And I've Come Full Circle
Nov. 1st, 2011 04:48 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
teleen_fictionSo about 18 months ago, I defended someone who was using a "Grammar Nazi" icon. It was a shitty thing to do, I was rightly called out for it and since then I've become more aware of the word and have started calling people out when I see them using it to mean anything other than "people who support or supported Hitler".
So now, 18 months later, someone's passing around a spelling meme on Facebook and captioned it, "For all you Grammar Nazis Out There". I said something to the originator of the meme. Was argued with. Twice. And so posted the following as my status:
[Cool Friend of Mine]: It's almost like it's simple and easy to understand.
Me: Some idiot was posting about "grammar Nazis" and didn't understand why I was so offended.
Me (2 minutes later): Full disclosure - it took someone schooling me about 18 months ago before I really understood WHY this was so offensive, so I'm not without sin here. I just feel as though since I fucked up, I sort of have a duty to say something when I see others making the same fucked up error.
[Cool Friend of Mine]: Yeah... we should call people "grammar totalitarians."
[Cool Friend of Mine]: This is why going to school, and getting schooled, are both valuable experiences. :)
[Jackass Whom I Know From Work]: People who are / were Nazis: 1. Members of the National Socialist Party. And in case you did not know, it was mandatory to become a member of that party from 1942 until 1945 if you lived in Germany and were not one of the 'unwanted' people. There were a lot of people who were Nazis during WWII that did not follow the ideals of Hitler. 2. People whom do follow the ideals of Hitler in the modern day. 3. A modern colloquialism that is used to describe someone whom is overly picky about a subject, or whom attempts to enforce a set of rules with vigor. (i.e. my correction of you could be considered being a 'history Nazi') And you know you have used definition number 3 yourself.
[Random Commenter #1]: Well, we do seem to be headed toward a Fourth Reich here in the USA, with the Teabaggers and GOP bible-thumpers wanting to control everything and everyone...
Me: [@Jackass]: I admitted up-thread that I'd used number 3 in the past, before I really offended someone with it and stopped. Now, I call others out when I see them using it in that fashion because it's not cool to equate someone who's annoying with someone who supported, supports or was forced to support Hitler.
[Cool Friend]: [@Idiot] The point is that #3 trivializes #1 and #2. Also, see B's second posted comment.
[Random Commenter #2]: Your post reminded me of one of Jon Stewart's better rants, and it was way back in 2005 when he told people to stop with the Hitler references.
http://www.thedailyshow.co
[Jackass]: But in context #3, being a Nazi is not a tie to Hitler or the Nazi Party. It is a colloquial / cultural reference, true someone may take offense at it. It is not meant kindly, but it is not a reference to Hitler. I am an IT Nazi, big time! But that does not mean I support any of the ideals of the Nazi Party or Hitler, it means that I am zealous in the enforcement or our IT rules, procedures and usages. So, it is not black and white. There are thousands of shades of grey.
[Cool Friend]: Right. And we are saying that using the word "Nazi" as a colloquial reference to mean something rather minor (e.g., being a stickler about apostrophes or file-naming) does a huge injustice to the millions of people who died at the hands of real Nazis.
We're not saying that a "grammar Nazi" or an "IT Nazi" is anything like a real Nazi. We're saying that PRECISELY BECAUSE such folks are not totalitarian perpetrators of mass genocide... that maybe the word "Nazi" shouldn't be used in such an off-hand manner.
Let's not water down the horror of history by treating it lightly.
Me: @Jackass What @Cool Friend said. You can be an IT totalitarian, if you want, but using "Nazi" to describe yourself just isn't cool. Unless, y'know, you're an *actual* Nazi and want to give the rest of us a heads up, ;).
[Jackass]: I totally disagree on that. Language changes, and this is a change that buffers from that horror. And again, not everyone who was a Nazi participated in the genocides. That would be like saying every Democrat supported Clinton having sex with an intern. The language changed in the 30s and 40s to make Nazis horrible monsters, and it has started to change again to make it something else. And yes that new definition trivializes the others, but so what?!? As long as you remember that horror, as long as the people in power remember it and don't go down that path, does it really matter what most of the population use the term for? And think about your answer before you give it... Are you trying to foist your opinion on everyone else... if so, what does that make you? My main point in this thread has been that the term 'Nazi' is not a black and white statement as first listed.
[Jackass]: @Me - You posted that "All Muslims are not terrorists", but you believe all Nazis followed Hitler... come on....
Me: @Jackass: First off, I'm not "forcing my opinion" on ANYONE. I made a statement and defended {it}. You're defending your "right" to use the word "Nazi" in everyday conversation, no matter how offensive people find it or how much it trivializes the horror of WWII. That is your right. Just as it is my right to keep arguing. See, the First Amendment works both ways. I'm not "censoring you", I'm saying that the things you're saying are offensive. I have no legal right to stop you from saying them. The most I can do is block you from my wall if you really piss me off, which again, is my right and again, is not censorship since I'm not a government entitity
Second, what the ever-loving FUCK? All Muslims are NOT terrorists. Comparing me saying that not all Muslims are terrorists to this conversation is beyond offensive for reasons that I honestly can't believe I have to explain, but I'll give it my best shot.
True Nazi's believe that all people should follow Hitler, who was a mass-murdering psychopath. True Muslims follow the Qur'an, which like the Christian bible is purported to be a book of peace. Now, there are extremists in every religion, but the fact remains that Hitler was responsible for the deaths of around 20-30 million people in a 16-year period. Yes, religion AS A WHOLE has been responsible for a lot of pain over the years, but my comments about Muslims and my comments about Nazis are not just apples and oranges - it's apples and ALIENS. The two comparisons are so far removed from each other that it will take the light from one a billion years to reach the other.
My brain is honestly breaking at the thought that you thought that making such a comparison would be a good idea or that I now have to try and explain (in very small words) exactly how offensive I find it.
For the record, I think that all religion is bad on many levels. But I don't call someone a "grammar 9/11 terrorist", either.
[Cool Friend]: And yes that new definition trivializes the others, but so what?!?"
I think the conversation hit a dead-end at the quote above. I've made my case, and I won't continue to waste my time with deaf ears and hardened hearts.
/out
ETA: [Random Commenter #2]: To think that you can appropriately use Nazi or Hitler to make everyday references or comparisons, means the person doing so is either ignorant of the enormous weight of those words in history, or lacking in other areas to accurately make their points. This is not a matter of opinion. I'm a third generation German with with cousins still in Germany, and there is nothing but shame and embarrassment regarding that part of their history. Some German kids have been known to attack their own grandparents upon learning what their generation did. It's one of the few topics that is black and white.
ETA 2: [Jackass]: OK Mr "I have relatives in Germany", look at the original statement of this thread. Was everyone who was a member of the Nazi party a Hitlerite?
[Random Commenter #2]: Thanks for offering another moronic post that supports what everyone else is saying. You're trying to defend an indefensible point and failing miserably. Then going to "quotations" to attack someone who has dismantled your defense. I'm out. You are an idiot. I'm sure the elementary debate team on your street is very proud of you.
Me: @[Jackass] I have to say that I'm exceptionally disappointed in the way you've comported yourself here. I thought you were a lot more intelligent and well-informed than this. I mean, seriously? So not everyone who was forced to join the Nazi party was actually a Hitler supporter - that doesn't change the idea that Nazis were beyond horrible and no one should be comparing anything not related to their movement to them. In fact, it actually strengthens the position that no one should ever call anyone a Nazi who wasn't actually a Nazi - Nazis were fucking horrible people who forced others to join their party involuntarily. And before you say it - I have zero ability to force you to do anything. Zero, zip, zilch. All I can do is say that I'm disappointed in your behavior and tell you that I find it offensive. Hell, I haven't even blocked you from my wall, so you can't even claim "censorship".
You've backed yourself into a corner here, one that has you defending the right to use the word "Nazi". Is that really the place you want to be right now? Oh, and before you go Voltaire on me ("I totally disagree with what you just said, but would defend to the death your right to say it) - once again, this isn't about censorship. It's about not deliberately hurting other people by trivializing what the Nazis did. Which is what you are doing every single time you compare a person who is not a Nazi, did not support the Nazis and was not forced to support the Nazis to ACTUAL Nazis.
Why are you so invested in being an "IT Nazi"? Why is it so very much to ask that you show respect for those who are offended and find another, more creative way of expressing how detail-oriented and generally inflexible you can be regarding IT rules. Oh, I know why - it's easier to use "Nazi" as an adjective to self-identify your behavior than it is to use a thesaurus, *headdesk*.
In the time you've spent defending this frankly shitty position, you could have been on thesaurus.com coming up with many more creative and shiny ways of describing the ways in which you are an anal-retentive stickler for the rules. Hell, I didn't even use thesaurus.com and have come up with a few just in the last couple of minutes.
I have an honest question here - what is it that you're trying to convey? That you have an absolute right to call yourself an "IT Nazi" if it suits your fancy? That fact is not in dispute. Just as it is not in dispute that I can find you an offensive jerk for continuing to defend that position when it's been explained a myriad of ways from several sources precisely why it's so offensive.
[Jackass]: What I am trying to convey is that your original statement of "Things that are Nazis: People who support or supported Hitler and his ideology. Things that are not Nazis: Everyone else. Please do not confuse one with the other. Thank you." is not true.
[Jackass]: When you posted that statement, I was just as disappointed in you. You know there are shades of grey.
Me: @Jackass The "shades of grey" to which you refer mostly have to do with a lack of respect for actual history, those who suffered within it and using the word "Nazi" in a context that disrespects that suffering. Hence my disappointment. And frankly? I could care less if someone who is STILL insisting on his right to call himself an "IT Nazi" is disappointed in me.
Oh, and as for those who were "forced to join" the Nazi party. "Just following orders" is not and has not been a valid argument since WWII. They elected him and people get the government they deserve. My sympathy lies with those who were murdered by Nazis first, those who risked their lives to kill Nazis second, those who risked their lives to hide Jewish, gay and other "undesirable" people third and every other person in Germany who was "forced to join" the party a distant last.
Also, the original point of my statement (which you would know if you'd read the second comment on this post, something that I'm having trouble believing you didn't do, given how detail-oriented you've stated you are) was that Nazis are not something to be used for flippant comments about annoying behavior. Your hair-splitting about who was and wasn't an *actual* Nazi in WWII, while worth debate from a historical perspective, STILL does not excuse those who go on about "grammar Nazis" and "IT Nazis", for those people are still equating detail-oriented behavior that is considered annoying or petty to others to mass murderers.
Finally, you quoted the dictionary, pointing out how language is evolving, etc., etc. You know what? I could give less than a shit about the #3 definition. You know why? Because using it in that way HURTS PEOPLE. It also completely disregards the horror of what the people in the Holocaust and those who survived it went through. There are still people alive today (not many, it's true) who bear tattoos on their arms. Is your argument that once they're all dead it'll be okay for "language to evolve", for us to just forget what happened? Hate to pull out a cliche on you, but those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
Not to mention that [there] are skinhead, white supremacist Nazis who CONTINUE to follow Hitler, which means that Nazis as a group are still not something to be taken lightly, which is what calling someone a "grammar Nazi" does. It diminishes what Hitler and his party did and turns them into a joke. I'm all for Hitler being vilified and insulting him. I'm not in favor of turning *what he did* into something that can be dismissed so lightly that we use it to describe those who annoy us.
[Jackass]: @Me - no, I read all your comments. But you seem to continue to misunderstand mine. How is it that my high school german teacher, a woman who was born in 1942, was 3 yrs old at the end of the war, but was a member of the Nazi party was a follower of Hitler. That is my point.
[Jackass] - Your original statement is very akin to "All Muslims ARE terrorists", which we both know is not true.
Me: @Jackass - Are you being deliberately obtuse? Never mind, that was rhetorical. In any case, let's address your points.
First off, if you refer to my ORIGINAL status, I said, "Things that are Nazis: People who SUPPORT or SUPPORTED Hitler and his ideology."
I don't know how advanced you were at three, but when I was three, I supported cake. Also, a three-year-old can't legally enter into a contract, nor are they capable of making decisions about which political party they SUPPORT.
Second, you've conveniently avoided what I was actually offended about, i.e., people using the word Nazi to describe those who don't or didn't actively support Hitler. Actually, people using it to describe detail oriented people who take their obsessive-compulsiveness to a level that annoys others. THAT is the issue at hand, not your high school German teacher, whom I'm sure was a lovely woman. For the record, I have sympathy for her. My sympathy for her parents is as stated above. If they risked their lives to oppose the regime when it was there, working against the system from the inside as it were, I feel for them. If they stood silently by as their neighbors were taken away to be murdered, my sympathy is somewhat lacking. I wasn't there; I shouldn't judge; yadda, yadda, yadda - their experience still doesn't compare to those who actually were taken away to be murdered. PERIOD.
Again, from a historical perspective, arguing over those who were forced to join the party is an interesting debate. However, it is NOT the debate at hand and I don't appreciate you derailing the conversation in this fashion.
I'm offended over people using the phrase "grammar Nazi" (or Femi-Nazi" or "Nazi" when they're speaking about those who aren't actually behaving like Nazis; i.e. someone like Pol Pot, whom I would have no problem with anyone referring to as a Nazi (even if his political ideology wasn't the same - he was a mass-murderer, so I could see that). THAT is the issue at hand. Not those who were forced to join the party long before they were cognitively aware of what they were joining. Not those who were forced to join the party, PERIOD.
This is about using "Nazi" in a frivolous fashion, about not treating it with the historical respect it deserves. This is about only using it to refer to people like skinheads, not those who are in favor of equal rights for women or good grammar.
I honestly don't know how I can make my position on this topic any clearer. When you call yourself an "IT Nazi" it offends me because you are not a mass murderer, nor to my knowledge do you believe in the superiority of the white race, nor do you hate Jewish people.
The end.
[Jackass]: I understand that you are offended by me using the term "IT Nazi". Well, I am not going to change that.
[Jackass]:
*************************************************
Here's the thing, 18 months ago, I was that jackass.
I was defending my interpretation of a word because I, personally, had the privilege to be able to use that interpretation without having to consider the deeper implications. The closest my family came to the Holocaust was my paternal grandfather, who was a non-com in Africa in WWII and to my knowledge, didn't witness any of the horror of Hitler.
It all comes down to privilege. if you're reading this, you have some form of it. And you have a choice to make. You can choose to be a trolling asshole who doesn't think of the feelings of others and who defends their "right" to use hurtful language to your last breath. You can be anti-PC because "censorship" and "thought policing" are terrible things.
Or you can think about the impact that words can have on our thinking and our society as a whole.
Here's the thing, though, for those who are in the U.S. and see it as a "First Amendment" issue. First off, someone telling you that they're offended is not "censoring" you. They are exercising THEIR right to say something when your language hurts them. They are under no obligation to "grow a thicker skin" and tolerate your bullshit if they don't wish to. They have as much of a right to call you out for saying something they personally find offensive as you have to say the offensive thing.
It's funny how the fact that the First Amendment works both ways always seems to get lost here. The Westboro Baptist Church is allowed to protest with their hateful words and our government does nothing to stop them. Hell, the peaceful protesters of Occupy Everywhere have been interfered with FAR more than the hatemongers of the WBC and I'm finally beginning to understand why.
We tolerate intolerance. We tolerate someone being hateful. And we aren't allowed to even SUGGEST that they STFU and/or change their language to be more tolerant/inclusive/neutral.
I am not a government entity. I cannot FORCE anyone to not use racist/sexist/ableist/misogynist/homophobic/hateful/intolerant/generally awful language. All I can do is tell them that I'm offended when they do. And my offense is often seen as more hurtful than their original statement. Because they "didn't mean it that way" or the dictionary tells them that the word has another meaning. All I can do is ban them from spaces I control, which isn't censorship. It's me and me alone, not tolerating intolerance. And not tolerating someone using that word in any context other than to mean "someone who supports or supported Hitler".
Some might say that I've gone too far in the other direction. Like a person who's just "found god", I've become too sensitized to all of the little sporks that society throws at every marginalized group every day. Which is why I try to be careful when I'm calling out fail to never speak over those whose lives are directly impacted by said fail. I don't always succeed, but for the record, the "Jackass" in question is a white, middle-aged, middle class male who identifies as "Agnostic" on his Facebook page. In other words, unless he informs me otherwise, he and I were on equal footing so far as our privilege over the word in question went.
I've asked this before, but I'll ask again - who does it hurt to stop using certain words? Yes, it requires some effort. For me, eliminating the word "bitch" has been a serious trial because it's ubiquitous. Even so, is that effort really so much to ask? When people are asking for "PC" language, what they're really asking for is common courtesy and respect as individuals. They're asking to be treated as human.
At least I am. I'm a woman and I don't like my gender being equated with negativity. I'm bisexual and I don't like my sexual orientation being fetishized or again, equated with something negative. All I'm asking for is for those who respect me as a person to show that respect by not using language that diminishes me as a person. Or negates the horror that people like me have experienced for no reason other than the circumstances of our birth.
I want to be respected as a person and I want my personal identity to be respected as well. Which is where this all gets tricky. Some religious people say that we're infringing upon THEIR identities when discussions about their intolerance come up. I know Homophobic Aunt certainly feels that her identity is more important than our relationship.
So here is my final question for you - does your identity require intolerance to other people? Is it integral to your identity that consenting adults not be allowed to share their lives with whomever they choose? Most importantly, does your identity require you to defend your use of hurtful language despite you not actually being racist/sexist/ableist/misogynist/homophobic/hateful/intolerant/generally awful? Because that's another argument that gets used a lot. For example, because someone who says that something negative was "gay" is totally in favor of gay rights, it should be okay for them to say it because language is always evolving and gay used to mean happy and then it meant homosexual and now it means stupid. So that means it's okay to use it "in that context" because they aren't really saying anything bad about gay people. It's okay, right?
Guess what?
It isn't.
Warning: Possible triggers for slurs in both the comments and the post. Also, general asshattery.
So now, 18 months later, someone's passing around a spelling meme on Facebook and captioned it, "For all you Grammar Nazis Out There". I said something to the originator of the meme. Was argued with. Twice. And so posted the following as my status:
The following conversation ensued:
[Cool Friend of Mine]: It's almost like it's simple and easy to understand.
Me: Some idiot was posting about "grammar Nazis" and didn't understand why I was so offended.
Me (2 minutes later): Full disclosure - it took someone schooling me about 18 months ago before I really understood WHY this was so offensive, so I'm not without sin here. I just feel as though since I fucked up, I sort of have a duty to say something when I see others making the same fucked up error.
[Cool Friend of Mine]: Yeah... we should call people "grammar totalitarians."
[Cool Friend of Mine]: This is why going to school, and getting schooled, are both valuable experiences. :)
[Jackass Whom I Know From Work]: People who are / were Nazis: 1. Members of the National Socialist Party. And in case you did not know, it was mandatory to become a member of that party from 1942 until 1945 if you lived in Germany and were not one of the 'unwanted' people. There were a lot of people who were Nazis during WWII that did not follow the ideals of Hitler. 2. People whom do follow the ideals of Hitler in the modern day. 3. A modern colloquialism that is used to describe someone whom is overly picky about a subject, or whom attempts to enforce a set of rules with vigor. (i.e. my correction of you could be considered being a 'history Nazi') And you know you have used definition number 3 yourself.
[Random Commenter #1]: Well, we do seem to be headed toward a Fourth Reich here in the USA, with the Teabaggers and GOP bible-thumpers wanting to control everything and everyone...
Me: [@Jackass]: I admitted up-thread that I'd used number 3 in the past, before I really offended someone with it and stopped. Now, I call others out when I see them using it in that fashion because it's not cool to equate someone who's annoying with someone who supported, supports or was forced to support Hitler.
[Cool Friend]: [@Idiot] The point is that #3 trivializes #1 and #2. Also, see B's second posted comment.
[Random Commenter #2]: Your post reminded me of one of Jon Stewart's better rants, and it was way back in 2005 when he told people to stop with the Hitler references.
http://www.thedailyshow.co
[Jackass]: But in context #3, being a Nazi is not a tie to Hitler or the Nazi Party. It is a colloquial / cultural reference, true someone may take offense at it. It is not meant kindly, but it is not a reference to Hitler. I am an IT Nazi, big time! But that does not mean I support any of the ideals of the Nazi Party or Hitler, it means that I am zealous in the enforcement or our IT rules, procedures and usages. So, it is not black and white. There are thousands of shades of grey.
[Cool Friend]: Right. And we are saying that using the word "Nazi" as a colloquial reference to mean something rather minor (e.g., being a stickler about apostrophes or file-naming) does a huge injustice to the millions of people who died at the hands of real Nazis.
We're not saying that a "grammar Nazi" or an "IT Nazi" is anything like a real Nazi. We're saying that PRECISELY BECAUSE such folks are not totalitarian perpetrators of mass genocide... that maybe the word "Nazi" shouldn't be used in such an off-hand manner.
Let's not water down the horror of history by treating it lightly.
Me: @Jackass What @Cool Friend said. You can be an IT totalitarian, if you want, but using "Nazi" to describe yourself just isn't cool. Unless, y'know, you're an *actual* Nazi and want to give the rest of us a heads up, ;).
[Jackass]: I totally disagree on that. Language changes, and this is a change that buffers from that horror. And again, not everyone who was a Nazi participated in the genocides. That would be like saying every Democrat supported Clinton having sex with an intern. The language changed in the 30s and 40s to make Nazis horrible monsters, and it has started to change again to make it something else. And yes that new definition trivializes the others, but so what?!? As long as you remember that horror, as long as the people in power remember it and don't go down that path, does it really matter what most of the population use the term for? And think about your answer before you give it... Are you trying to foist your opinion on everyone else... if so, what does that make you? My main point in this thread has been that the term 'Nazi' is not a black and white statement as first listed.
[Jackass]: @Me - You posted that "All Muslims are not terrorists", but you believe all Nazis followed Hitler... come on....
Me: @Jackass: First off, I'm not "forcing my opinion" on ANYONE. I made a statement and defended {it}. You're defending your "right" to use the word "Nazi" in everyday conversation, no matter how offensive people find it or how much it trivializes the horror of WWII. That is your right. Just as it is my right to keep arguing. See, the First Amendment works both ways. I'm not "censoring you", I'm saying that the things you're saying are offensive. I have no legal right to stop you from saying them. The most I can do is block you from my wall if you really piss me off, which again, is my right and again, is not censorship since I'm not a government entitity
Second, what the ever-loving FUCK? All Muslims are NOT terrorists. Comparing me saying that not all Muslims are terrorists to this conversation is beyond offensive for reasons that I honestly can't believe I have to explain, but I'll give it my best shot.
True Nazi's believe that all people should follow Hitler, who was a mass-murdering psychopath. True Muslims follow the Qur'an, which like the Christian bible is purported to be a book of peace. Now, there are extremists in every religion, but the fact remains that Hitler was responsible for the deaths of around 20-30 million people in a 16-year period. Yes, religion AS A WHOLE has been responsible for a lot of pain over the years, but my comments about Muslims and my comments about Nazis are not just apples and oranges - it's apples and ALIENS. The two comparisons are so far removed from each other that it will take the light from one a billion years to reach the other.
My brain is honestly breaking at the thought that you thought that making such a comparison would be a good idea or that I now have to try and explain (in very small words) exactly how offensive I find it.
For the record, I think that all religion is bad on many levels. But I don't call someone a "grammar 9/11 terrorist", either.
[Cool Friend]: And yes that new definition trivializes the others, but so what?!?"
I think the conversation hit a dead-end at the quote above. I've made my case, and I won't continue to waste my time with deaf ears and hardened hearts.
/out
ETA: [Random Commenter #2]: To think that you can appropriately use Nazi or Hitler to make everyday references or comparisons, means the person doing so is either ignorant of the enormous weight of those words in history, or lacking in other areas to accurately make their points. This is not a matter of opinion. I'm a third generation German with with cousins still in Germany, and there is nothing but shame and embarrassment regarding that part of their history. Some German kids have been known to attack their own grandparents upon learning what their generation did. It's one of the few topics that is black and white.
ETA 2: [Jackass]: OK Mr "I have relatives in Germany", look at the original statement of this thread. Was everyone who was a member of the Nazi party a Hitlerite?
[Random Commenter #2]: Thanks for offering another moronic post that supports what everyone else is saying. You're trying to defend an indefensible point and failing miserably. Then going to "quotations" to attack someone who has dismantled your defense. I'm out. You are an idiot. I'm sure the elementary debate team on your street is very proud of you.
Me: @[Jackass] I have to say that I'm exceptionally disappointed in the way you've comported yourself here. I thought you were a lot more intelligent and well-informed than this. I mean, seriously? So not everyone who was forced to join the Nazi party was actually a Hitler supporter - that doesn't change the idea that Nazis were beyond horrible and no one should be comparing anything not related to their movement to them. In fact, it actually strengthens the position that no one should ever call anyone a Nazi who wasn't actually a Nazi - Nazis were fucking horrible people who forced others to join their party involuntarily. And before you say it - I have zero ability to force you to do anything. Zero, zip, zilch. All I can do is say that I'm disappointed in your behavior and tell you that I find it offensive. Hell, I haven't even blocked you from my wall, so you can't even claim "censorship".
You've backed yourself into a corner here, one that has you defending the right to use the word "Nazi". Is that really the place you want to be right now? Oh, and before you go Voltaire on me ("I totally disagree with what you just said, but would defend to the death your right to say it) - once again, this isn't about censorship. It's about not deliberately hurting other people by trivializing what the Nazis did. Which is what you are doing every single time you compare a person who is not a Nazi, did not support the Nazis and was not forced to support the Nazis to ACTUAL Nazis.
Why are you so invested in being an "IT Nazi"? Why is it so very much to ask that you show respect for those who are offended and find another, more creative way of expressing how detail-oriented and generally inflexible you can be regarding IT rules. Oh, I know why - it's easier to use "Nazi" as an adjective to self-identify your behavior than it is to use a thesaurus, *headdesk*.
In the time you've spent defending this frankly shitty position, you could have been on thesaurus.com coming up with many more creative and shiny ways of describing the ways in which you are an anal-retentive stickler for the rules. Hell, I didn't even use thesaurus.com and have come up with a few just in the last couple of minutes.
I have an honest question here - what is it that you're trying to convey? That you have an absolute right to call yourself an "IT Nazi" if it suits your fancy? That fact is not in dispute. Just as it is not in dispute that I can find you an offensive jerk for continuing to defend that position when it's been explained a myriad of ways from several sources precisely why it's so offensive.
[Jackass]: What I am trying to convey is that your original statement of "Things that are Nazis: People who support or supported Hitler and his ideology. Things that are not Nazis: Everyone else. Please do not confuse one with the other. Thank you." is not true.
[Jackass]: When you posted that statement, I was just as disappointed in you. You know there are shades of grey.
Me: @Jackass The "shades of grey" to which you refer mostly have to do with a lack of respect for actual history, those who suffered within it and using the word "Nazi" in a context that disrespects that suffering. Hence my disappointment. And frankly? I could care less if someone who is STILL insisting on his right to call himself an "IT Nazi" is disappointed in me.
Oh, and as for those who were "forced to join" the Nazi party. "Just following orders" is not and has not been a valid argument since WWII. They elected him and people get the government they deserve. My sympathy lies with those who were murdered by Nazis first, those who risked their lives to kill Nazis second, those who risked their lives to hide Jewish, gay and other "undesirable" people third and every other person in Germany who was "forced to join" the party a distant last.
Also, the original point of my statement (which you would know if you'd read the second comment on this post, something that I'm having trouble believing you didn't do, given how detail-oriented you've stated you are) was that Nazis are not something to be used for flippant comments about annoying behavior. Your hair-splitting about who was and wasn't an *actual* Nazi in WWII, while worth debate from a historical perspective, STILL does not excuse those who go on about "grammar Nazis" and "IT Nazis", for those people are still equating detail-oriented behavior that is considered annoying or petty to others to mass murderers.
Finally, you quoted the dictionary, pointing out how language is evolving, etc., etc. You know what? I could give less than a shit about the #3 definition. You know why? Because using it in that way HURTS PEOPLE. It also completely disregards the horror of what the people in the Holocaust and those who survived it went through. There are still people alive today (not many, it's true) who bear tattoos on their arms. Is your argument that once they're all dead it'll be okay for "language to evolve", for us to just forget what happened? Hate to pull out a cliche on you, but those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
Not to mention that [there] are skinhead, white supremacist Nazis who CONTINUE to follow Hitler, which means that Nazis as a group are still not something to be taken lightly, which is what calling someone a "grammar Nazi" does. It diminishes what Hitler and his party did and turns them into a joke. I'm all for Hitler being vilified and insulting him. I'm not in favor of turning *what he did* into something that can be dismissed so lightly that we use it to describe those who annoy us.
[Jackass]: @Me - no, I read all your comments. But you seem to continue to misunderstand mine. How is it that my high school german teacher, a woman who was born in 1942, was 3 yrs old at the end of the war, but was a member of the Nazi party was a follower of Hitler. That is my point.
[Jackass] - Your original statement is very akin to "All Muslims ARE terrorists", which we both know is not true.
Me: @Jackass - Are you being deliberately obtuse? Never mind, that was rhetorical. In any case, let's address your points.
First off, if you refer to my ORIGINAL status, I said, "Things that are Nazis: People who SUPPORT or SUPPORTED Hitler and his ideology."
I don't know how advanced you were at three, but when I was three, I supported cake. Also, a three-year-old can't legally enter into a contract, nor are they capable of making decisions about which political party they SUPPORT.
Second, you've conveniently avoided what I was actually offended about, i.e., people using the word Nazi to describe those who don't or didn't actively support Hitler. Actually, people using it to describe detail oriented people who take their obsessive-compulsiveness to a level that annoys others. THAT is the issue at hand, not your high school German teacher, whom I'm sure was a lovely woman. For the record, I have sympathy for her. My sympathy for her parents is as stated above. If they risked their lives to oppose the regime when it was there, working against the system from the inside as it were, I feel for them. If they stood silently by as their neighbors were taken away to be murdered, my sympathy is somewhat lacking. I wasn't there; I shouldn't judge; yadda, yadda, yadda - their experience still doesn't compare to those who actually were taken away to be murdered. PERIOD.
Again, from a historical perspective, arguing over those who were forced to join the party is an interesting debate. However, it is NOT the debate at hand and I don't appreciate you derailing the conversation in this fashion.
I'm offended over people using the phrase "grammar Nazi" (or Femi-Nazi" or "Nazi" when they're speaking about those who aren't actually behaving like Nazis; i.e. someone like Pol Pot, whom I would have no problem with anyone referring to as a Nazi (even if his political ideology wasn't the same - he was a mass-murderer, so I could see that). THAT is the issue at hand. Not those who were forced to join the party long before they were cognitively aware of what they were joining. Not those who were forced to join the party, PERIOD.
This is about using "Nazi" in a frivolous fashion, about not treating it with the historical respect it deserves. This is about only using it to refer to people like skinheads, not those who are in favor of equal rights for women or good grammar.
I honestly don't know how I can make my position on this topic any clearer. When you call yourself an "IT Nazi" it offends me because you are not a mass murderer, nor to my knowledge do you believe in the superiority of the white race, nor do you hate Jewish people.
The end.
[Jackass]: I understand that you are offended by me using the term "IT Nazi". Well, I am not going to change that.
[Jackass]:
I feel the point of the debate is "What is a Nazi". It was a member of the "National Socialist German Workers' Party" during the time of Hitler. But your definition is a definition of a Hitlerite. And that is what I am calling Bullshit on.
I have never once felt this was a debate about using the term Nazi in a derogatory manner. Which me calling myself an "It Nazi" is derogatory. Because I tend to take some of those procedures too far.
To me this whole debate has been about lumping people into a category that is a subset of the overall all category. i.e. Some Nazis were Hitlerites, they fully supported Hitler and his regime. Some Nazis were Nazis because they were forced to be to continue to hold their jobs and positions.
The historical facts are that less than 10% of the German people knew about the Final Solution or what was going on in the camps. As for my German teachers family, I don't know about her mother, but her father was a Sergeant in the SS Panzer Corp on the Eastern front and was captured by the English in 1944. He was seconded to the SS for only 10 days before he was captured, he was just plain Wehrmacht before that. He was not fighting against the 'evil of Hitler' because he did not know about what was going on the Eastern Front, which is where most of the camps were at. The rest were in the southern front.
Lets not kid around what happened during that time was horrible. The reason I don't have a tattoo and never will is because I used to work for a man who survived a camp in Hungary. His family were gypsies. He is the only one to survive out of an extended family of over 30. He showed me his tattoo on his left forearm, the 9 digits. If he had lived past 1990, I may have asked if I could copy that tattoo in rememberance of him, but I did not get the chance to.
So. please don't give me that schpeel about what a horror it was. I know it was.
But to me what your original statement was a huge offense to me. You are lumping a ton of people who did not follow Hitler, they followed their country, into the same group with people who could commit those attrocities.
As for you and everyone else being offended. I am sorry, but I have no sympathy for that. Be offended. The only reason I have been so vehement about this subject is that I was offended by your comment. But that is OK too.
Me: @Jackass: I give up. Seriously. I give up. You came to my wall and gave me crap about a debate I started. You also have the gall to say that you feel the debate is about 'x' when I've explicitly stated that it's about 'y'. Not that I feel it is. IT IS ABOUT THAT. I know, I started it. And as for me "lumping people in" - I don't even know how to respond to that. Again. I said SUPPORTED Hitler, not "lived in Germany during WWII", which is where the "All Muslims are terrorists" comparison would hold water. I never said anything like, "All Germans are Nazis". All I said was, "Things that are Nazis: People who support or supported Hitler and his IDEOLOGY. " "Ideology" being another key word in a fairly simple sentence that you've deliberately decided to overlook.
Yes, some people who were in the Nazi party didn't support Hitler, I get that. The fact remains that when one says the word "Nazi", one thinks of "Hitlerites" as you call them, NOT the innocent victims that were forced to support him. It's like those who defend flying the Confederate Battle Flag as a symbol of "rebellion" being pissed when I assume they're racists. Sorry to say it, but just as the swastika used to be a symbol of peace that was corrupted by an asshat, the word "Nazi" has certain connotations that should not be trivialized by using it to describe someone who's annoying.
And now you're using your friendship with someone who survived the Holocaust as a method of trying to "win" here and I find that rather disgusting. You've also chosen to deliberately twist what I actually said because you don't like that I find your use of the phrase "IT Nazi" horrible and wrong.
I don't give a shit about your lack of sympathy for my offense. You've made that lack blatantly obvious throughout this thread.
Me: Oh, and as for not changing calling yourself an "IT Nazi" - you're trivializing what your friend went through when you do that and it makes me sick. Actually, did you ever call yourself that when he was alive? Would you be making light of the Nazi party if he were still around to be offended by it?
I have never once felt this was a debate about using the term Nazi in a derogatory manner. Which me calling myself an "It Nazi" is derogatory. Because I tend to take some of those procedures too far.
To me this whole debate has been about lumping people into a category that is a subset of the overall all category. i.e. Some Nazis were Hitlerites, they fully supported Hitler and his regime. Some Nazis were Nazis because they were forced to be to continue to hold their jobs and positions.
The historical facts are that less than 10% of the German people knew about the Final Solution or what was going on in the camps. As for my German teachers family, I don't know about her mother, but her father was a Sergeant in the SS Panzer Corp on the Eastern front and was captured by the English in 1944. He was seconded to the SS for only 10 days before he was captured, he was just plain Wehrmacht before that. He was not fighting against the 'evil of Hitler' because he did not know about what was going on the Eastern Front, which is where most of the camps were at. The rest were in the southern front.
Lets not kid around what happened during that time was horrible. The reason I don't have a tattoo and never will is because I used to work for a man who survived a camp in Hungary. His family were gypsies. He is the only one to survive out of an extended family of over 30. He showed me his tattoo on his left forearm, the 9 digits. If he had lived past 1990, I may have asked if I could copy that tattoo in rememberance of him, but I did not get the chance to.
So. please don't give me that schpeel about what a horror it was. I know it was.
But to me what your original statement was a huge offense to me. You are lumping a ton of people who did not follow Hitler, they followed their country, into the same group with people who could commit those attrocities.
As for you and everyone else being offended. I am sorry, but I have no sympathy for that. Be offended. The only reason I have been so vehement about this subject is that I was offended by your comment. But that is OK too.
Me: @Jackass: I give up. Seriously. I give up. You came to my wall and gave me crap about a debate I started. You also have the gall to say that you feel the debate is about 'x' when I've explicitly stated that it's about 'y'. Not that I feel it is. IT IS ABOUT THAT. I know, I started it. And as for me "lumping people in" - I don't even know how to respond to that. Again. I said SUPPORTED Hitler, not "lived in Germany during WWII", which is where the "All Muslims are terrorists" comparison would hold water. I never said anything like, "All Germans are Nazis". All I said was, "Things that are Nazis: People who support or supported Hitler and his IDEOLOGY. " "Ideology" being another key word in a fairly simple sentence that you've deliberately decided to overlook.
Yes, some people who were in the Nazi party didn't support Hitler, I get that. The fact remains that when one says the word "Nazi", one thinks of "Hitlerites" as you call them, NOT the innocent victims that were forced to support him. It's like those who defend flying the Confederate Battle Flag as a symbol of "rebellion" being pissed when I assume they're racists. Sorry to say it, but just as the swastika used to be a symbol of peace that was corrupted by an asshat, the word "Nazi" has certain connotations that should not be trivialized by using it to describe someone who's annoying.
And now you're using your friendship with someone who survived the Holocaust as a method of trying to "win" here and I find that rather disgusting. You've also chosen to deliberately twist what I actually said because you don't like that I find your use of the phrase "IT Nazi" horrible and wrong.
I don't give a shit about your lack of sympathy for my offense. You've made that lack blatantly obvious throughout this thread.
Me: Oh, and as for not changing calling yourself an "IT Nazi" - you're trivializing what your friend went through when you do that and it makes me sick. Actually, did you ever call yourself that when he was alive? Would you be making light of the Nazi party if he were still around to be offended by it?
*************************************************
Here's the thing, 18 months ago, I was that jackass.
I was defending my interpretation of a word because I, personally, had the privilege to be able to use that interpretation without having to consider the deeper implications. The closest my family came to the Holocaust was my paternal grandfather, who was a non-com in Africa in WWII and to my knowledge, didn't witness any of the horror of Hitler.
It all comes down to privilege. if you're reading this, you have some form of it. And you have a choice to make. You can choose to be a trolling asshole who doesn't think of the feelings of others and who defends their "right" to use hurtful language to your last breath. You can be anti-PC because "censorship" and "thought policing" are terrible things.
Or you can think about the impact that words can have on our thinking and our society as a whole.
Here's the thing, though, for those who are in the U.S. and see it as a "First Amendment" issue. First off, someone telling you that they're offended is not "censoring" you. They are exercising THEIR right to say something when your language hurts them. They are under no obligation to "grow a thicker skin" and tolerate your bullshit if they don't wish to. They have as much of a right to call you out for saying something they personally find offensive as you have to say the offensive thing.
It's funny how the fact that the First Amendment works both ways always seems to get lost here. The Westboro Baptist Church is allowed to protest with their hateful words and our government does nothing to stop them. Hell, the peaceful protesters of Occupy Everywhere have been interfered with FAR more than the hatemongers of the WBC and I'm finally beginning to understand why.
We tolerate intolerance. We tolerate someone being hateful. And we aren't allowed to even SUGGEST that they STFU and/or change their language to be more tolerant/inclusive/neutral.
I am not a government entity. I cannot FORCE anyone to not use racist/sexist/ableist/misogynist/homophobic/hateful/intolerant/generally awful language. All I can do is tell them that I'm offended when they do. And my offense is often seen as more hurtful than their original statement. Because they "didn't mean it that way" or the dictionary tells them that the word has another meaning. All I can do is ban them from spaces I control, which isn't censorship. It's me and me alone, not tolerating intolerance. And not tolerating someone using that word in any context other than to mean "someone who supports or supported Hitler".
Some might say that I've gone too far in the other direction. Like a person who's just "found god", I've become too sensitized to all of the little sporks that society throws at every marginalized group every day. Which is why I try to be careful when I'm calling out fail to never speak over those whose lives are directly impacted by said fail. I don't always succeed, but for the record, the "Jackass" in question is a white, middle-aged, middle class male who identifies as "Agnostic" on his Facebook page. In other words, unless he informs me otherwise, he and I were on equal footing so far as our privilege over the word in question went.
I've asked this before, but I'll ask again - who does it hurt to stop using certain words? Yes, it requires some effort. For me, eliminating the word "bitch" has been a serious trial because it's ubiquitous. Even so, is that effort really so much to ask? When people are asking for "PC" language, what they're really asking for is common courtesy and respect as individuals. They're asking to be treated as human.
At least I am. I'm a woman and I don't like my gender being equated with negativity. I'm bisexual and I don't like my sexual orientation being fetishized or again, equated with something negative. All I'm asking for is for those who respect me as a person to show that respect by not using language that diminishes me as a person. Or negates the horror that people like me have experienced for no reason other than the circumstances of our birth.
I want to be respected as a person and I want my personal identity to be respected as well. Which is where this all gets tricky. Some religious people say that we're infringing upon THEIR identities when discussions about their intolerance come up. I know Homophobic Aunt certainly feels that her identity is more important than our relationship.
So here is my final question for you - does your identity require intolerance to other people? Is it integral to your identity that consenting adults not be allowed to share their lives with whomever they choose? Most importantly, does your identity require you to defend your use of hurtful language despite you not actually being racist/sexist/ableist/misogynist/homophobic/hateful/intolerant/generally awful? Because that's another argument that gets used a lot. For example, because someone who says that something negative was "gay" is totally in favor of gay rights, it should be okay for them to say it because language is always evolving and gay used to mean happy and then it meant homosexual and now it means stupid. So that means it's okay to use it "in that context" because they aren't really saying anything bad about gay people. It's okay, right?
Guess what?
It isn't.
Warning: Possible triggers for slurs in both the comments and the post. Also, general asshattery.
Tags:
- *invitation to discussion,
- anti-semitism,
- asshat,
- censorship rules!,
- courtesy,
- dancing,
- deep hurting,
- doesn't mean what you think it means,
- drama,
- epiphany,
- facebook,
- fail,
- feminism,
- first: do no harm,
- free speech has consequences,
- friends,
- fuck you & the failboat you sailed in on,
- heterosexism,
- history: read it!,
- homophobia,
- how to be a douchebag,
- human rights,
- humanity needs to start over,
- i'm a raging militant,
- i'm an asshat,
- meta,
- pf: jon stewart/the daily show,
- privilege,
- racism,
- rants: societal and/or political,
- screaming into the wind,
- sexism,
- tsib,
- video,
- wank,
- wtf?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-11-01 09:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-01 11:15 pm (UTC)I'm of German descent, but my family's been in the U.S. for so long it's pretty much irrelevant to me. My mom's maiden name is German, so I wonder if she ever had to deal with any of that growing up...
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 06:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-01 10:18 pm (UTC)Of course, in our current social climate, people seem to have trouble with that concept. If I say, "Don't do that" they start yelling, "Help! I'm being oppressed!"
As far as the word "bitch", I try not to use that word in a negative context. I will use that word to describe myself. If not putting up with male priviledge and bullshit makes me a bitch, then I'm proud to be one.
I recently found out about the word "gyp". I grew up using that word. I never knew where it came from or what it represented. All I knew was that it meant "rip off". When I found out that it's derogatory slang derived from "gypsy", I stopped using the word. It's not that difficult. My life doesn't depend on me using that word. I have a wealth of alternatives in the English language.
no subject
Date: 2011-11-01 11:16 pm (UTC)THIS!
Why is it so difficult to find a flippin' synonym that's neutral?
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 12:10 am (UTC)Guess what?
It isn't.
EXCEPTIONALLY well said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 01:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 01:45 am (UTC)Language changes all the time, the meanings of words have constantly shifted, evolved, and inversed. It's probably too soon in our shared history for people to use the term nazi without specific associations and allusions to Hitler's Germany or the spawned hateful thought processes. That being said, language does evolve and potentially should. It's a reflection on our understanding, of our ability to generate concepts to others, and to define both ourselves and the world around us.
Take for instance, America's term of 'Black' for someone with darkly pigmented skin. It's a heavily political ladden word with it's own history and difficulties. In the past the politically accepted words have run the gambit, and up until the mid to later part of 20th century, 'negro' was the word of choice and 'black' was considered a term used by the ignorant and the intolerant. People took the word 'black' back, as homosexual men and woman have taken back the term 'gay' (which early definition means happy or filled with joy, likewise the term 'faggot' has the literal definition of a bundle of sticks). Words change and for a reason, too.
It helps us deal with the world around us. Taking a term and infusing new meaning. Sometimes it turns it into an insult but other times putting a new meaning on a word strips the power of that word away, often taking the ability to harm away as well. This is a for the better or worse type of consequnce. The thing is though, it happens.
I do like where your coming from and I'll probably take your words to heart in the future, so thanks for writing this. <3
Warning - triggers for slurs
Date: 2011-11-02 06:05 am (UTC)There are many persons of color I know personally who prefer to be called "black". There are others who prefer "person of color" and still others who prefer "African American". I know many gay people who are okay with the word "faggot" and many who really, really aren't.
Reclamation is fine if one is a member of the group doing the reclaiming, but just because you personally are okay with a word that you use to self-identify doesn't mean that someone else might not find it offensive.
Personally, I identify as "queer". For someone I know, I recently found out that that word has serious negative connotations and I don't use that word in his presence. I use it because I feel it describes me (bisexual - more pansexual, actually; poly; with some gender dysmorphia - "queer" seems to fit.) However, I must note that as recently as last year I was essentially asking a genderqueer friend of mine for permission to use that term to SELF-identify because I didn't feel as much a part of the BLGTPQ community as I do now.
And my friend who is hurt by it made it clear that the reclamation being proposed by so many has a negative side effect to those who have triggers associated with those words.
There are no easy answers here. Am I going to stop self-identifying as "queer"? If I can find a better adjective that fits me, then yes, I will, because my identity as a pansexual woman isn't married to the terminology that describes me. As for right now, I call myself queer, but as it hurts a friend of mine, I'd like to stop. Will I EVER use that word in his presence? NO. Because my right to self-identification and attempt at reclamation doesn't trump the friendship I feel for him and my wish to NOT trigger a friend if I can avoid it, if that makes sense?
I think in issues of language such as this one, it's best if we all stop talking and really listen to what others are saying. Respect others' wishes when they tell us how they prefer to self-identify. More importantly, be good friends when those with whom we are acquainted tell us what hurts them.
There is also the issue of those who "reclaim" terms that were never theirs. A white person using the "n-word". A straight person calling a gay man a faggot "as a joke". A man referring to a woman as a "hot bitch".
Also, I'm firmly in the camp that someone may SELF-identify however they wish, but when they are speaking with other people, respect should be given to the person's identity and how they wish to be known.
Take Favorite Aunt, for example. She's had a partner for over 20 years, but for her, her sexuality is the least of who she is and is the least of what she wants others to think of when they think of her. Some would call her "closeted" (indeed, my grandma asked that she hide her partner from the rest of the family until she was literally on her deathbed). Even so - I refer to her as "Favorite Aunt", NOT "Lesbian Aunt", if you can see my POV, :).
God, why does the internet make things personal??
Date: 2011-11-02 06:21 am (UTC)But that's going off track. The point here is that 'subject-Nazi' might be gaining / have gained a new context. Whether that is for good or ill, whether that is offensive to all or only a few, the point I'm trying to get at is that the term exists, and that it may possibly just another step in a words etymology.
I enjoy passionate debate but there's truly no way I can respond to most of this response without it seeming like an attack. A lot of your examples were personal experiences and to pick one thing or another to examine or pry at would be rude (not in the least because this is your personal journal that I stumbled upon).
So thanks for the food for thought.
All my best,
B.
Re: God, why does the internet make things personal??
Date: 2011-11-02 06:40 am (UTC)I'll be going to bed soon, so I may not respond right away, but I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts, :).
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 04:04 am (UTC)That being said, sometimes strong words are appropriate. I had a writing teacher once who had a habit of crushing students on the subject of grammar. A number of times I heard him rant in class that people who couldn't be bothered to learn the basic rules of grammar had no business writing and absolutely no business thinking of themselves as writers. While I personally am incapable of being damaged by someone I so profoundly disrespect, there were a number of kids in my class who were damaged and lingeringly disheartened by his vituperations. One of my friends not only dropped the class but changed majors as she took his bile very much to heart.
While he wasn't part of an organized group that ended millions of lives, as an individual he used his position of power to inflict deliberate damage on people whose ideals he didn't share. I stand by my decision to refer to his behavior as Nazi-esque in the complaint letter that I wrote to the school.
Part of the power of our language is our ability to communicate complex ideas by alluding to common points of reference. However, the power is lost if those allusions are not made with deliberation and respect.
Just my two cents.
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 05:46 am (UTC)However.
Being a horrible person who is damaging to self-esteem and career choices still doesn't equate to being a mass murderer or someone who supports someone who was.
I'm not saying that your strongly-worded letter wasn't appropriate, but "Nazi" is a word that's thrown around far too casually. Am I saying that your use of it was casual even though you obviously thought it through? Frankly, yes.
However much of a douchekayak this guy was (and he sounds like the full seventh fleet), his behavior still doesn't equate to that of actual Nazis and I stand by my feeling that that word should only be used to describe those who actually are Nazis.
Even given the deliberation and respect you felt you had when it came to describing this man, he still wasn't a Nazi. A small-minded totalitarian with delusions of importance? Definitely. A Nazi? No.
I'm all in favor of alluding to a common point of reference, but "Hitler" and "Nazi" are two points of reference that have become entirely too common. We use the word "Nazi" to describe those who are annoying, when it really should only be used to describe those who are actively damaging to society.
In your case, you might have an argument that that man was damaging to society, but the moment you invoked "Nazi", your letter became a Godwin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law) and sadly, less likely to be taken seriously by those who were reading it.
People have used the word "Nazi" so casually that it's almost become synonymous with someone who is overreacting, if that makes sense? To be clear, as someone who did not know this person (and feels lucky about that fact), I am NOT saying that your feelings weren't justified, only that they may actually have been taken less seriously because you compared the man to a Nazi.
My four cents.
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 07:25 am (UTC)I unfortunately agree that Nazi has been misused to the point of absurdity. The term has even been applied to people with no power or intent to enforce adherence to their ideologies by others. As someone who has been (affectionately by those who ask for beta work) referred to as a grammar nazi, I find that, on reflection, I too have been subtly trained by my understanding of their intent to disregard the history of the word in some contexts. I will, as a result of this discussion, be more mindful in the future.
However, there needs to be some differentiation between terms for those in positions of power who pursue their ideologies in spite of the needs of others (totalitarians) and terms for those who deliberately set out to use their power to harm any whose ideologies do not align with their own. The difference between callousness and malice is worthy of distinction.
I further have general concerns about applying rules to personal expression. I agree that the term Nazi is disrespectfully and inaccurately applied. I agree that speaking out against use that does not deliberately and thoughtfully reference that terrible history is a worthy endeavor. I even believe it worthy to mention in cases where it is mindfully used, as you did with me, that overuse has rendered the term impotent. Nevertheless, metaphor is an integral and vital part of language and even distasteful language has its place. In my own efforts to address this issue, I believe that I will focus on raising concerns about accuracy and respect rather than on suggesting a rule-set.
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 06:45 pm (UTC)My goal is to do the same. However, I feel I must address the second part of your statement.
To my knowledge, I was not suggesting a "rule set" of any sort. This is where conversations like this get very sticky.
I am not a government entity, nor was I suggesting that those who use the term "grammar Nazi" do not have an absolute right to do so (at least in the U.S. - I do not presume to speak for the rest of the world). I was expressing my personal offense at it, something that I also have an absolute right to do.
I am not saying that metaphor and personal expression should be curtailed, but MY freedom to express is being curtailed if I'm supposed to silently tolerate language that I find both hurtful and offensive.
I might defend to the death the Jackass above's right to say something, but I'll also continue to call him out for being a Jackass while I'm doing it. :)
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 06:25 am (UTC)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7E-aoXLZGY - amazing.
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 10:12 am (UTC)as an austrian and a socialist i`m very invested in the subject of faschism.
the first thing i`m going to say about hitler/nazi comparisons is that whenever you compare something to a system where everyone who had different ideas everyone who was different in whichever way was put in camps worked to death, killed in medical experiments of such cruelty that even reading about them makes you ashamed to be of the same species than those people.
where nazis not only killed people but pulled out their gold teeth and made soap out of their ash. where one could buy a lamp out of jew-skin. where people with disabilities were seen as unworthy to live.
in short a system so cruel and barbaric that whenever you read about it you should reasses what you can do so that something like it can never ever happen again.
when you compare anything to that it can only diminish what happened in the third reich.
because really how is someone being picky about grammar the same as making soap out of the ash of people that you first put to work in camps till they were so weak they either died "of natural causes" or killed them with gas?
but (wes there is a but) i can understand on a level when people do hitler comparisons because yes i do them (sometimes)
just in another context. for exampel in austria there are more and more asylumseekers deported back to their home countries. often police comes to those families houses at 3 in the morning telling them to pack and putting them in a plane back home.
some of those families are here for more then ten years and have children that were born here.
and i refer to our police as having (in that particular respect) methods like the gestapo.
which i think is important because 1 it is actually true and 2 it raises awareness of what is happening.
i use hitler comparisons like that from time to time. normally i use the term fascist but sometimes when i already said it`s fascist and the person i`m talking to still doesn`t see reason i give them an example from nazi-germany to show them where i see a parallel.
i`m so frustrated with the term grammar-nazi which is in my opinion a very us-american phenomenon which i`ve never encountered anywhere else i would invite everyone who uses this term to visit a concentration camp. to look at all the horrors and cry because there`s nothing else to do in that moment and i don`t think that they would use the term again.
we need education against all the ignorance around.
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 06:40 pm (UTC)And I wholeheartedly agree that the use of "Nazi" in the U.S. has gotten way out of hand - people here routinely compare members of the opposite political party to Hitler, when nothing they've done is remotely Hitler-like. It's beyond saddening and makes me ashamed of the politicians and media here.
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 07:45 pm (UTC)when you tell europeans about some of the prudery, religious nonsense, and general political debate going on in the us they react shocked and disbelieving because the amount of non-education going on in the us is dangerous for a country that is the proclaimed world police...
anyway.
i think hitler-comparisons are a problem not necessarily because hitler was "so evil" but because in my opinion this exact thing diminishes what happened under the nazi regime.
a hitler comparison makes him this über-human being that was such a brilliant speaker and mastermind who singlehandedly took germanys population hostage and as if that was not enough then forced them to kill 6million jews not to speak of political dissenters, gays, roma and sinti, disabled people, homeless people and everyone else not fitting the nationalsocialist ideas of a worthy member of society.
yes he was a good speaker, but he was not the evil mastermind everyone makes him seem like.
if hitler hadn`t been there at this point in history it would have been someone else.
goebbels the minister of propaganda had much more of a key position.
but the real problem was not hitler, not goebbels or himmler or any of the other high-ups. it were the people following them.
it was big busyness funding them, damn it was even the conservative party building a coalition with the nsdap because they were so afraid of the communists and socialists.
and finally yes we should call people out on fascist behavior. and if they don`t get what you mean by saying it`s fascist or totalitarian i think it`s valid to use a nazi-comparison (as in:"see in 1930something the NSDAP did the same thing") but not a hitler-comparison because it acts as an excuse for a lot of people who claimed to have done nothing but followed orders.
which is something that should never justify violence.