Grammar Nazi

[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I'd rather you rescinded your agreement than issue an apology, because the issue of clarity with what words mean -- and the long-term societal impact of using such charged terms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I'd rather you rescinded your agreement than issue an apology, because the issue of clarity with what words mean -- and the long-term societal impact of using such charged terms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.

[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.

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.

[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?