(by extension) One who subscribes to or advocates (neo-)Nazism, or a similarly fascist, racist, anti-Semitic, xenophobic, ethnic supremacist, or ultranationalist ideology; a neo-Nazi.
Adjective:
(by extension) Domineering, totalitarian, or intolerant. synonym ▲
Synonym: fascist
Der Nationalsozialismus war keine geschlossene Lehre, sondern begründete eine »Weltanschauung«, in deren Mittelpunkt die Idee des »arischen Herrenvolkes« stand, das sich aller Mittel zu bedienen hat, um sich »Lebensraum« zu schaffen, andere (angeblich minderwertige) Völker und Nationen zu unterdrücken und die Welt vom (angeblich einzig Schuldigen, dem) Judentum zu befreien.
“So yeah, in essence, these Israeli Jews are Nazis, however ironic it sounds”
This doesn’t have anything to do with colloquialisms anymore but instead with real-world facts.
Let me demonstrate:
If you suddenly start calling every coloured bird a Parrot, will a Bluefinch become “in essence” a Parrot?
Of course not. A Bluefinch is a Bluefinch and not a Parrot, the same way a Whale isn’t a Fish just because it has fins even though we tend to colloquially call animals with fins “fish”. Because words have meanings that you can’t just re-define.
So no, you can’t call them a Nazi. Because it is just plain factually wrong.
Do you think you can just go about telling people that what they’re talking about isn’t what they’re actually talking about?
Well, i think my Comment did a good job representing how from my point of view you were the one derailing the discussion and making it about colloquialisms when it was clearly about allegations of Nazism.
So maybe we should not presumptively make accusations? Who am I kidding, this is the Internet.
If you suddenly start calling every coloured bird a Parrot, will a Bluefinch become “in essence” a Parrot?
Of course not. A Bluefinch is a Bluefinch and not a Parrot
Except that’s exactly how the evolution of languages works. When there’s enough [usage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_(language), the word is taken to mean what it then is taken to mean. Which can’t be prescriptively detailed before it happens, yet it always does. That is LITERALLY what happened with the word “literally”, and that’s just the clearest example. Have you never taken a linguistics class of any sort? o.O
Try going back a hundred years and calling something “cool”. Or just 20 years ago, and use modern parlance. Perhaps you don’t have a vivid memory of 20 years ago, but I was already a man grown, so I do. Have you never checked out or seen memes of the etymologies of words? Have you never seen people argue over the usage of “literally”?
When words change meaning like that, it’s called a semantic change.
I’ll just list a few examples since I think you won’t even open the link.
Awful – Literally “full of awe”, originally meant “inspiring wonder (or fear)”, hence “impressive”. In contemporary usage, the word means “extremely bad”.
Gay – Originally meant (13th century) “lighthearted”, “joyous” or (14th century) “bright and showy”, it also came to mean “happy”; it acquired connotations of immorality as early as 1637, either sexual e.g., gay woman “prostitute”, gay man “womaniser”, gay house “brothel”, or otherwise, e.g., gay dog “over-indulgent man” and gay deceiver “deceitful and lecherous”. In the United States by 1897 the expression gay cat referred to a hobo, especially a younger hobo in the company of an older one; by 1935, it was used in prison slang for a homosexual boy; and by 1951, and clipped to gay, referred to homosexuals. George Chauncey, in his book Gay New York, would put this shift as early as the late 19th century among a certain “in crowd”, knowledgeable of gay night-life. In the modern day, it is most often used to refer to homosexuals, at first among themselves and then in society at large, with a neutral connotation; or as a derogatory synonym for “silly”, “dumb”, or “boring”.
How about an example of something very specific becoming rather common?
Guy – Guy Fawkes was the alleged leader of a plot to blow up the English Houses of Parliament on 5 November 1605. The day was made a holiday, Guy Fawkes Day, commemorated by parading and burning a ragged manikin of Fawkes, known as a Guy. This led to the use of the word guy as a term for any “person of grotesque appearance” and then by the late 1800s—especially in the United States—for “any man”, as in, e.g., “Some guy called for you”. Over the 20th century, guy has replaced fellow in the U.S., and, under the influence of American popular culture, has been gradually replacing fellow, bloke, chap and other such words throughout the rest of the English-speaking world. In the plural, it can refer to a mixture of genders (e.g., “Come on, you guys!” could be directed to a group of mixed gender instead of only men).
Went from being a name, to an ugly person, to “a man”, to literally any person.
And that’s not to even bring modern examples like coke into it. And you definitely know the difference between coke and Coke. One stands for the actual product. One does not.
Well, i think my Comment did a good job representing how from my point of view you were the one derailing the discussion and making it about colloquialisms when it was clearly about allegations of Nazism.
Your point of view doesn’t really matter when you’re trying to tell the person who’s comment you’re commenting on that the thing they’re commenting on isn’t actually the thing they’re commenting on. Because the person is commenting on what the person is commenting on despite what opinion you hold over that person having said that thing. I wrote the comments on my phone and accidentally capitalised Nazi when I mean “nazi”, so that’s my bad, but other than that, you can’t tell me that I wasn’t talking about the colloquial use of language. Because I was. So you’re wrong to have said that I wasn’t.
So maybe we should not presumptively make accusations?
Says the person who’s saying I’m not talking about what I’m talking about, because he has an opinion. roflmao
Do you ever notice how words experiencing semantic drift are mainly adjectives and practically never scientifically-defined words?
There’s a reason the words “bridge” or “steel-frame building” or “transistor” still mean the same as back when they were first uttered.
But lets take an example.
Did you know that Dinosaurs also experienced semantic drift? Actual Dinosaurs are just a few select reptiles that went extinct during a specific time period. But we still use the Term to refer to all of them. Does that mean that the meaning changed? No, if you study it, you will still learn the correct term. You know why? Because words have meanings.
Or let’s take it further
we use the term “Dinosaur” colloquially to refer to old stuff or old people. But you would never seriously say “well, colloquially old people are called Dinosaurs, so ‘in essence’, [Donald Trump / Joe Biden] is a extinct lizard”, would you?
Because you instinctively know that words have meanings and just because we call something a Dinosaur it doesn’t mean that it is one.
Have you never taken a linguistics class of any sort? o.O
Says the person who’s saying I’m not talking about what I’m talking about, because he has an opinion. roflmao
anyways, since your parents apparently never taught you how not to be an asshole, I will not entertain this conversation any further.
Have a nice day and may I never see you again, blocked stranger
anyways, since your parents apparently never taught you how not to be an asshole, I will not entertain this conversation any further.
No, that’s not the reason. The reason is yours never taught you to lose. To admit when you’re in the wrong.
That’s why when I’m talking about colloquialisms and semantic shift, you start having a tantrum and screaming about semantic drift, which actually is a specific type of semantic change. “Drift” being different from “development”.
anyways, since your parents apparently never taught you how not to be an asshole
You are literally having a tantrum over me proving that I said what I said, instead of what you thought I said. Beyond ridiculous.
PM me and I’ll pay for a linguistics class for you so you don’t have to feel this ashamed on Lemmy anymore. :8
Calling Trump a Nazi because he has a Hitler book next to his bed? Perfectly fine. Enough evidence.
Calling israel Nazis because they’re committing Genocide in order to expand their Lebensraum? Let me pull up esoteric German sites which happen to have a definition to fit my narrative.
You can use every language in the world to define any other word in any other language and it still does not save you from semantic pitfalls and poor rhetoric.
Not an opinion.
Noun:
Adjective:
(by extension) Domineering, totalitarian, or intolerant. synonym ▲ Synonym: fascist
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Nazi
Which one is it then?
Also, it is wrong:
https://www.bpb.de/kurz-knapp/lexika/politiklexikon/17892/nationalsozialismus/
I hold the opinion that that is so.
Me holding an opinion like it doesn’t make the fact more or less correct.
You’re trying to define the objective correctness of a fact, because you confuse my opinion for what it represents.
Why on Earth do you think linking German when discussing English colloquialisms would be in any way related…?
We’re definitely not discussing English colloquialisms, were discussing ideologies.
And it just so happens that the bpb is the de-facto authority in this ideology.
Or do you think that a German engineer can’t talk about bridges because he can only talk about “Brücken”?
That’s weird seeing how I DEFINITELY was. Direct quote from the beginning of my earlier comment:
#colloquial term
Do you think you can just go about telling people that what they’re literally talking about isn’t what they’re actually talking about?
Also a direct quote from the same comment:
This doesn’t have anything to do with colloquialisms anymore but instead with real-world facts.
Let me demonstrate:
If you suddenly start calling every coloured bird a Parrot, will a Bluefinch become “in essence” a Parrot?
Of course not. A Bluefinch is a Bluefinch and not a Parrot, the same way a Whale isn’t a Fish just because it has fins even though we tend to colloquially call animals with fins “fish”. Because words have meanings that you can’t just re-define.
So no, you can’t call them a Nazi. Because it is just plain factually wrong.
Well, i think my Comment did a good job representing how from my point of view you were the one derailing the discussion and making it about colloquialisms when it was clearly about allegations of Nazism.
So maybe we should not presumptively make accusations? Who am I kidding, this is the Internet.
Except that’s exactly how the evolution of languages works. When there’s enough [usage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_(language), the word is taken to mean what it then is taken to mean. Which can’t be prescriptively detailed before it happens, yet it always does. That is LITERALLY what happened with the word “literally”, and that’s just the clearest example. Have you never taken a linguistics class of any sort? o.O
Try going back a hundred years and calling something “cool”. Or just 20 years ago, and use modern parlance. Perhaps you don’t have a vivid memory of 20 years ago, but I was already a man grown, so I do. Have you never checked out or seen memes of the etymologies of words? Have you never seen people argue over the usage of “literally”?
When words change meaning like that, it’s called a semantic change.
I’ll just list a few examples since I think you won’t even open the link.
How about an example of something very specific becoming rather common?
Went from being a name, to an ugly person, to “a man”, to literally any person.
And that’s not to even bring modern examples like coke into it. And you definitely know the difference between coke and Coke. One stands for the actual product. One does not.
Your point of view doesn’t really matter when you’re trying to tell the person who’s comment you’re commenting on that the thing they’re commenting on isn’t actually the thing they’re commenting on. Because the person is commenting on what the person is commenting on despite what opinion you hold over that person having said that thing. I wrote the comments on my phone and accidentally capitalised Nazi when I mean “nazi”, so that’s my bad, but other than that, you can’t tell me that I wasn’t talking about the colloquial use of language. Because I was. So you’re wrong to have said that I wasn’t.
Says the person who’s saying I’m not talking about what I’m talking about, because he has an opinion. roflmao
Do you ever notice how words experiencing semantic drift are mainly adjectives and practically never scientifically-defined words? There’s a reason the words “bridge” or “steel-frame building” or “transistor” still mean the same as back when they were first uttered.
But lets take an example.
Did you know that Dinosaurs also experienced semantic drift? Actual Dinosaurs are just a few select reptiles that went extinct during a specific time period. But we still use the Term to refer to all of them. Does that mean that the meaning changed? No, if you study it, you will still learn the correct term. You know why? Because words have meanings.
Or let’s take it further
we use the term “Dinosaur” colloquially to refer to old stuff or old people. But you would never seriously say “well, colloquially old people are called Dinosaurs, so ‘in essence’, [Donald Trump / Joe Biden] is a extinct lizard”, would you?
Because you instinctively know that words have meanings and just because we call something a Dinosaur it doesn’t mean that it is one.
anyways, since your parents apparently never taught you how not to be an asshole, I will not entertain this conversation any further.
Have a nice day and may I never see you again, blocked stranger
No, that’s not the reason. The reason is yours never taught you to lose. To admit when you’re in the wrong.
That’s why when I’m talking about colloquialisms and semantic shift, you start having a tantrum and screaming about semantic drift, which actually is a specific type of semantic change. “Drift” being different from “development”.
You are literally having a tantrum over me proving that I said what I said, instead of what you thought I said. Beyond ridiculous.
PM me and I’ll pay for a linguistics class for you so you don’t have to feel this ashamed on Lemmy anymore. :8
deleted by creator
You’re literally trying to say that I’m not talking about the thing I literally am.
The colloquial use of “nazi”.
You feel bad because you’re ashamed of having been wrong.
Calling Trump a Nazi because he has a Hitler book next to his bed? Perfectly fine. Enough evidence.
Calling israel Nazis because they’re committing Genocide in order to expand their Lebensraum? Let me pull up esoteric German sites which happen to have a definition to fit my narrative.
The bpb a esoteric website?
Please
https://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/behoerden/DE/bpb.html
It’s really not that hard to find out about it
Hitler was a big Fan of Mussolini and considered him his great Idol. Does that mean he was a Mussolinist and not a Nazi?
I clicked on the frontpage of your link and it’s literally a Zionist lobby site lmao
This is literally the official website of the German ministry for the interior you absolute unbelievable fucking removed.
Stop trolling and do something useful with your life
The German government is running israeli propaganda about the Munich olympics on their website?
Guess i shouldn’t be surprised by the OG Nazis.
You can use every language in the world to define any other word in any other language and it still does not save you from semantic pitfalls and poor rhetoric.
I think we can all age that the bpb, the German federal office tasked with working up the Nazi past of Germany, is the authority on Nazism