| Author |
 Topic  |
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
 Posted - 11/16/2006 : 23:00:22
|
At the end of the day, I'm just trying to do what's best for the longevity of the site. Surely, nobody would argue that repeated content is in any way a benefit to the site  |
 |
|
|
lemmycaution 
"Long mired in film"
|
Posted - 11/16/2006 : 23:07:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
At the end of the day, I'm just trying to do what's best for the longevity of the site. Surely, nobody would argue that repeated content is in any way a benefit to the site
Don't call me Shirley. |
|
|
|
MguyXXV 
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 11/16/2006 : 23:25:13
|
Joe and Catuli:
You both are ignoring the role of context in this discussion. Words derive additional meaning from context. To revisit a faulty conclusion offered above, the 1960's sitcom "Hogan's Heroes" disproves the assertion that prior to now the subject of Nazism could not be used humorously. It worked because of context: it was a clearly defined comedy (though, in a way, it is sad in that it necessarily reinforced the vision of the world where everyone just pretended that concentration camps were for captured combatants).
If a straight man calls another straight man "faggot," it might be perceived as funny. Context. If a straight man calls a gay man "faggot," there is little escape from insult. Now there's a word that has travelled far from its roots; but look at its journey. Far from becoming even more innoucuous, the innocent bundle of kindling has come to mean something derisive about homosexuals. Accordingly, mere time and repeated usage does not act always to ameliorate meaning. Context is everything.
It is an argumentative and logical error to abandon analysis for an ad hominem conclusion: "You are offended, therefore you are weak because you let words hurt you." To argue the person instead of the point is a failure to address the issue. Do you really mean to argue that it is perfectly OK for a person to be insensitive, because a strong man lets words roll off of him? Do you mean to argue that it is my fault for being offended at what someone says? Do you really mean to argue that I should sit back and listen to something offensive without commentary or care? That sort of pacifism is precisely what allows bigots to come to power.
How do you think the ultra conservative right came to control the Republican Party? Because the powerful chose to overlook their extremist rhetoric ("words") in exchange for their political support. Now their far right rhetoric has become a benchmark for acceptance. A perfectly well-qualified jurist can be denied a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court because of his or her personal beliefs as to abortion. It's a hotbed issue, but it doesn't predict how well the candidate can interpret and construe laws and precedents.
Ironically, that's how the Nazis came to power. Leading German industrialists saw the National Socialist Party as a tool, so they overlooked some of its extremism. The problem, however, was that the extremist views eventually became orthodoxy, and the rest is history. Inattention in the face of ignominy is disaterous.
"People do it, so you shouldn't be bothered by it." So, by that logic, it should not bother me that people get plastered and drive fast moving tons of metal, killing millions of people per year. Just because people do it doesn't make it acceptable.
Frankly, I don't care that some people think it's OK to sling hurtful words around without care. But I don't share that view. Go to a meeting of the Shia't Ali and tell them that Muhammad's views were "backward," and then try and explain to them that "backward" is just a harmless word that everyone uses, while they stop your teeth out. Context, my friend, context.
The point of my original observation was merely this: unless your meaning is clear (and usually from context), be careful how you use certain words. I am sorry that CL has reluctantly and undeservedly become the eye of this furor (geez: isn't that a funny homophone?), but the issue was this: I disagreed with characterizing the report button as a "Nazi" function. It may be a "tattle-tale" feature, but "tattle-tale" and "Nazi" are two distinct and mutually exclusive phenomena. I know that people don't like having their errors noted, but the problem there is the self-righteous belief that one's errors should go uncorrected. If a person posts a dupe, it's their own fault for not checking: any sting they feel results from their own error! Stop passing the buck! When a policeman saves you from an armed robber, he's a hero. When he gives you a ticket for speeding (i.e., breaking the laws we enacted, that he is sworn to enforce), he's a pig. BUT WHO WAS BREAKING THE LAW???!!! Don't blame the editor for fixing OUR mistakes. He's not a Nazi for asking us to help him do what has become a mammoth job, given our plentiful contributions. We are not Nazis for fixing each other's mistakes, because that's what they are: OUR mistakes.
My secondary point was, whether the word was "Nazi" or "asshole," I found it offensive. But "Nazi" has a boat-load of social and political baggage that comes with it, so I found it particularly troublesome.
If you think that using politically charged words is fine, go right ahead. Just don't complain when someone calls you out and challenges the rectitude of such blitheness. |
|
|
|
thefoxboy
"Four your eyes only."
|
Posted - 11/17/2006 : 00:02:20
|
| I may be a Wog, Ding, Dago buts that's ok cause Sean is a Kiwi. |
|
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 11/17/2006 : 00:08:04
|
Interesting conversation. I'm in the 'unoffendable' camp. The sicker a joke, the more I laugh. Etc. 
I see Chocky's use of "Nazi" as similar to a black man calling another black man "nigger". I.e., there's no inherent contemptuous attitude involved, there can't possibly be. In another part of the world, "Nazi" is going to be very socially and politically charged, i.e., in any country with Jews as a minority there is going to be racism (as will be the case for any ethnic minority anywhere) and a small element of Holocaust-denial. But, I'd bet anyone anything that among the Jewish population of Israel there will not be Jew-hating or Holocaust denial so the word "Nazi" would not be sensitive and charged, as pogroms, anti-Semitism and the Holocaust will be accepted as absolute facts of the past. So some will be able to throw the word "Nazi" around with abandon. I don't have a problem with it, as it's someone else's words, not mine, and if Jews in Israel can throw it around lightly then I'm not gonna argue. In the same way I don't care if I hear blacks calling each other "nigger", it's not my business in that case.
Having said that, I tend to take the easy way out if speaking in public or to people whose reaction to certain words I'm not sure of, and usually avoid charged words. I said 'usually'.  |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 11/17/2006 : 01:38:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by lemmycaution
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
At the end of the day, I'm just trying to do what's best for the longevity of the site. Surely, nobody would argue that repeated content is in any way a benefit to the site
Don't call me Shirley.
Truly you are Sensei! |
Edited by - randall on 11/17/2006 01:43:11 |
|
|
|
lemmycaution
"Long mired in film"
|
Posted - 11/17/2006 : 03:09:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
quote:
Originally posted by lemmycaution
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
At the end of the day, I'm just trying to do what's best for the longevity of the site. Surely, nobody would argue that repeated content is in any way a benefit to the site
Don't call me Shirley.
Truly you are Sensei!
Faut de mieux in absence of a 'shameless' smiley. |
|
|
|
alma 
"hooking berry to thread"
|
Posted - 11/17/2006 : 21:00:09
|
Hello redpen - nice to meet you. Now I know that you did say you don't want anyone quoting King on originality issues, but he did say this:
'a thousand pages of hobbits haven't been enough for three generations of post war fantasy fans....Hence Terry Brooks, Piers Anthony, Robert Jordan...and half a hundred other. The writers of these books are creating the hobbits they still love and pine for; they are trying to bring Frodo and Sam back from the Grey Havens because Tolkien is no longer around to do it for them'
|
|
|
|
Downtown 
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 11/17/2006 : 21:35:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
Interesting conversation. I'm in the 'unoffendable' camp. The sicker a joke, the more I laugh. Etc.
I see Chocky's use of "Nazi" as similar to a black man calling another black man "nigger". I.e., there's no inherent contemptuous attitude involved, there can't possibly be. In another part of the world, "Nazi" is going to be very socially and politically charged, i.e., in any country with Jews as a minority there is going to be racism (as will be the case for any ethnic minority anywhere) and a small element of Holocaust-denial. But, I'd bet anyone anything that among the Jewish population of Israel there will not be Jew-hating or Holocaust denial so the word "Nazi" would not be sensitive and charged, as pogroms, anti-Semitism and the Holocaust will be accepted as absolute facts of the past. So some will be able to throw the word "Nazi" around with abandon. I don't have a problem with it, as it's someone else's words, not mine, and if Jews in Israel can throw it around lightly then I'm not gonna argue. In the same way I don't care if I hear blacks calling each other "nigger", it's not my business in that case.
Having said that, I tend to take the easy way out if speaking in public or to people whose reaction to certain words I'm not sure of, and usually avoid charged words. I said 'usually'.
Huh?
I don't pretend to speak for my race, but as a Jew, it seems to me that calling the report feature "the Nazi button" is making fun on Nazis, not Jews. Not only does it not bother me, but I can't even figure out why anyone might think it should.
By the way, there is a huge difference between Jewish and Israeli. |
|
|
|
MguyXXV
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 11/17/2006 : 23:12:56
|
Just a side note, DT: this conversation is not about whether Jews are offended or whether they should be offended. The point originally made was that likening a maintenance feature to Nazis is offensive to me as a community participant. Whether the Nazis persecuted Jews or Gypsies is irrelevant: it's not who they persecuted, but what they did in persecuting. They persecuted the oppressed group in a particularly heinous way. The offense arises from being likened to despicable people because one is performing an uncomfortable maintenance function designed to correct demonstrable errors (that we have made because of our own carelessness).
It's not about offending Jews: it's about offending FWFRs like me. The word could have been "Nazi," "Fascist," "Asshole," or even "Big Brother": the point being made in response was that a critic should not criticize people for doing the job the critic should have done in the first place. In my book, calling me a Nazi is equally offensive as calling me a pedophile, so that's why I found it particularly grating. I don't care whether others were offended: I care that I WAS, and I took further offense at the suggestion that I simply shouldn't be -- because some others deem it OK to cast the term about as they will. If every Jew in the world were to write to me that they think it's OK for people to call others Nazis, it would be meaningless for purposes of what I was saying. I THINK NAZIS ARE NASTY AND I DON'T LIKE BEING CALLED ONE, WHETHER IN JEST OR NOT!
So, no offense, DT, it's admirable that you, as a Jew, don't mind. My point was that I mind. |
Edited by - MguyXXV on 11/17/2006 23:13:57 |
|
|
|
MguyXXV
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 11/17/2006 : 23:32:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
I see Chocky's use of "Nazi" as similar to a black man calling another black man "nigger". I.e., there's no inherent contemptuous attitude involved, there can't possibly be.
Since I am determined to beat this dead horse until I am certain it is dead, as well as anyone who might ride it, and that the wagon it was drawing is mashed into pulp so fine it can be milled into paper, I would note that Chocky's use of Nazi is not similar to a black man calling another black man "nigger."
Chocky is Jewish. The Nazis were anti-Jew; because of the Nazi legacy, it's a derisive term applicable to a particular type of objectionable non-Jews. The term sets up an opposition and may lend itself to irony if Chocky directs it to other Jews, though not necessarily). For a Jewish person to call non-Jews "Nazi" suggests immediately something not so ironic. Here, there was no such limitation.
Black Man is black. "Nigger" is a derisive term about blacks. The term derives its irony in intra-black affairs because such useage implies an ironic inconsistency, though -- as with the proffered example of Chocky calling another jewish person "Nazi" -- it does not eliminate the possibility that the speaker intends (or that the listener may yet perceive) an insult. For Black Man to call non-blacks "nigger," however, would not be comparable to a Jewish person calling a non-Jew "Nazi." It is an entirely different phenomenon. Or is it?
I hope y'all niggas get my drift. |
|
|
|
Catuli
"Loves Film and Fun"
|
Posted - 11/17/2006 : 23:55:12
|
The direction of word meanings and their application follow laws that are as irreversible as those of physics. When "gay" became a word for homosexual, many staunch defenders of the word's old meaning--of carefree jollity--refused to accept the new defnition and vowed not to acknowledge the change. They might as well have attempted to repeal the laws of gravity to make them fly. As we all know, the new meaning of gay is now well established. I trust that those who opposed it are pursuing less futile causes.
Like it or not, Nazi is now commonly used to describe any mannerism of intolerance. The basic law of linguistic template shifting is that if the majority of people use a word in a given way, that way soon becomes the norm.
If you check the Scrabble dictionary you'll find all kinds of words with meanings that offend some. "Jew" is used as a verb alternative for "swindle" and can take the various verb forms. You might not like it, but that's its word meaning, and the definition is here to stay. Hey, I might not like it, I don't like the idea of "rape" or "murder", but they are words and are in everyone's vocabulary. In short, you can't legislate utopia.
|
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 11/18/2006 : 00:34:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Catuli
If you check the Scrabble dictionary you'll find all kinds of words with meanings that offend some. "Jew" is used as a verb alternative for "swindle" and can take the various verb forms. You might not like it, but that's its word meaning, and the definition is here to stay. Hey, I might not like it, I don't like the idea of "rape" or "murder", but they are words and are in everyone's vocabulary. In short, you can't legislate utopia.
This just isn't the point at all.
Words may have several meanings but that does not make all of those meanings socially acceptable. MGuyX is not arguing Nazi can't be taken to mean an overly authoritarian person, he's saying that meaning is not socially acceptable amongst decent people, any more than words like "nigger" and "kike" are acceptable descriptions for Blacks and Jews.
|
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 11/18/2006 : 00:35:22
|
Well M-X, obviously I had it wrong...it's not about merely the use of the word, but that the word would then be applied (by extension) to whomever uses the feature, including you. So now I understand.
In my opinion, I think you might be taking it too seriously. And if there's anybody here who knows anything about taking things too seriously, it's definitely me. But at the same time, I guess your request - don't call it the Nazi Button - is reasonable enough that we can all comply with it even if we don't feel it's necessary. |
|
|
|
bife
"Winners never quit ... fwfr ... "
|
Posted - 11/18/2006 : 00:38:04
|
Definition 3 of 4 from dictionary.com:
3. Sometimes Offensive. (often lowercase) a person who is fanatically dedicated to or seeks to control a specified activity, practice, etc.: a jazz nazi who disdains other forms of music; tobacco nazis trying to ban smoking.
So it seems you're all right. The word has slipped so much from its original that even dictionary.com defines it with its secondary 'lowercase' meaning. But it can't bring itself to remove the 'sometimes offensive' tag
When I read chocky's post i didn't for one moment think she was refering to mguyx as an actual Nazi, or suggesting that he might share their views. I knew that she was saying he was 'fanatically dedicated to control' the quality of other people's reviews (I know of course that cl didn't actually single out mguy)
But I do think that, perhaps, the journey of 'nazi' from literal to figurative is not yet complete. I don't think mguyx would be alone in being offended by it. Maybe in another 10/20 years that wont be true anymore. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Okay, NOW I'm pissed!
