Are these terms offensive?

[Genesis315]

Calling someone a nazi is offensive because the nazi’s created concentration camps in order to slaughter millions of innocent people. That being said, the people who are called feminazis support the abortion mills where millions of innocent and completely helpless children are slaughered. Maybe the term is appropriate for that group.

If I supported the ruthless slaughter of innocent people (not to mention on a massive scale) I would hope people wouldn’t tip toe around labeling me with a term that relayed that fact.

 

[Catholic2003]

Genesis315:

That being said, the people who are called feminazis support the abortion mills where millions of innocent and completely helpless children are slaughered.

This is an inaccurate generalization in my experience. The most common use of the term that I’ve encountered is to refer to those who support female involvement in liturgical roles.

And, yes, it is highly offensive.

 

[JCPhoenix]

Genesis315:

Calling someone a nazi is offensive because the nazi’s created concentration camps in order to slaughter millions of innocent people. That being said, the people who are called feminazis support the abortion mills where millions of innocent and completely helpless children are slaughered. Maybe the term is appropriate for that group.

If I supported the ruthless slaughter of innocent people (not to mention on a massive scale) I would hope people wouldn’t tip toe around labeling me with a term that relayed that fact.

EXACTLY! The people who are referred to as “Nazis” happen to engage in nazi-like behavior and ideology.

Those who are labeled what they are rarely like to labeled as it tends to call attention to what they don’t want to see about their ideology.

Personally, as as “right wing Christian” in this society, I’m proud of that particular label…if it ticks of the left wing liberals I know I’m in the right place.

Anyway, I have and do use the term “femi-nazi”. I did actually speak with a person who is a member of the Jewish faith (on this site) and that person is not offended by the term–to be so would be very thin-skinned as the intent of using the word is not denigrating to their faith nor does it downplay their own history.

In any case, I have been doing some research into feminism and the term is appropriate (For the record, I have never liked Rush Limbaugh as I find him to be a pompous arse, but I do appreciate the term he coined).

Anyway, the feminists have stated that they will not leave the Church as they cannot infiltrate and condemn it from teh exterior, but rather, they admitted have an adjenda to undermine the morals of our faith FROM THE INSIDE.

Does that not sound NAZI-LIKE? Didn’t the Nazis corrupt the people from the inside out as opposed to taking over as an opposing army? Just as is the feminist adjenda, and the liberal adjenda? They won’t leave us alone because they are trying to corrupt internally to cause the destruction of all we hold dear.

Of course they won’t win and the movement is dying a painful death but for a few that try to hold on, gasping their last futile breaths in complete rancor.

Ironinc that the feminist movement started out with such good intentions and was actually pro-life,…but was corrupted by a futile diabolical adjenda very much like Hitler’s party and has had an even more long-term and detrimental effect.

Fine of those who fit the term are offended. The Pharisees were offended when John the Baptist called them “Pit of Vipers”: also and were very offended when Jesus overturned the tables of the money changers in the temple. I for one have no problem placing the term where it fits.

People who are vipers are vipers and if feminazi fits, then use it!

 

[Genesis315]

Catholic2003:

This is an inaccurate generalization in my experience. The most common use of the term that I’ve encountered is to refer to those who support female involvement in liturgical roles.

And, yes, it is highly offensive.

I always thought that it meant the pro-abortion crowd. I wouldn’t use the term for people who didn’t support mass murder.

 

[Catholic2003]

JCPhoenix:

Does that not sound NAZI-LIKE?

Maybe we could do a poll to find out: “Which of the following are Nazi-like behaviors?”* Murdering millions of innocent people.

• Favoring the use of inclusive language.
• Both of the above.

JCPhoenix:

Didn’t the Nazis corrupt the people from the inside out as opposed to taking over as an opposing army?

I think the peoples of Poland, France, Greece, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, Yugoslavia, the Netherlands, Latvia, Lithuania, Belgium, etc., might disagree with this statement.

 

[Catholic2003]

Genesis315:

I always thought that it meant the pro-abortion crowd. I wouldn’t use the term for people who didn’t support mass murder.

These are from posts on Catholic Answers:

In keeping with the spirit of post-Vatican II liturgical abomination–I mean, reform!–different parishes do different things, whatever the priest or “liturgical minister” (usually a habitless, man-eating, feminazi nun) wants to do.

I always ended up sitting next to the most annoying FemiNazi woman who refused to use any male pronouns in reference to God - “For our good and the good of all God’s Church” and similar things.

But apparently some see this behavior as being just as bad as supporting the murder of millions of innocents.

 

[jman507]

I don’t think I’d use feminazi. If you want to bring the Nazis into the situation by making it an anology, explain why you are making it. I think it’s just as easy that a person who disagrees will use that term to apply to you. “You’re a nazi…cause you want to discriminate people and cause them harm.”

I think it is also good not to try to go after changing that person’s mind, but shape the mind of those who are nuetral. Throwing out the nazi term can seem uncharitiable and will make a nuetral person side with who they feel is the victom. If you use radical feminist then explain their extremism, you’ll make more sence.

I remember when the Catholic Church was coming out and saying that we should support women who choose to stay at home. Then you got some extremist painting it that is going to be horrible for women, because it’s going to give some reasons for causing all kinds of injustice to women. But really if you just start explaining what the church acually said, it’s not really all that far from what people are comfortable with. I think for as uncomfortable people are with the church’s teachings, they’d be just as if not more uncomfortable with radical groups, if all the arguements are drawn out.

 

[abcdefg]

Tyler Smedley:

I have been told that some of the terms that I use are offensive things such a femi-nazis and liberal, could be consider sinful because of a lack of charity, what do you think?

I don’t have any public feminist around me so I don’t know what their response to femi-nazis are.

but liberals will say “thank you” if you call them “liberals”

 

[Steve_Andersen]

I suppose it depends on your intentions

But yes it seems pretty obvious that calling someone any kind of Nazi is pretty offensive ….you do remember what real Nazis did don’t you?

Labels can be convenient but there is a danger of pigeonholing people or being dismissive

Humans are complex and a single person can have both liberal or concervative views on different issues. Putting one word on one of God’s creatures can be a disservice.

(and I have seen some folks on this board use the term “liberal” in a manner that made it clear that it wasn’t an endearment)

 

[tigerlilly]

Some people call me very ugly names and I know they love me, some people call me “my dear lady” and I know they mean “you stupid excuse for a female!” So it all depends on what you mean. And on what you are doing to other people: if you hurt them, you must change your language. So if you think you may have hurt somebody, just ask and apologize, if necessary.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Tyler Smedley:

I have been told that some of the terms that I use are offensive things such a femi-nazis and liberal, could be consider sinful because of a lack of charity, what do you think?

If you intend to offend, or reasonably expect to, then it’s a sin. It can be a fun sin to indulge in, one you’re ready to take your chances on perhaps, but still a sin. Of course, I’m sure there are exceptions but I’m too indifferent to think of them at the moment.

The reason it is a sin, is that being offended is usually a sin so if you say something that causes a brother to take offense, then you have participated in his sin, which separates him from the love of Christ.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

tigerlilly:

Some people call me very ugly names and I know they love me, some people call me “my dear lady” and I know they mean “you stupid excuse for a female!” So it all depends on what you mean. And on what you are doing to other people: if you hurt them, you must change your language. So if you think you may have hurt somebody, just ask and apologize, if necessary.

Exactly. The terms themselves only have meaning by the context and the interpretation of both sender and receiver.

Alan

 

[Ignatius]

Tyler Smedley:

I have been told that some of the terms that I use are offensive things such a femi-nazis and liberal, could be consider sinful because of a lack of charity, what do you think?

That is patently ridiculous. Only the totalitarian thought police would try to foist such a clamp down. This approach is generally hypocritically one sided. I’ll wager that these same people have no compunction about using similar epithets against conservatives or others with whom they disagree.

 

[Island_Oak]

Genesis315:

I always thought that it meant the pro-abortion crowd. I wouldn’t use the term for people who didn’t support mass murder.

Interesting distinction which I have never heard made by the likes of Rush, who hurls the epithet like a Molotov cocktail with reckless abandon, demonstrating no concern for the collateral damage of his battle who might be mislabeled. I think it is very safe to assume that tacking on the suffix “-nazi” is immediately inflamatory, defamatory and rightfully invites indignant self-defense. In other words…it’s universally offensive and almost always intended to and does provoke a negative reaction. Sound charitable to you?

You will further your cause/interests and garner the respect of those with whom you disagree more when you engage your brain BEFORE you open your mouth, speak in intelligent, balanced and respectful tone instead of repeating the vitriolic name-calling spouted by a legion of ditto-heads. You can’t ever change someone’s mind if you can’t get them to listen to you.

p.s. Also…check out the organization known as “Feminists for Life,” it’s a very public and vocal anti-abortion organization.

 

[Island_Oak]

Genesis315:

I always thought that it meant the pro-abortion crowd. I wouldn’t use the term for people who didn’t support mass murder.

Interesting distinction which I have never heard made by the likes of Rush, who hurls the epithet like a Molotov cocktail with reckless abandon, demonstrating no concern for the collateral damage of his battle who might be mislabeled. I think it is very safe to assume that tacking on the suffix “-nazi” is immediately inflamatory, defamatory and rightfully invites indignant self-defense. In other words…it’s universally offensive and almost always intended to and does provoke a negative reaction. Sound charitable to you?

You will further your cause/interests and garner the respect of those with whom you disagree more when you engage your brain BEFORE you open your mouth, speak in intelligent, balanced and respectful tone instead of repeating the vitriolic name-calling spouted by a legion of ditto-heads. You can’t ever change someone’s mind if you can’t get them to listen to you.

p.s. Also…check out the organization known as “Feminists for Life,” it’s a very public and vocal anti-abortion organization.

 

[Island_Oak]

sorry for the double post–not sure how that happened?!

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Island Oak:

Interesting distinction which I have never heard made by the likes of Rush, who hurls the epithet like a Molotov cocktail with reckless abandon, demonstrating no concern for the collateral damage of his battle who might be mislabeled.

From your opinion of Rush, I’d guess you don’t listen to him much. He has actually clarified this specific “feminazi” label on several occasions, going way back to when I used to listen to him regularly.

He is talking about a very few, specific militant feminist leaders and their pro-abortion, man-hating agenda with that particular term. Women like Gloria Steinem. He says there are maybe a few dozen who fit into this category, but they are the ones media often uses when they need a “woman’s” point of view on something.
Island Oak:

I think it is very safe to assume that tacking on the suffix “-nazi” is immediately inflamatory, defamatory and rightfully invites indignant self-defense. In other words…it’s universally offensive and almost always intended to and does provoke a negative reaction. Sound charitable to you?

I agree. It can be assumed offensive and therefore uncharitable unless you know otherwise.

You will further your cause/interests and garner the respect of those with whom you disagree more when you engage your brain BEFORE you open your mouth, speak in intelligent, balanced and respectful tone instead of repeating the vitriolic name-calling spouted by a legion of ditto-heads. You can’t ever change someone’s mind if you can’t get them to listen to you.

I was going to agree with you, until you made the vitriolic remark about ditto-heads. Do you know what “ditto-head” even means? It does not mean people who agree with and/or march to the tune of Rush. It means people who like his show, even some who hate Rush’s political views can be included in this category.

p.s. Also…check out the organization known as “Feminists for Life,” it’s a very public and vocal anti-abortion organization.

Cool. That almost sound like an oxymoron.

Alan

 

[dwc]

Interesting distinction which I have never heard made by the likes of Rush, who hurls the epithet like a Molotov cocktail with reckless abandon, demonstrating no concern for the collateral damage of his battle who might be mislabeled. I think it is very safe to assume that tacking on the suffix “-nazi” is immediately inflamatory, defamatory and rightfully invites indignant self-defense. In other words…it’s universally offensive and almost always intended to and does provoke a negative reaction. Sound charitable to you?

You will further your cause/interests and garner the respect of those with whom you disagree more when you engage your brain BEFORE you open your mouth, speak in intelligent, balanced and respectful tone instead of repeating the vitriolic name-calling spouted by a legion of ditto-heads. You can’t ever change someone’s mind if you can’t get them to listen to you.

p.s. Also…check out the organization known as “Feminists for Life,” it’s a very public and vocal anti-abortion organization.

:clapping:

It is truly beyond me how someone can think that feminazi or any other term including nazi would not be offensive. When I see someone using it, I automatically believe that person fully intends to offend and denigrate another human being. Use of the term reflects more poorly on the person using it than it does the object of the term.

 

[Island_Oak]

AlanFromWichita:

I was going to agree with you, until you made the vitriolic remark about ditto-heads. Do you know what “ditto-head” even means? It does not mean people who agree with and/or march to the tune of Rush. It means people who like his show, even some who hate Rush’s political views can be included in this category.

It was not intended to be vitriolic–most ditto-heads self-identify using that term with pride. BUT when they adopt the insulting slogans, name-calling and inflamatory rhetoric, that’s where they break away from merely agreeing with Rush on substance and stop thinking for themselves–possibly overlooking the damage they do to the legitimacy of their own position in the process.

 

[marmee79]

Island Oak:

It was not intended to be vitriolic–most ditto-heads self-identify using that term with pride. BUT when they adopt the insulting slogans, name-calling and inflamatory rhetoric, that’s where they break away from merely agreeing with Rush on substance and stop thinking for themselves–possibly overlooking the damage they do to the legitimacy of their own position in the process.

I can agree with that.

Alan
(Oops, I’m using my wife’s login)