So did Atheism + bite the dust?

[Pyrrho]

Yes, "nazi" is a meaningful linguistic term, as is the term "feminazi." "Feminazi" has been used by Rush Limbaugh, who "popularized" the term, for women who wanted equality with men, and had the temerity to not quietly accept second-class status. You know, like those uppity blacks who did not quietly accept their place in "separate but equal" bits of America.

I don't care what Rush Limbaugh says or does. However, trying to demonize a word because of who you say made it is just an ad hominem argument.

Your narrative about poor, abused women who just want to be treated equally sounds pretty compelling-- except that's not the kind of feminists the word is talking about. I've been on the receiving end of plenty of feminists who demand equality, who refuse to let men define them, and who expect themselves to be accepted, unconditionally, with loving arms from all of society. And they immediately go on to tell men what real men should be, to call men pigs because they like pretty women, to call them misogynists if they don't want to be the "bottom." They refuse to engage in any argument about gender unless it's understood from the top that men have fucked up the world, and that no matter what the issue, it must be assumed to be a man's fault.

I'm not saying that's all, most, or even many feminists. But they are there, they are disproportionately vocal, and they are fucking annoying bitches. Being born with a penis does not mean I have to eat shit and pretend to like it.

You conveniently omit the rest of my post that explains the matter. Here it is again:

I'm not commenting on the "feminazis," or the people who call them that. I'm commenting on the linguistic use of the term "nazi." Clearly, it is a meaningful linguistic term, with an intent of drawing analogy.

Yes, "nazi" is a meaningful linguistic term, as is the term "feminazi." "Feminazi" has been used by Rush Limbaugh, who "popularized" the term, for women who wanted equality with men, and had the temerity to not quietly accept second-class status. You know, like those uppity blacks who did not quietly accept their place in "separate but equal" bits of America. The term "feminazi" is used against those who do not quietly accept being mistreated. It is, in fact, a misuse of the term "nazi," as it has no relevance at all to what is being described. It would be like calling black civil rights activists (like Martin Luther King, Jr.), who did not quietly accept "separate but equal" accommodations, as "blacknazis" or "nigganazis." Neither of these groups have any connection whatsoever to nazis. Limbaugh has much more in common with Nazis than feminists do. But it is, as you say, used to try to draw an analogy. Since the analogy is not appropriate, it is really an example of the fallacy known as poisoning the well. Its purpose is to prejudice the audience into disregarding whatever the accused has to say, and to ridicule the accused, all without bothering with dealing with any actual facts relevant to what the accused has stated, nor with discussing the real objectives of the accused. It is an effective device with many people; otherwise, the fallacy would not be so common, and would not have a name.

The problem with the term "feminazi" is that it associates feminism with nazism. I clearly stated that before, as anyone can see by reading the post I quote above, yet you ignore it and pretend that my problem is simply that the term was popularized by Limbaugh. So your accusation of an argumentum ad hominem is either due to a careless error on your part, or dishonesty. Please try to do a better job next time.