Nazi Compounds

Phrase # of Google hits
(at the time of entering the list)
grammar nazi 188,000
music nazi 122,000
love nazi 85,600
food nazi 75,000
movie nazi 50,300
porn nazi 47,100
health nazi 25,100
republican nazi 19,000
code nazi 13,000
moral nazi 11,800
house nazi 8,140
democrat nazi 7,320
Jesus nazi 5,100
dance nazi 4,400
cleaning nazi 4,050
underwear nazi 3,950
peace nazi 3,760
bible nazi 3,000
political correctness nazi 2,780
math nazi 2,680
health insurance nazi 2,530
relevance nazi 252
linguistics nazi 224
encapsulation nazi 4

I plan to extend this list, send me your ideas!

13 Gedanken zu „Nazi Compounds

  1. Georg

    Careful, you should exlude hits like „… without regard to their relevance. Nazi Germany is invoked …“ – although I don’t know how, yet.


    Music Nazi: 122.000
    Code Nazi: 13.000
    Communist Nazi: 78.300

  2. taabraskifloosok

    music nazi 122,000
    movie nazi 50,300
    republican nazi 19,000
    moral nazi 11,800
    democrat nazi 7,320
    jesus nazi 5,100
    dance nazi 4,400
    cleaning nazi 4,050
    underwear nazi 3,950
    bible nazi 3,000
    health insurance nazi 2,530

    Let us propose a new shallow semantic measure: naziness(t) := – log freq(„nazi t“)/freq(„t“).
    Let me compute the values for your four examples:
    naziness(grammar) = 2,28335
    naziness(house) = 5,05692
    naziness(relevance) = 5,77469
    naziness(encapsulation) = 5,90173
    The lower, the more nazi (analogous to PH-value in chemistry).

  3. taabraskifloosok

    I meant and computed naziness(t) := – log freq(“t nazi“)/freq(“t“), of course.

  4. Georg

    Careful, you should omit hits like „… without regard to their relevance. Nazi Germany is invoke …“ – although I don’t have an idea how, yet.


    Code Nazi: 13.000
    Food Nazi: 75.000
    Math Nazi: 2.680
    Linguistics Nazi: 224
    Dance Nazi: 4.400
    Porn Nazi: 47.100
    Love Nazi: 85.600
    Peace Nazi: 3.760
    Health Nazi: 25.100

    How about German?

    Friedensnazi: 201
    Gesundheitsnazi 351
    Musiknazi: 15.000
    Mathenazi: 363

  5. Poet

    Gah, I HATE these compounds. Verharmlosung des Begriffs, und so weiter… though „Peace Nazi“ is kinda amusing.

  6. ke Beitragsautor

    Thanks for all the data, very nice ideas! I will extend the list with these – and „political correctness nazi“ (2,780) and leave it at that. If someone wants to take the list and continue it on a wiki, go ahead. :)

  7. backslashvarphi

    Taabraskifloosok’s method is going in the right direction (but the ‚log‘ part is kind of unmotivated, no? Also, xkcd just did something like this recently, no?). You could also include compounds where the first term is not a noun… not sure, though. ‚Feminazi‘ comes to mind. (To compute the measure, you could consider the frequency of the string ‚t‘ in other compounds instead of counting the words) (Or maybe ‚femi‘ can become a noun after all, if click my heels often enough… „Hey, we need to invite more femis to our party, so far only mascules responded.“)

  8. taabraskifloosok

    Measuring the naziness exactly like the PH value in chemistry was mainly motivated by the „acidity“ analogy. No serious scientific considerations behind that, except that you can store the numbers more easily (otherwise they get rather small pretty fast) and probably get nicer graphs when plotting it (which is probably also the reason why xkcd likes plotting stuff using logarithmic scales). My proposal mainly amounts to making really bad science out of this and measure the „naziness“ of concepts. Turns out „grammar“ as a concept is much more nazi than „linguistics“. Who would have thought…

  9. backslashvarphi

    I didn’t want to complain about the measure definition itself (it’s pretty much the most intuitive way to think about such a problem, I think), but about the log modification. I guess it’s a pet peeve of mine; you can find quite a number of authors (definitely in CS papers) that do the same. It’s not wrong per se, I’d say, just… sort of unjustified when they talk about natural language (‚unjustified‘ from what I’ve read so far, not ‚unjustifiable‘ :P). It certainly makes sense when you want to map some values in a limited space (the xkcd size chart example), but in other cases, it’s just another assumption you make as an author. And it does sort of matter, since you don’t preserve the ratio between values.

    Damn, look at that wall of text… I hereby apologize for this public display of nerdrage.

Schreibe einen Kommentar

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind mit * markiert