From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: "Feminazis" and the "abortion holocaust"
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 20:51:08 GMT

In article <00963D7E.0B11FBE0.22115@swdev.si.com> "Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support,x8425" <tillman@SWDEV.SI.COM> writes:
>Ted Frank writes:
>
>>the use of the word "Holocaust" to describe it [abortion] is (1) inaccurate,
>>(2) trivializes the event in history that has come to be known by the
>>name of "holocaust" and (3) is insulting to Jewish people.  Whether you
>>mean it to be or not.
>
>I'm not trying to pick a fight here, and I find that the attempted genocide of
>the Jews by Hitler's Nazis to be profoundly reprehensible and one of the
>greatest atrocities ever visited upon mankind by mankind, but I believe you are
>mistaken on two accounts:  1) nothing can trivialize an event such as the
>Holocaust 

But only if you assume people are educated about it.  I've run into
dozens of people on the net who throw around the term "Holocaust" and
weren't even dimly aware that it refers to the killing of six million
Jews.  They'd seen the word in other contexts, and so when they see
"Holocaust" in reference in The Holocaust, they automatically assumed
that it was something much more minor, like the "other" Holocausts
they'd heard of.

Even saying "the killing of six million Jews" doesn't quite do the
definition justice, because the intent was much more sinister then
the simple phrase "killing" indicates.  But I'll spare everyone the
paragraph-long definition of context I gave last post. 

>and 2) a person can only be insulted if they choose to be.  

This is false.  Are you saying millions of Catholics "chose" to be 
insulted by Sinead O'Connor's actions?  And that her actions had no
insulting value in and of themselves?   

>I'm afraid my dictionary defines "holocaust" 
>as wholesale destruction or loss of
>life, especially by fire as the *primary* definition.  Therefore, a devastaing
>forest file that kills no one is, indeed, a holocaust, the Jews' personal
>feelings notwithstanding.  I do note that my dictionary goes on the give a
>second definition of "the Holocaust" which is the genocidal killing of Jews by
>Nazi Germany.  Therefore, referring to a holocaust and the Holocaust involves
>absolutely no ambiguity.

But "feminazis" and "abortion holocaust" definitely *does* involve an
ambiguity.  The intent is clear that the analogy is being drawn to the
second definition.  This is wholly inappropriate, for the reasons I
mentioned in my previous post.

And your dictionary doesn't end the debate.  Dictionaries are often
generations behind what the words mean to society. My dictionary gives "showing
or marked by exuberance or happy excitement" as the "primary" definition
of "gay."  "Homosexual" doesn't appear until the *fifth* definition.
But I think if someone said "The Pope is gay", Catholics would be insulted --
especially if it was in the context of "The Pope is gay and some priests 
molest little boys."  Then, the intent is clear, and no claiming that "gay"
means "merry" would salve the insult.  "Abortion holocaust" is insulting to 
Jews.  "Feminazis and the abortion holocaust" is doubly so.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU