Your point is well taken. I had not reconsidered the language in a contemporaneous context. I wrote the letter more than 15 years ago, before the current, unfortunate fad for referring to any person who adheres carefully to a rule structure that is either not fully understood by, irritating to or against the ideology of the other party. While I do not regret my past use as I believe it carried the impact that I intended, it is not language that I would use now.
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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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.