Though I will add that pointin out a faux pas like that with good-natured humor is genrally a pretty classy way to go.
It’s also a more enjoyable read than “It’s not an agenda you Homophobic patronizing rat bastards!”
Ahem:
Which is really all I’m trying to say.
Come on! It wasn’t a faux pas! It was a joke! Really, it was.
Anyway, to this.
Ahh, true. But if you were to call someone who dislikes profanity, a Language Fuckhead. Or someone, who is very religious and Christian, the Chief Demon of Satan’s Language Police. They probably would say something to you, and it wouldn’t seem arbitrary at all. Right?
pat
Sure, if the person in question posted a snide little comment every time somebody cursed because it offended them, and wanted to make everybody change to suit their personal preference then that person would most definitely be a “language fuckhead” in my book.
I would treat them with equal contempt.
Re: your joke
Damn, I got whooshed. I hate when that happens.
I bet buttless chaps WITH pockets would be a dynamite seller down at The Gap!
not until you pointed it out. ‘comic book mansion’ - that’s gold.
I feel stupid asking, but is this true? Is it a joke that went over my head or is there really an island called Lesbos? Were women the only people who lived there? Huh? Huh? Huh? Tell me!
Yup, there’s an island called Lesbos in Greece. Story has it that Sappho, the greek poetess, hung out there with all her followers, and they occasionally engaged in what is now called Lesbian activity. 'tweren’t such a big deal in ancient greece…
Scylla, if you want to sit in a corner and feel personally put-upon, that’s your right. However, the fact is I have mentioned the overuse of the word “Nazi” several times on this board, as well as in my daily life.
Athena: The real irony is that the island of Lesbos just tried to stop a boatload of lesbians from vacationing there. Strange times.
Sorry for continuing the hijack, but to respond to Matt_Mcl, and Lesbos,
The reason the island didn’t let the group in was because their travel agent told them it was basically an island devoted to lesbian orgies. giggles
Sorry I can’t find a cite, but I read it in the Montreal Gazette a few weeks ago and the web site is being annoying.
Matt:
It appears that my accusation that you were being disngenuous was in error. I apologize for that. I hope that you can see in the context of that discussion that that seemed to be a reasonable conclusion, even if it was wrong.
Again, this comes down to choice and presumption. I doubt Satan will change his name if you find it offensive. I doubt people will stop cursing even if you go on a crusade, and I find your editorial actions to be presumptive.
I’ll choose what to say for the effect I desire. If you don’t appreciate my hyperbole that is seriously your problem, not mine. I don’t have an agenda, and I don’t do it gratuitously.
Perhaps I will honor a suggestion and refer to this behavior as being a “Language Fuckhead” as opposed to a “Language Nazi.” Would you prefer that? I will be open to other suggestions as well, but I do need the derogatory content in this case as I’m trying to convey disdain for your censorial practices.
Well, if you want to lose some accuracy, I suppose you could do that, but I find the word “nazi” to be admirably descriptive of the type of behavior you’re decrying. To me, it describes one who acts in a superior and presumptive manner, and who demands compliance to a particular ideology or to specific arbitrary ways of expression or behavior.
A “fuckhead” would just be someone whose statements are void of sense or useful content (“fucked in the head”), or who is willfully disruptive, neither of which meanings would apply to matt_mcl. (Hi matt. Y’know I love ya! 
)
As far as the term “nazi” being somehow demeaning to victims of the Holocaust, can someone please show me how this is true? (Note that I’m not asking if some find the word offensive; some people may find the adjective “priestly” offensive when used to describe a lay counselor, but that would be an entirely subjective viewpoint.)
If I call somone who spray-paints graffiti on the side of my business a “vandal”, I’m in no way comparing the effect of their actions to the sacking of Rome in the fifth century, nor would I be minimizing the outrages of the Russian civil war if I characterized an abusive cop as a “cossack.”
The fact is, most English dictionaries I can find recognize the uncapitalized word “nazi” to mean “one who acts in a manner resembling a Nazi.” Those who attempt to portray anyone who uses the term as insensitive or bigoted are, IMHO, acting in a reactionary and close-minded manner.
As Scylla (who I’ve always found to be courteous and well-spoken, even when I disagree with him) said, the context is important. I’ve been compared to Hitler on this board during an argument about libertarianism; I didn’t interpret that as a bigoted slur demeaning to Jews and Gypsies, but merely as the other poster’s firm belief that a strong central government is tyrannical (and also as a lame ad hominem attempt to divert the argument). However, if someone posts their admiration for Hitler in the middle of a discussion about cultural differences, then in that context I would find their reference objectionable.
Words only have the power we allow them to have. If we become so deaf to ideas that we only hear the words in a sentence and never the meaning, then, no matter how well-intentioned we are, we impose the kind of slavery to ideology that Orwell warned us about.
**
It is not the term “nazi” that would be considered to be demeaning to Holocaust victims, it is the use of the term to describe a realtively minor action. As in: Person A slicks a paperwad onto person B, and person B responds “you paperwad Nazi”.
I am not a Holocaust victim, but I get the same reaction that these folks are trying to point out from misuse of the word “rape”. I have been raped. When I hear some ijiot say “some one took my book off the desk. I feel like I’ve been ** raped **” it makes me cringe.
To me, this whole thread has been about courtesy or lack thereof. If I wish to display a respect for my fellow humans and they say “you hurt me” - I stop. I dunno. that’s just me I guess.
All the posturing aside, “I didn’t mean it in a nasty way, the fact YOU took it that way is your problem etc.” just doesn’t further good communication 'tween us humans. and, to me, one way to help fight ignorance is to have clear communication between individuals.
I’ve gotten into some fairly “heated” threads here with folks about various ideas and ideals. in almost every case, people treat each other with dignity and respect. the few times that some one has taken offense and posts same, the other person has almost always re-stated their position to make an understanding clearer.
I’ve found that I agreed more than I disagreed with many, and politely so.
OTOH, unless we understand what is being said, NO communication occurs. One cannot share ideas without it. So, when some one else gets sidetracked over my improper or rude word usage, it would seem the prudent thing to do would be to rephrase it. Unless, of course, all you’re aiming for is to hear yourself speak.
xenophon41:
Thanks for the vote of confidence. I needed it.
Wring:
It may be wrong of me, but if somebody asks me something politely and nicely I will almost always comply. If somebody is nasty, abusive, demanding, or presumptive I usually ain’t gonna back down even if I’m dead wrong (which I’m not here, BTW.)
I almost feel it’s my duty not to let people get away with this kind of thing.
Scylla: I can provide you with an itemized list of many interesting ways to insult, demean, and defame me personally, many of which have actually been applied to me in the past. However, first, I’d appreciate hearing in what way I’ve acted in a “censorial” way. My understanding of censorship is that it is the banning of certain ideas or expressions, which as stated I have no power or desire to do. What I am doing is telling you which expressions I find offensive, and then once I’m sure you’ve understood this, treating any continued usage of those expressions as an intentional offense.
So in what way is
“nasty, abusive, demanding, or presumptive”?
Cool, simulpost.
Matt:
I find your actions censorial because you are trying to get me to stop using nazi, because you find it personally offensive. The threat that is implied is that I am unreasonable and very possibly bigotted if I don’t comply.
With respect, I found the manner in which you did this, rude and presumptive, your conclusions concerning my connotations in deliberate error (Xenophon said it much more eloquently than I,) and your request unreasonable.
Therefore I’m not going to comply in this particular instance. You may take this as an insult if you like, but it’s not meant that way.
Surely you see that there is something sinister and gestapolike in your firm, unwavering “You will comply or you will no longer receive the benefit of the doubt,” Stance.
How about finding me a suitably descriptive metaphor that I can use? If it seems as apropo as “language nazi” than I will abandon the one for the other and only insult you in that nonoffensive manner. 
wring
I tend to split the difference between xenophon41 and you.
I agree with xenophon41 on the following:
I tend to think that “trivialization” is kind of a flawed argument in general. And, in particular, I don’t believe that the Holocaust is trivialized when people refer to “language Nazis.” Rational people understand from context that “language Nazi” refers to one thing, while “the Nazis of the Holocaust” refers to another.
In fact, I’ve heard that the greatest fear of some Holocaust survivors is that the evil of the Nazis may someday be forgotten. What better way to keep the memory of that evil alive than to make it a synonym for everything repugnant or distasteful?
As for your example of the misuse of the words “rape”: When I hear a statement like “someone took my book off the desk–I feel like I’ve been raped,” I see that as hyperbole and misuse of the word. I don’t see how that could possibly trivialize or change my opinion about the other kind of rape.
However, I will grant you the point that you made in the final paragraph when you said, “So, when someone else gets sidetracked over my improper or rude word usage, it would seem the prudent thing to do would be to rephrase it.” We use euphemisms every single day of our lives, and we adjust to the differing needs of the people around us all the time. I think it’s bad manners to insist on using a phrase or word that we know injures or angers our intended audience.
“Gay lifestyle” is a term that homophobes use to beat up on gays and lesbians (see my post in the related thread), and it is generally offensive to most gays, lesbians, and their friends and family. I think that enough of the population is demonstrably hurt by it that it should simply be dropped from accepted use in general.
“Language Nazi” is a term that bothers matt_mcl personally. Misuse of the word of the word “rape” bothers you. You and matt_mcl haven’t convinced me that the damage inherent in using these words is great enough that use of these words should be aggressively discouraged. But common courtesy will compel me to honor your wishes when talking directly to you and matt. I would do no less for anyone else in my life, whether they are a close friend or a casual acquaintance.
Matt:
You do realize that we are having a discussion about having a discussion about what terms to use when having a discussion so that you can insult somebody without being offensive while having a discussion.
What I find bothersome about your quote is that you seem to be implying that I am actually saying that someone is actually as bad as someone who kills six million people when I call them a “language nazi.”
It seems to me you are deliberately taking the term literally and not recognizing the obvious (and rather cliche) hyperbole.
Sorry, I just don’t see how that diminishes Nazi atrocities in any way. I do see how that would put the claimant in a ridiculous light for making such a disproportionate comparison.
And I agree with you so long as we apply that to deliberately insulting terms used disingenuously (Dom Irerra voice: “You’re an asshole — but I mean that in the nicest possible way…”). On the other hand, if I make a disparaging comment about someone else’s attitude by comparing them to a widely known set of villains, I expect the target of my scorn to object to my characterization of their behavior, not whine that I’m being insensitive to all the victims of said group of villains. That’s the type of obfuscatory charge that I believe really impedes clear communication between individuals.
Well, we come back to “fighting ignorance” here, don’t we? If I’ve said something offensive through ignorance, pettiness or temporary fervor, I’ll apologize and rephrase my comments (and have had to do so a few times). However, if I’ve made deliberate use of a term to make a point, I will not gladly suffer a lecture about “sensitivity” that ignores the thought behind my remark while attacking my language.
Please don’t mistake what I’m saying here. I’m NOT defending those who make a point of using derogatory terms in order to hurt their opponents or set an intimidating tone. I’m merely asking that we not indulge our sense of indignation so much that we “outlaw” certain words.
My reference to Orwell was not a flippant remark! I truly believe that, if we allow ourselves to get “sidetracked” over word usage, no matter how rude or improper we think those words are, the open exchange of ideas inevitably suffers, as it’s no longer ideas we’re discussing, it’s propriety.
JTR:
I’ve read both the posts and your stance seems quite reasonable. Again I was completely unaware of the negative connotation in “gay lifestyle.” Had the OP been as succinct, direct, reasonable and noninsulting as you’re explanation, I would probably have just accepted it and made a note to myself not to use the term.