My first instinct was that your language was entirely appropriate for that particular instance of the person being an asshole.
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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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.