Grammar Nazi
 

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.

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

nothing wrong with that.

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

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 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.

then i offer my sincere apologies.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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?

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. :no:

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.

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

The Crusades.
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

No... From above:
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:

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…

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?

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

This no doubt will cause a huge 'stir'
 

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',,,

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.

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.

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.

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.