Grammar Nazi

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.

[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.

[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?

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.

[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.

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.