean we're falling into some kind of extremism. But there's a certain number of topics i find not to be laughing matters. This is definitly one of them.

I don't find the Nazis of WWII funny at all either. Quite the opposite. But in the last 60-70 years the word has taken on other connotations. These other connotations can be used in humorous situations. Try not to confuse the two.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Yes, people joke around. Yes, society should continue to discuss the horrors of World War II and what the Nazis were and did. But what you've ignored is the reality of what happens when words are used in a manner that diminishes their meaning to people as the distance in years between events and when those words are being used grows greater. So, do you agree that such a phenomenon may unfold? And if so, do you stand by your defense of the use of the term?

Yes, I agree that can happen. And as I said above, to prevent that from happening, the atrocities of the Nazis should also be continuously discussed so the real meaning is preserved.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Yes, I agree that can happen. And as I said above, to prevent that from happening, the atrocities of the Nazis should also be continuously discussed so the real meaning is preserved.

I trust you mean "continually" and not "continuously" (since the thread is about usage, write broadly, a correction is in order, although this is not a matter of grammar).

Of course, the problem is more complex than you insist on making it, assumedly to be contrarian ... since for the life of me I can see no other point. Would you personally agree, then, that any time you might use the word "Nazi" in this humorous vein or in "idle chatter" you should also make note of the "atrocities" in order that "the real meaning is preserved"? After all, the person you're speaking with may not know about the "real meaning," or may have fallen victim over time to the phenomenon I described earlier. Surely you are willing to take on this personal responsibility to ensure that your own humorous, idle use of the term does not contribute to the diminution of the real meaning.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Would you personally agree, then, that any time you might use the word "Nazi" in this humorous vein or in "idle chatter" you should also make note of the "atrocities" in order that "the real meaning is preserved"? After all, the person you're speaking with may not know about the "real meaning," or may have fallen victim over time to the phenomenon I described earlier.

No... From above:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I mean separately. If the horrors of WWII and the Nazis are discussed then people get it. They don't have to be reminded when using Nazi in idle chatter what the Nazis really did because that would also be discussed in society. There's room for both types of discussion.

Originally Posted by smc

Of course, the problem is more complex than you insist on making it, assumedly to be contrarian ... since for the life of me I can see no other point.

I think you're thinking there's an elephant in the room, which is: "but it offends me". To which I also refer to you the above:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I don't find the Nazis of WWII funny at all either. Quite the opposite. But in the last 60-70 years the word has taken on other connotations. These other connotations can be used in humorous situations. Try not to confuse the two.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

No... From above:

People, especially Americans, tend to be rather a-historical. It's a function of the fact that Americans as a general rule tend to have little interaction with people from other countries IN those countries. (The abysmal percentage of Americans holding a passport, prior to it becoming a requirement to get into Canada, was an international embarrassment that spoke volumes about this country.)

But we can pretend it won't be a problem.

[ila]

Originally Posted by smc

People, especially Americans, tend to be rather a-historical. It's a function of the fact that Americans as a general rule tend to have little interaction with people from other countries IN those countries. (The abysmal percentage of Americans holding a passport, prior to it becoming a requirement to get into Canada, was an international embarrassment that spoke volumes about this country.)

But we can pretend it won't be a problem.

Actually it's not a requirement for an American to hold a passport to get into Canada. An American however will require a passport to get back into America from Canada (or any other country).

As far as I’m concerned, I feel that at such a juncture, there’s no point for me to add anything… You don’t agree, Tracy, there’s no way for me to convince you. But I guess I feel a bit sad, for what little it’s worth…

[smc]

Originally Posted by ila

Actually it's not a requirement for an American to hold a passport to get into Canada. An American however will require a passport to get back into America from Canada (or any other country).

Thank you for correcting my typing error. I know the rule, and what I wrote imprecise.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by danthepoetman

As far as I?m concerned, I feel that at such a juncture, there?s no point for me to add anything? You don?t agree, Tracy, there?s no way for me to convince you. But I guess I feel a bit sad, for what little it?s worth?

Well we're just having a discussion. There's no requirement that we both end up agreeing with each other. I feel content, for whatever that's worth.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Well we're just having a discussion. There's no requirement that we both end up agreeing with each other. I feel content, for whatever that's worth.

Of course Tracy. Fine. And there?s no reason to show contempt neither?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by danthepoetman

Of course Tracy. Fine. And there?s no reason to show contempt neither?

Actually, the subject is Grammar Nazi - the other connotation. More like this...

[Hedonistman]

Nazi's were indeed most serious zealots. In terms of politics,, to be a Nazi was,, as the party name makes clear,,, a 'social DEMOCRAT'. WOW,,, sounds all Obamaman like to me,,,, Hitler was great at persuading, convincing, most all Germans that HIS plan was D PLAN. Please throw only rotten tomatoes at Joe,, but to maybe 30-40 million Americans,, Obamaman is exactly the same. No,, i don't mean exterminate as many Ctaholics and jews as possible,, I DO mean both men share the trait of 'knowing' what be best for all us rest. Once he's re elected, as I'm on record since April 11, to have said,,,, we aim't seen nothin' yet. All you need to see, to know, that's true,, is the 15-20 sec sound bite of Obamaman making that, all clear to Putin's lackey.
If the Nazi's were 1 thing,, they were elitists,,, our Prez is cut from the same 'whole cloth',,,

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Hedonistman

Nazi's were indeed most serious zealots. In terms of politics,, to be a Nazi was,, as the party name makes clear,,, a 'social DEMOCRAT'. WOW,,, sounds all Obamaman like to me,,,, Hitler was great at persuading, convincing, most all Germans that HIS plan was D PLAN.

Oh boy... and there goes the thread.

Let me be the first: Here's another similarity... Both Obama and Nazis put their pants on one leg at a time. Both Obama and the Nazis eat bread. Yes there are similarities, but there are certainly not enough similarities to call Obama a Nazi. And I'm drawing a line in the sand here because the connotation you're using is Nazi from WWII. That is what waters down the word Nazi, not terms like Grammar Nazi because everyone knows that a Grammar Nazi is not the same Nazi that will commit genocide.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Oh boy... and there goes the thread.

Let me be the first: Here's another similarity... Both Obama and Nazis put their pants on one leg at a time. Both Obama and the Nazis eat bread. Yes there are similarities, but there are certainly not enough similarities to call Obama a Nazi. And I'm drawing a line in the sand here because the connotation you're using is Nazi from WWII. That is what waters down the word Nazi, not terms like Grammar Nazi because everyone knows that a Grammar Nazi is not the same Nazi that will commit genocide.

Yet, Tracy, that’s just what I’m afraid of. By diluting the term continually, I think we’re bound to have such unbelievable excesses as this utter nonsense. I, like you, find what was just said absurd, but also ugly, offensive, ridiculous, grotesque, ludicrous and very, very scary. By not acknowledging to it’s fullest extent on an everyday and constant basis a reality such as showed by the pictures I posted, will necessarily result in a form of amnesia which doesn’t lie on the event themselves, but on their emotional charge and their historical and political significance, threatening in turn a political situation we never should take for granted, even today. Democracy was paid over and over by a terrible price. What you see as being just an expression has a value content that goes way beyond.

So please, Tracy, understand that I don’t want to be hostile to you or just to create some kind of bizarre, vain, bickering game: I really meant what I was saying. This will happen again and again with some potentially dangerous consequences if we don’t shake up and acknowledge completely what happened in recent history. There’s no doubt in my mind that you personnaly can make the difference, but obviously not everybody can, and this is the problem.

I’m almost kind of glad this just happened. I find it an excellent example of what I personally fear in such cases.

As to that gentleman, I won’t even try to talk to him. This is way past what I can address in a calm manner.

[TracyCoxx]

Well like I said, comments like Hedonistman's are what erodes the word Nazi, not something like "grammar nazis" which obviously is not meant to mean Nazis of WWII. So if you have a gripe, make sure it's directed in the right place.

[smc]

Originally Posted by Hedonistman

Nazi's were indeed most serious zealots. In terms of politics,, to be a Nazi was,, as the party name makes clear,,, a 'social DEMOCRAT'. WOW,,, sounds all Obamaman like to me,,,, Hitler was great at persuading, convincing, most all Germans that HIS plan was D PLAN. Please throw only rotten tomatoes at Joe,, but to maybe 30-40 million Americans,, Obamaman is exactly the same. No,, i don't mean exterminate as many Ctaholics and jews as possible,, I DO mean both men share the trait of 'knowing' what be best for all us rest. Once he's re elected, as I'm on record since April 11, to have said,,,, we aim't seen nothin' yet. All you need to see, to know, that's true,, is the 15-20 sec sound bite of Obamaman making that, all clear to Putin's lackey.
If the Nazi's were 1 thing,, they were elitists,,, our Prez is cut from the same 'whole cloth',,,

You're post is an affront to humanity, Hedonistman. People who think like you bear responsibility for much of why our world is so fucked up. Previous posts such as this from a serial racist who was on this site resulted in a permanent ban. I am reporting your post to the site owner for a determination of whether you should be allowed to stay here. It is not about censorship, but about maintaining at least a modicum of civility and basic intelligence.

By the way, the Nazi Party's official name did NOT have the term "Social Democrat" in it. That's simply a lie. The party's official name was Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, which translates as National Socialist German Workers' Party.

"National Socialism" and "Social Democracy" are not synonyms. Your statement is a slander against social democrats.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Oh boy... and there goes the thread.

Let me be the first: Here's another similarity... Both Obama and Nazis put their pants on one leg at a time. Both Obama and the Nazis eat bread. Yes there are similarities, but there are certainly not enough similarities to call Obama a Nazi. And I'm drawing a line in the sand here because the connotation you're using is Nazi from WWII. That is what waters down the word Nazi, not terms like Grammar Nazi because everyone knows that a Grammar Nazi is not the same Nazi that will commit genocide.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Well like I said, comments like Hedonistman's are what erodes the word Nazi, not something like "grammar nazis" which obviously is not meant to mean Nazis of WWII. So if you have a gripe, make sure it's directed in the right place.

TracyCoxx deserves credit for distinguishing Obama and Nazis so clearly, but danthepoetman still has some time before learning that TracyCoxx will never "get" the point about language use.