Job Discussion Forums

[johnslat]

Which is worse?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4vf8N6GpdM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mj6QqCH7g0Q&feature=related

Regards,
John

[smithrn1983]

still my favorite grammar nazi video. i think it's been posted here in the forums once before.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3y0CD2CoCs

[coledavis]

For my own contribution to accuracy, I object to the use of the word nazi to settings unrelated to Hitler, neofascism and Norwegian massacres. It trivialises the sheer horror of what that political movement represented. And no, I don't think that the videos were all that witty (unusually for Mr Mitchell).

[johnslat]

Dear coledavis,

While I can understand your point, I'm afraid I can't agree. The word "nazi" (lower-case "n") has, like it or not, entered the English language to describe anyone who is "a harshly domineering, dictatorial, or intolerant person."

It didn't start with Seinfeld's "soup nazi," but that certainly gave it a wider usage. It's an interesting point: do we control words or do words control us? As is often the case with semantic issues, the answer to both is "Yes." In the Middle East, in certain areas of certain countries, the use of the word "Israel" can have serious consequences.

By "reserving" the word "Nazi" to settings related only to Hitler, neofascism, and Norwegian massacres (although the alleged perpetrator of that atrocity is a self-described "Christian"),) we are, I'd say, giving that word power over us; we are letting it control us. Ironically enough, the Nazi Party rose to power in Germany due largely to the power of words.

And often, ridicule is the strongest weapon against the "boogie-man."

Actually, this may be worth a thread of its own: Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

Except, they can - and so very often do.

Regards,
John

[coledavis]

Hi Johnslat. Thank you for your reply. Allthough I disagree with it, I do accept that the argument is made with good will.

This question of whether or not one is defined by language is an interesting one. Does the fact that Seinfeld introduced the linguistic trope make it an acceptable part of language? I would argue not. It may well have made a valid psychological point, thus making it funny, but that does not in itself make it reasonable to use in an everyday way. (If I happen, for example, to mispronounce a couple of swear words and it happens to be funny, does that mean that we all have to enter it into the modern canon?)

As for allowing words to control us, well I feel that in order to be accurate, we should do so.

I think what you may be referring to is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, that restricted language may dehumanise us (cf Orwell's Newspeak which was an extrapolation of this notion).

However, this idea is not the same as that of making language a relativistic free-for-all. Being restrictive for the sake of accuracy is not the same as being restricted by simplified language. It could be argued however that the extremes of simplified language and carelessly phrased concepts have a similar effect, a failure to see things in perspective. Failures in logic can occur when everything has a value which is seen to be merely relative.

Re the Norwegian massacre. I was aware of the ambiguity surrounding the killer's values. My point here was that some discussion of Hitlerism would be valid in that context in that one could compare and contrast, in our discussions of motivation and potential insanity. On the other hand, Hitler has no real bearing on grammar at all, beyond its strength as a joke on Seinfeld.

As for Hitler, yes, he was a fine and influential orator, but he often lied and distorted reality, which does not seem to me a good reason to support other distortions, even if they are not always created with sinister intent.

My intent is not to control free speech but to encourage accuracy.

[johnslat]

Dear coledavis,

Thanks for your response. Again, I can certainly see (and even "emotionally agree with") much of what you wrote. But while I think your objections are valid, I also believe they're useless since language is so uncontrollable.

Interestingly enough, here's a neo-Nazi who agrees with you:

"Words often invoke an emotional response and communicate ideals; Thomas Paine used his them to incite a rebellion; Robert E. Lee used them to inspire his troops; and I use them now to try and sway your opinion.

If I said the words �stereotype� or �stigma� how would you say they effect the WN movement?

Words are powerful and we must be careful as to which ones we use. We must use words that help us build community and encourage others to join our ranks and not words that divide us or make our task more difficult by alienating us from the public. That is why I say that all references to Hitler and Nazi Germany must be banished from the movement.

Why? Because they have such stigma associated with them that their use is counterproductive to the achievement of our goals. The decades of popular belief they invoke cannot be overcome by reason.

In the middle-mind of America the words �Hitler� and �Nazi� have a meaning that is synonymous with evil. When we invoke those words in our speech and in our materials we also invoke the negative emotional branding associated to them and position ourselves as the enemy.

Humans are emotional animals and often that emotion clouds reason. The collective psyche of the American public is conditioned to respond negatively to all things �Nazi Germany� . No matter the validity of our argument we can never overcome such strong emotions so deeply entrenched.

To the public that is our audience, the use of such words immediately implies that we are an aberration; something to be feared; something that must be wrong�so, in their mind, we must be evil ourselves to identify with something so �evil� as Nazi Germany.

Any social movement that adopts an antisocial stance cannot thrive. Rather we must be social to the extreme; we must become the community and live above reproach. We must make the public want to be part of our club.

The middle-mind is like a child and must be spoon-fed the truth."

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t51734/

That's kind of weird, isn't it?

And I guess any objection to the term would be prescriptive (and politically correct as well)

"In linguistics, prescription denotes normative practices on such aspects of language use as spelling, grammar, pronunciation, and syntax. It includes judgments on what usages are socially proper and politically correct. Its aims may be to establish a standard language, to teach what is perceived within a particular society to be correct forms of language, or to advise on effective communication. If usage preferences are conservative, prescription might (appear to) be resistant to language change; if the usage preferences are radical, prescription may produce neologisms."

Which would, if my interpretation is correct here, make you, ironically enough, the Language "Police."

But, according to Goodwin's Law, I have already lost this argument /discussion:

"Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies) is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 which has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1 (100%)." In other words, Godwin put forth the hyperbolic observation that, given enough time, in any online discussion�regardless of topic or scope�someone inevitably criticizes some point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis.

Godwin's law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the widespread Reductio ad Hitlerum form.[citation needed] The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

Although in one of its early forms Godwin's law referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions, the law is now often applied to any threaded online discussion, such as forums, chat rooms and blog comment threads, and has been invoked for the inappropriate use of Nazi analogies in articles or speeches."


Regards,
John

[coledavis]

May I take your second point first, as it is a bit more trivial. This Godwin idea (I don't want to honour it as a law) is in fact an example of how people's minds close down if given the chance. People are now going around saying 'oh, no argument is valid once Nazis have been introduced', when they really should be saying 'check its relevance before you use it'.

To the second point: the fact that a neonazi is clear-minded enough to see that there is a deeply rooted stigma associated with Nazism does not mean that, through association, I am wrong or a neonazi (logically, the fact that I support, for example, the same football team as a thief does not logically have any bearing on my morality). The connection is a non sequitur.

The neonazi's comment does, however, suggest that there is a clear value to keeping nazism's status as a non-trivial negative. If it was without stigma, his nasty job would become easier. In other words, the neonazi position is much improved if the less well-informed think that a grammar- or other -'nazi' - is just a figure of fun, with no more emotional effect than, say, Napoleon in the early 21st century.

[johnslat]

Dear coledavis,

Godwin's idea was introduced not as an "argument' or even as a "point" but simply to inject some levity into the discussion.

However, some of your remarks of the neonazi's comments are germane. Not the first part, though - I wasn't attempting to make any kind of association between you and him; I simply thought it was interesting ("weird" was the way I put it) that you and he were, in effect, arguing the same point of view - though for diametrically opposed reasons, of course.

My main point was that the "lower-case noun nazi" preceded by an adjective (e.g. grammar, language, soup, food, smoke, fem, RP, health, etc.) has entered the language, and, it's not going to go quietly. Is it offensive - certainly, to some/many. But I'm afraid it's here to stay. It kind of grates on me, but in a world where there are so many (in my opinion) more offensive things going on, it's not high on my list.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean � neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master � that's all.'


Regards,
John

[Soupman]

Could I just say that I worked in Germany six years now, and my German colleagues use the term "Nazi" in much the same way as Seinfeld or the Youtube videos. They�re decent people and share the same disdain for neo-Nazis as the rest of us.

To suggest that such actions in any way condone or support neo-Nazism is ridiculous. Folk should all get along together, but this sort of excessive political correctness serves only to make certain people feel better.

[johnslat]

Dear Soupman,

"No soup for you."

Regards,
John

[Soupman]

Are you some sort of Soup N***? (I'm on a diet anyway.)

The first Youtube clip was based on Inglourious Basterds, a humorous movie about Nazis in France during WW2. This movie should presumably be banned? The original SS bad guy was even played by an Austrian. But the fact that. according to IMDB, this film was released in Israel in September 2009 shows some of us are fighting a lonely misguided battle.

[johnslat]

Dear Soupman,

Hmm, this is going to make it difficult when people talk about using/not using the "N" word.

Regards,
John

[coledavis]

I'm not saying that language should be banned. We do have a choice. Like spelling correctly. And deciding whether or not we use words like 'hate' accurately (as opposed to using it for dislike).

We do have a choice in what language we use. Sure, we can swear if we want to, and it can be funny, but it doesn't mean that we don't exercise taste on some occasions. Similarly, deciding to promote value-free language is also a matter of choice, and a rather bad choice in my opinion.

[coledavis]

On the subject of lexis entering the language, I agree that there is a swing away from the scrabbleish habit of referring to a word's existence in the dictionary towards 'authentic language'. But even then, it should be noted that authentic streetwise language can be ephemeral - 'masher' as a social description anyone? - or less than useful. The word '*beep*' is now commonly seen as either completely unacceptable or usable only by black people, although there are now commentators who think that the latter context is also unhelpful; one of the reasons why they say this is that the terminology really does confuse ordinary people as to what is reasonable and what isn't. I can remember an incident on the television when a young woman thought that the use of '*beep*' was culturally with it (to use an old 'authentic' term) and being thrown out of the programme for her pains.

We do not have to accept that what is currently in vogue is also useful. It may be and it may not be. We are our own arbiters of taste. Returning to the nazi suffix, I was merely expressing my distaste. You can use the term or not - I won't be a culture-nazi over the issue (oh no! was this the right context?).

[johnslat]

Dear coledavis,

"Similarly, deciding to promote value-free language is also a matter of choice, and a rather bad choice in my opinion."

Are we doing that, promoting value-free language. If so, do you base that statement on our attitude towards the use of one word? If that's the case, I believe you might be making an invalid assumption there.

Regards,
John the logic n***