General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThank You Internet... I Now Have A Different Understanding Of The Phrase... "Anti-Semitic"...
As language studies are interwoven with cultural studies, the term also came to describe the extended cultures and ethnicities, as well as the history of these varied peoples as associated by close geographic and linguistic distribution.[1]
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people
Related Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024382165
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Not necessarily "fear" of gays.
The actually use of a word can differ from the roots of it. What you're peddling is the kind tripe that legitimate anti-semites sell to try and weaken the word.
1000words
(7,051 posts)is a far greater way to weaken it.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Do you often instruct minorities on their misuse of terms to identify hatred against them, or can I assume jews are a special case in this? I find the term used accurately far more often than not. Predictably the people who are most deserving of the label often seem to protest most strongly at the "misuse" of it.
Mother
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Regardless, when people howl that "racism" is being too broadly used that protest generally seems to come from racists.
I see the same general pattern with anti-semite.
1000words
(7,051 posts)They trundle around finding anti-semitism everywhere, even when it's not. It's a great way to stop criticism and opposing viewpoints, dead in its tracks. A similar tactic is used in the "gender wars" here, too.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)I feel most of the time it is used correctly though, even on this forum.
Mosby
(19,491 posts)Cool story.
1000words
(7,051 posts)I've seen a fascinating evolution unfold before my eyes. Four months ago, I decided I had something to say ...
Now, is my observation without basis, or was yours a hit-and-run contribution?
Mosby
(19,491 posts)And you know what I see - a GBCW type of post from an old timer and some noob who is doubling down the stupidity.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)of right here in the US and elsewhere. Bigotry in all its forms is ugly and one kind of bigotry doesn't diminish others. Unless of course you do not believe there is bigotry towards Arabs and Muslims in the Western world. I don't have to ask a victim of bigotry to know it when it when I see it.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)It does not mean bigotry against muslims. Muslim is not a "semitic" category under any definition of the word. Muslims can come from afroasaitic, indo-european and just about any linguistic grouping on the planet. Unless you're implying that all Arabs are Muslims or that all Muslims are Arabs, which is demonstrably false.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Which doesn't negate the fact that the bigotry against 'rag heads' 'sand jockeys' and all the other denigrating epithets used to create an 'other' regardless of whether or not they were Arabs or Muslims or Christians, was and is still rampant in this country.
And I will say it again, 'bigotry in all its forms is ugly, ignorant and dangerous as history and now the present, so clearly demonstrates.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)or muslim hatred.
And I agree with you, it is ugly. But let's use the right words here.
The OP is purposely conflating a linguistic definition, that goes back 15K years, (that is how far back the semitic language trunk goes back, probably further) with the historic definition, which is accepted to go back 2500 or so years back, starting with Classic Greece, and that has changed it's flavor over the millennia from just ethnic, to things that are ugly. Not that ethnic is minor, but at least until the progroms of the middle ages genocide was not part of it.
They are both fruits, but not the same fruit.
Oh and hate of the other is hate of the other, we both agree.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Edit: saving for posterity
of right here in the US and elsewhere. Bigotry in all its forms is ugly and one kind of bigotry doesn't diminish others. Unless of course you do not believe there is bigotry towards Arabs and Muslims in the Western world. I don't have to ask a victim of bigotry to know it when it when I see it.
Sid
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)of right here in the US and elsewhere. Bigotry in all its forms is ugly and one kind of bigotry doesn't diminish others. Unless of course you do not believe there is bigotry towards Arabs and Muslims in the Western world. I don't have to ask a victim of bigotry to know it when it when I see it.
So you don't agree that 'bigotry in all its forms is ugly'? Too bad. It is also DANGEROUS, just fyi.
Would you like me to repeat it again? You didn't say why it was 'wrong' but from you, I have to say that is quite an endorsement, directed as it was at someone who knows both what bigotry is and how dangerous it is.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)but that doesn't mean that the term anti-Semitic means bigotry against Jews And Muslims.
Sid
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)smell as sweet' someone once said.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Sid
WillyT
(72,631 posts)BY JOHN HUDSON - ForeignPolicy
JANUARY 23, 2014 - 07:52 PM
<snip>
A recent letter attacking Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz is causing an internal brouhaha at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, The Cable has learned. The powerful lobbying outfit, known for its disciplined non-partisan advocacy for Israel, recently issued an action alert about the Florida congresswoman's waffling on Iran sanctions legislation. The letter urged members to contact Wasserman Schultz and cited a disparaging article about her in a conservative website founded by a prominent Republican political operative.
That AIPAC was driving hard for new Iran sanctions legislation surprised no one. But its use of a right-wing blog to target a well-connected Jewish Democrat with a long history of support for Israel raised eyebrows among some current and former AIPAC officials. It also raised concerns that AIPAC's open revolt against the White House's Iran diplomacy could fray its relations with liberal Democrats on the Hill.
"In the 40 years I've been involved with AIPAC, this is the first time I've seen such a blatant departure from bipartisanship," said Doug Bloomfield, AIPAC's former chief lobbyist. Bloomfield was referring to an AIPAC letter scrutinizing Wasserman Schultz's silence on sanctions. The letter relied on the Washington Free Beacon's reporting, which (irony alert) happened to be the first news outlet to report on the existence of the letter.
"We are asking you, our leaders in the pro-Israel community, to reach out to Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz's office," read the letter. "The [Free Beacon] article included below about Debbie Wasserman Schultz blocking bipartisan Iran sanctions came out yesterday and, simply put, we need to know if the story is true."
Bruce Levy, a member of AIPAC's National Council who supports new sanctions legislation, said the group made a mistake by using the partisan news site in its official alert to members. "It probably gave [The Beacon] credibility, which I'm not happy about," he said. "Every little schmuck can express his opinion on the Internet, and unfortunately, it gains credibility when you endorse it."
AIPAC declined to comment for this story.
<snip>
Link: http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/01/23/one_of_congress_s_most_pro_israel_lawmakers_isn_t_pro_israel_enough_for_aipac
FUCK AIPAC !!!
Who's anti-semitic here?
And Arabs are Semites too, no?
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Frankly, I fail to see what that article has to do at all with the topic at hand.
Arabs can be anti-semitic, because anti-semitic doesn't refer to hatred of semites it refers to hatred of jews. Just like how homophobia is rarely used to mean a literal fear of gay people. You are being willfully oblivious to this fact.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)If you cannot answer the question, fine.
But "Pet Jew"... sounds fairly anti-semitic... or self-loathing.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)As if it was relevant or as if it supported the frankly, unsavory, contention you're trying to tout in your OP.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)If you weren't willing to answer it.
Ya sure felt compelled to respond to it.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Ask an irrelevant question and receive....
muriel_volestrangler
(106,212 posts)It's about some right wing Americans attacking a Jewish Democrat for not supporting right wing policy on Iran. No-one calls anyone 'anti-semitic' in it. So why do you think that needs explaining in your thread about the term 'anti-semitic'?
babylonsister
(172,759 posts)SidDithers
(44,333 posts)
Sid
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Sid
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Sid
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
Response to WillyT (Original post)
WillyT This message was self-deleted by its author.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)On edit: Moved my response back to you, instead of to myself.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)You're welcome to PM me if you care to know.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)as long as it has existed in popular discourse, it has one and only one meaning--prejudice/bias against Jews.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism#Etymology
In 1873 German journalist Wilhelm Marr published a pamphlet, "The Victory of the Jewish Spirit over the Germanic Spirit. Observed from a non-religious perspective." (Der Sieg des Judenthums über das Germanenthum. Vom nicht confessionellen Standpunkt aus betrachtet.)[17] in which he used the word Semitismus interchangeably with the word Judentum to denote both "Jewry" (the Jews as a collective) and "jewishness" (the quality of being Jewish, or the Jewish spirit). Although he did not use the word "Antisemitismus" in the pamphlet, the coining of the latter word followed naturally from the word Semitismus and indicated either opposition to the Jews as a people, or else opposition to Jewishness or the Jewish spirit, which he saw as infiltrating German culture. In his next pamphlet, "The Way to Victory of the Germanic Spirit over the Jewish Spirit", published in 1880, Marr developed his ideas further and coined the related German word Antisemitismus, "antisemitism", derived from the word "Semitismus" that he had earlier used.
The pamphlet became very popular, and in the same year he founded the League of Antisemites (Antisemiten-Liga), the first German organization committed specifically to combatting the alleged threat to Germany and German culture posed by the Jews and their influence, and advocating their forced removal from the country.
So far as can be ascertained, the word was first widely printed in 1881, when Marr published Zwanglose Antisemitische Hefte, and Wilhelm Scherer used the term Antisemiten in the January issue of Neue Freie Presse. The related word "semitism" was coined around 1885.
Germans did not give a fuck about Arabs. They were obsessed with Jews.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Seems like you continue to give them powers that they do not deserve.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Sid
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)
Anti Semite means anti Jewish,to everybody except those Stormfront freaks who make this same lame "look it up in the dictionary!" argument every time someone calls them anti Semites.Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)It never has meant anything else. Anyone who tries to argue otherwise is either stupid or trying to minimise Arab anti-Semitism by saying "but Arabs are Semites too!"
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Hitting the nail on the head right there.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
Kurska
(5,739 posts)People are saying the term anti-semite is used to mean something different than what is necessarily implied from the component parts. Just like how homophobia means something different than a "fear" of gay people most of the time.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
Kurska
(5,739 posts)But what words actually mean aren't derived purely from what their constructions imply, but via a process where they are coined and then evolve over time in the common dialect.
So no it does not mean that. To say it does is to have a poor understanding of linguistics.
William769
(59,147 posts)Why are you wasting your time? Ignorance can be fixed, stupidity can't.
That is one thing I have learned on these forums.
P.S. I case it's not clear, I stand with you on this.
REP
(21,691 posts)Then go for it.
cali
(114,904 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)But "anti-Semitic" refers to hatred of Jews, and NOTHING ELSE. Mexicans are Americans because Mexico is on the North American continent; "anti-American" refers to hatred of the USA. I am not sure why this is hard to understand.
to make hatred of the Jews seem rational and sanctioned by scientific knowledge. The similar term antisemitisch ("anti-semitic" was first used in 1860, by Jewish scholar Moritz Steinschneider. See Wikipedia's article on the etymology and usage of the term.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anti-Semitism#Etymology
WillyT
(72,631 posts)And BTW... Aren't the Jews and the Arabs related ???
Isaac and Ishmael
So are we basically spendng out lives and treasures for the Hatfields and McCoys ???
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)just like it doesn't matter that Mexicans are, in the broadest sense, "Americans"...because "anti-Semitic" means "hatred of Jews" just as "anti-American" means "hatred of the United States".
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)W
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)but "anti-American" doesn't mean "anti-Mexican".
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Sid
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)what anti semitic is known to mean.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)As language studies are interwoven with cultural studies, the term also came to describe the extended cultures and ethnicities, as well as the history of these varied peoples as associated by close geographic and linguistic distribution.[1]
From OP.
You may find the co-option useful, even desreable...
But it is NOT the truth.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Greece, it has the meaning your Jewish friends are telling you. At the moment you are engaging, and I know you do not mean to, in historical revisionism.
Since you are quoting from Wiki, let me counter with an actual history of, not linguistics
Pre-Christian anti-Judaism in ancient Greece and Rome which was primarily ethnic in nature
Christian antisemitism in antiquity and the Middle Ages which was religious in nature and has extended into modern times
Traditional Muslim antisemitism which was—at least in its classical form—nuanced, in that Jews were a protected class
Political, social and economic antisemitism of Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment Europe which laid the groundwork for racial antisemitism
Racial antisemitism that arose in the 19th century and culminated in Nazism
Contemporary antisemitism which has been labeled by some as the New Antisemitism[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_antisemitism
By the way, they do not oppose each other. A historical understanding of the term is different from a linguistic understanding of the term. And yes, Hebrew has more than a few elements of Aramaic in the language, like the whole first five books of the Bible, the Pentateuch are in Aramaic, and many of the dead sea scrolls are either in aramaic or primitive hebrew.
You are confusing a term used by linguists, with hebrew being one of the five linguistic groups traced way back, like 15K years, with a term used by historians. It is truly apples and oranges, they are both fruits, but that is about it.
Edit to correct languages for groups, since here being exact matters.
1000words
(7,051 posts)Thanks.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)we actually had this exact discussion in a graduate level class on the history of antisemitism decades ago. And it had to do with the term used by both disciplines. It was good to have an expert on semitic linguistics and one in historic antisemitism in the same room. Oh it was spirited.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)and who understand the issue and history MUCH better than you have repeatedly corrected your false bullshit up and down this thread.
The term means "anti-Jewish." Because it does. Because it always has.
It does not mean what you claim it means. Because it doesn't. Because it never has.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)and if you dont know that you are not intelligent enough to decide how to change language
ps: i doubt you have jewish 'friends'
Enrique
(27,461 posts)not that I have anything against semantics.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts) 
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)There, fixed your title.
Sid
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Anti-Arabism or Arabophobia means anti-Arab.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Is always a fool's errand, I suppose.
IOW - Anti-Semitic, is against Semites, and just who were the Semites???
But we're not talking about history and logic any longer... we're talking emotion.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)And not its currently acceptable use as a word for a general hatred of gay people. After all that is what is implied by the supposed "math/logic" of the word.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)And it runs the gamut, from the "yuck" factor, to out and out brutal violence.
And I've gotten in more than a few of their faces.
Not sure how that applies to the current subject.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)"Anti-semitic needs to be redefined, because the actual meaning of the words used to construct it indicate something different."
"Homophobia needs to be redefined, because the actual meaning of the words used to construct it indicate something different."
Why do you advocate one argument and reject the other?
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Are you seriously claiming the Jews "appropriated" or stole the term anti-semitic? Who is the y'all you're talking about? You are aware the term was coined by a non-jew right?
So your problem isn't that it is an accurate terminology wise, but the jews unfairly claimed it?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I am sorry I assumed such. You ARE engaging in revisionism.
Anti semitism as in hate of Jews goes to ancient Classical Greece and the occupation of that area of the world by Greek troops, that is a tad longer than a hundred years Willy. Just a tad longer than a 1000 as well. Even longer than 2000, more like 2500.
Keep digging at this point.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Your comments are getting creepy.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Digging yourself in deeper and deeper.
Sid
1000words
(7,051 posts)Hatred is fear, no?
We are in agreement, by the way, but since the thread has a general element of linguistics and the concept of word meaning ...
Kurska
(5,739 posts)They activate different parts of the brain for one. People do like to conflate the too with an air of folksy wisdom. However, if a grizzly bear was in front of me I'd be afraid of it. I wouldn't hate it though.
I figured they were intimately connected.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)FMRI studies are fascinating.
It makes sense considering how different a person who is consumed with hatred vs. consumed by fear can act.
Obviously they are closely related and you are likely to hate what you fear and so forth, but you can have one without the other.
1000words
(7,051 posts)Perhaps I'm over thinking it, but I figure there is "fight or flight" fear and then there is the kind of fear from ignorance that fosters hatred.
To the Google! There's research to be done ...
foo_bar
(4,193 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)
stevil
(1,541 posts)When has anyone described any anti-semitic prejudice against anyone besides jews?
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)I will nonetheless have to acknowledge than linguistically speaking the word "Anti-Semitism" has only one meaning and that is hatred and/or animosity against Jewish people. Other questions about the rightness or the wrongness of the Zionist project in Palestine, or questions about how the charge of anti-Semtism has been dishonestly used to silence criticism of the Israeli state or whether or not Israel is a racist state are all besides the point. They can be argued separately. But in terms of definitions - the word "anti-Semtism has only one meaning and that is hatred and/or animosity against Jewish people.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)The entire western world became Anti-Semitic against the Jews after the Crucifixion.
But that was helped by a thousand or two years of preaching.
The "Christians" were DEFINITELY Anti-Semitic, NO ???
They crucified the Jew known as Jesus...
Or it was the Romans, which ended up with the heart of the church in a suburb of Rome, known as the Vatican.
Or was it both?
Then there was Martin Luther...
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)historians, I know they are really silly people, KNOW THIS, and have written about this.
Yes, IT PRECEDES that man from Nazareth by about 500 years.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)that until the 18th/19th Century anti-Jewish sentiment in Europe was primarily religious based rather than primarily ethnically based. Yes Luther wanted to expel the Jews - but he wanted to annihilate the Ana-Baptist - kill every last one of them. Even the Massachusetts legislature in the year 1700 mandated the death penalty for merely practicing Roman Catholicism. Religious persecution was the norm in most of the western world at the time. Christendom in the pre-enlightenment era simply could not countenance anyone who diverged from proper theology and certainly could not countenance anyone who would not even acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. This was a religious based persecution. In the 19th Century the rise of nationalism in Europe including an exclusivity that would not include those who were traditionally viewed as outsiders. At the same time as Jewish people became participants in enlightenment thinking and secularism grew in leaps and bounds - many Jews came to define their Jewishness more by their ancestral heritage and their unique cultural and linguistic traditions than by their religious beliefs. Anti-Jewishness ceased being about the question of who does not believes in Jesus Christ as their Savior and more a racialist label against an identified community who were thought to be outsiders. Early 20th Century anti-Semites no longer cared about whether someone had been baptized - they no longer defined Jewishness in those terms. It was now a racial theory rather than simply old fashioned religious persecution. AT least this is one prevailing point of view on the matter - not that all historians agree.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)on the evolution of antisemitism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_antisemitism
It goes well before the rise of Christianity. The story of Hanukah, is a classic example of the earliest forms it took as well as to a point Purim. (And both in my mind are representative, not 100 true at all, even though Hanukah is closer to the historical record)
Mosby
(19,491 posts)Really.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Well, here's Dictionary.com:
And here's Merriam-Webster:
So please, just stop. You're really not impressing anyone; we all know perfectly well what "anti-Semitic" means. No need to throw a mini-tantrum just because your "tap tap tap- is this thing working" thread didn't gain very much traction.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)But you're wrong. Anti-Semitism means Anti-Jewish if usage means ANYTHING.
This argument is approximately .001% as clever as you think it is.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)Maybe that old meme about how those awful Jews wallow in their history which is no worse than anyone else's. Holocaust? big deal, not worse than other genocides. blah, blah, sick fucko blah.
cali
(114,904 posts)is discretely different from its' root. Now maybe you'd like to change that, though I certainly question the motives of those obsessing about it, and maybe it will change in time- such is the nature of language.
the word was coined to encapsulate anti-Jewish sentiment in the 1880s. that's how it is used by historians, linguists and all other scholars as well as the general public
I think it's vile, low, despicable and contemptible to play this game. It serves no one well..
gollygee
(22,336 posts)I'm really uncomfortable with this. I don't care what the entymology of the word is, everyone has always used it as "anti-Jewish", at least in the past 100 years or so, and to pretend it means something else is either clueless or revisionist.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)it's exactly the type of argument that you see from holocaust deniers.
Sid
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)A pot is a cooking vessel, usually made of metal, in which one can make stews, soups, and other primarily liquid preparations
So when people say they "smoke pot" it can't mean they are inhaling the burnt vapors of anything.
You can't smoke a pot! So all this talk on the Internet about "smoking pot" is complete nonsense.
WatermelonRat
(340 posts)Anti-Semitism has meant hatred of Jews specifically for over a century. That is the universally understood meaning. This sort of thing is a transparent attempt at trivializing the virulent bigotry that still exists against Jews.
MineralMan
(151,269 posts)of antisemitism? That word has never meant "fear or hatred of semitic people." It has always meant "fear or hatred of Jews."
As someone who spent a lot of time at a university studying linguistics, I can tell you that your reverse construction of the meaning of that word is ridiculous. One can spend a lot of time screwing around with linguistics to come up with completely irrational word meanings, but words mean what they mean in usage, not in their linguistic roots.
As has been pointed out to you, the word was created as a neologism in Nazi Germany, and then made the transition into English usage. It did not exist before that. It meant "fear or hatred of Jews." It had nothing to do with the roots of a regional language group at all.
Attempting to retroactively define a word that has a strong, focused definition, as recorded in every dictionary I've seen, is specious. My question is why you are doing this. I'm sure I don't know, but would like to hear an explanation from you.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)MineralMan
(151,269 posts)Read this at the link below:
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2006/summer/irreconcilable-differences
Schism over Anti-Semitism Divides Key White Nationalist Group, American Renaissance
By Heidi Beirich and Mark Potok
HERNDON, Va. -- For a gathering of people devoted to denouncing the inferiority of blacks and sounding the alarm about civilization-threatening Muslims, the biannual conferences thrown by the New Century Foundation, publisher of the racist newsletter American Renaissance, are decidedly genteel affairs. Men dress in suits and ties, women in formal business attire, and there are no uniformed skinheads or Klansmen to be seen. Large plasma television screens, Starbucks coffee spreads and fancy linens adorn the hotel meeting hall. Epithets have no place here.
Or at least they didn't. At the latest edition of the conferences that began in 1994, held this February at the Hyatt Dulles hotel, a nasty spat broke out that upset the gathering's decorum -- and may even shape the future of the radical right.
It began when David Duke, the former Klan leader and author of Jewish Supremacism, strode to a microphone after French author Guillaume Faye wrapped up a talk vilifying Muslims entitled "The Threat to the West." Duke thanked Faye for remarks that "touched my genes." But then he went one further.
"There is a power in the world that dominates our media, influences our government and that has led to the internal destruction of our will and spirit," Duke said, according to an undisputed account in The Forward newspaper.
Are you sure you want to continue this discussion?
egduj
(881 posts)And just so you're clear on what I mean by "anti-semitism," I mean your bigoted stance towards Jewish people.
cali
(114,904 posts)Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)you call him that with no basis whatsoever. Your shameless lying undermines legitimate exposure of real anti-semitism when it does occur. And you know it.
WatermelonRat
(340 posts)This is a common line of deflection and trivialization amongst anti-semitic groups, just as derision of the term "homophobia" is common among anti-gay groups. Given how strongly he pushed the idea, I have a hard time believing that these are just idle musings about semantics.
I don't really know this guy well, so I can't judge him with absolute certainty, but my overall impression of him after this thread is not favorable.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)In fact it is a major disruptive force in the world today and a major obstacle to peace and stability. I do not accept that the false use of the charge of Anti-Semtism to silence criticism of the Israeli Government is a trivial matter either. The inability to rationally discuss the Israel/Palestine conflict because of that charge - has contributed in a major way to making a just and lasting peace in Israel/Palestine all the more improbable. When people make frivolous charges of anti-Semtism to silence discussion - that is the ultimate form of trivializing anti-Semitism and deflecting attention away from real anti-Semtism and other forms of racism and bigotry.