People Who Use “Nazi” Too Lightly

Scrolling through Twitter’s feed (having searched for Tweets about Sarah Silverman), I was rather saddened to come across this woman’s Tweets about the event. In short, she called the staff of the store “Nazis” for not permitting photography with the guest.



For not permitting photography with the guest. (Um — does anyone know any actual Nazis that would host an event where the guest is a prominent Jew? Anyone? Bueller?)

At this point, I went from “saddened” to “What kind of entitlement syndrome does someone have to have to equate rules on photography with Nazism?”

Used to be, people who committed genocide were called Nazis. Now, it’s just people who work at a bookstore that want to keep the line moving as fast as possible so people aren’t standing around for four hours.


Lady, do you have any clue what the Nazis did? Clearly not. Between this and the Adolf Hitler videos, I think maybe people are forgetting what evil he truly represented. When you go around to calling people “Nazis” for not allowing photography, truly … well, frankly, you’ve completely lost your argument (whatever that might’ve been, “Oh, no, they’re not going to let me have my way”, perhaps?), and proved yourself to be a complete, total, and utter moron.

Entitlement = it’s a mentality, NOT A RIGHT.

It’s also highly classy that she ended her Nazi tweet with “Stay Jewish!”, having just called the staff Nazis.

In any case, since we’re all Nazis (by her estimation), I’m not sorry at all that we won’t be seeing her in the bookstore again. Goodness knows she doesn’t want to support Nazis.

As for the ironic bit: if she’d hung around at the store after having had her book signed, Sarah did actually stop on her way out to take photos with people. Crazy!

9 thoughts on “People Who Use “Nazi” Too Lightly

  1. I was at a book signing with David Brinkley and they didn’t allow ANY photography at all. Of course, he was old and frail while Silverman is young and hott.

  2. Perhaps this woman watched the “Soup Nazi” episode of Seinfeld one too many times. In that context…then yeah, I suppose the Nazi label would make sense. Still inappropriate though.

  3. OhFerPetesSake. What’s the rule that states that as soon as someone invokes the word “Nazi” then the discussion is over? That should’ve applied here.

    I feel the same way about the word “rape”. It’s used way to often in a way that completely trivializes the actual definition.

  4. yellojkt – Silverman looked really good. Especially compared to Chelsea Handler, who looked like she was 50.

    Silverneurotic – I didn’t care for Seinfeld’s use of the word in that context. Just seems to trivalize it (maybe that was point?)

    Gilahi – The Godwin Rule/Law.

  5. Now you get the compressed version, because your forms suck:

    It’s not Godwin’s law. Godwin’s law said that as an i-net discussion gets bigger, the probability of a mention of Nazis approaches 1. That’s different.

    Why get your panties in a twist over this, yet you say you’re ENTITLED to Downfall clips that the owners are taking down. Why is that wrong? And don’t give me the parody BS reason. It’s not parody.

    BTW, I’m a Godwin law nazi, grammar nazi and spelling nazi.

  6. Alan –

    I really don’t get how you compare the two: one is about copyright law (are Downfall clips with modified subtitles protected under free-use) and free advertising (without the Hitler meme, I never would’ve watched or purchased Downfall); the other is about someone comparing standard large-event rules for book signings to the Holocaust.

  7. (It’s fair use.) And the Downfall clips really aren’t parody, so aren’t a fair use — they’re satire.

    I didn’t draw the original comparison, you did. I was really responding to that and your comment about entitlement. I probably should have made that clearer, but that explanation got lost when your forms ate my original comment/long winded rant.

    These type of arguments annoy me. Saying that the owners of Downfall are benefiting from these clips because of the free advertising is specious. Would it be OK if I began making investment decisions for your retirement accounts because I didn’t agree with your investment strategy?

    In reality, people like these clips because they;re entertaining. And they have become accustomed to finding them distributed on YouTube and elsewhere. In other words, they feel entitled to these clips. But they really aren’t, because they don’t own the content, nor do the people distributing the modified clips.

    Since Sarah corrected your sign, it would appear she’s a grammar Nazi too.

  8. Alan – of course the studio is entitled to remove the clips from YouTube if they wish to exercise their perogative, and if no one has the financial ability to contest this in court. I am simply saying that the clips introduced me to the movie, and I suspect that they served the same purpose for many, many other people. I guess what I’m asking is, “What harm does it do?”

    (Also, what forms are you talking about?)

Comments are closed.