Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
wutYou answered it yourself.
wutYou answered it yourself.
Obviously. Including people who think that there exists a "Semitism" of which someone is "anti". Which is plain FALSE and WRONG.Why? I thought this was just seeing what people think?
You told the other poster that they were using the word incorrectly.
is this a thread about personal understanding of it or what it generally meansYou told the other poster that they were using the word incorrectly.
henri is clearly aware of what the consensus of the word means. he wanted to dig deeper through etymology to note what it should mean. now, as i noted, it's an etymological trap. but. structurally, it makes sense. the idea that you can have an affliation actively against groups associated with that terminology - jews, arabs, syrians, etc - isn't wrong at all. there are people that very much despise jews and arabs in equal measure. but the word itself as used? doesn't mean that.This IS why I made this thread - so that people can point out the correct meaning, and those who don't know would learn it.
And those who don't WANT to learn it, well, would expose themselves of NOT WANTING.
See, I can also ask a legitimate personal opinion question, while at the same time exposing ignorance in people who think they are smarter than Wikipedia or Webster.
It's BOTH.is this a thread about personal understanding of it or what it generally means
henri is clearly aware of what the consensus of the word means. he wanted to dig deeper through etymology to note what it should mean. now, as i noted, it's an etymological trap. but. structurally, it makes sense. the idea that you can have an affliation actively against groups associated with that terminology - jews, arabs, syrians, etc - isn't wrong at all. there are people that very much despise jews and arabs in equal measure. but the word itself as used? doesn't mean that.
but yea, this thread then very much falls into what i clocked in my post. it's not a thread inquiring about people's idea of it, it's begging the question and a kind of trolly way to get people to "expose" themselves, whatever that means. pretty weird idea of 5d chess. trap card. whatever.
i'm also curious as to what exactly it entails as to other people supposedly not wanting to learn.
A people aren't a "someone". Assuming everyone in a demographic is anti-anything is also a tricky (nigh unprovable) assumption, and an uncharitable one to boot.Obviously. Including people who think that there exists a "Semitism" of which someone is "anti". Which is plain FALSE and WRONG.
Hence - this thread. At least let's speak words by using them in the meaning they ACTUALLY HAVE, ya know.
Oh, and also why I always write it as "antisemitism" - to stress that it's NOT "anti"-"Semitism".
Opinions are opinions, but words are words, don't you agree?
Racism towards jewish people.
See, THIS is actually another example of the same fallacy (but has nothing to do with this thread).A people aren't a "someone".
Let's examine the quote again, shall we?See, THIS is actually another example of the same fallacy (but has nothing to do with this thread).
You used "people" as "nation" - while I used "people" as "several individuals".
The "people" here is a group. Represented in-thread by Henri.Including people who think that there exists a "Semitism" of which someone is "anti".
Rushing to call something "word abuse" doesn't strengthen your argument, and it doesn't help support your claim in the OP of wanting to hear people's opinions.Whether it was your incomprehension of what I was talking about (and I lean that way, because it's pretty clear I *wasn't* talking about any "nations"), or it's an actual example of word abuse.
The UK has issues with a wide array of bigotry. This includes Islamaphobia as well as antisemitism, regardless of whether or not you've seen either personally.How many people in western cities have the privilege to be phobic about islam? Honestly I have never met antisemitism in my country. In London on the visit, I met it every day.
Thankfull the language isn't dead and don't mean the word was used more often against the jews don't mean the Jews aren't antisemitic when attack another semitic peoples as the palestinians.No, antisemitism is hatred of Jews specifically. The term was invented essentially to give an aura of science and rationality to centuries-old religious prejudice.
I can almost bet that "some people" (yes, this is on purpose) will end up pouring it anyways while screaming that "we are the only True Language Speakers..." *BOOOM*You can argue all you like that inflammable is the opposite of flammable, but that is not going to make it a good idea to pour petrol on a fire.
There are some [people](1) that think that there exists a [group](2) of which [someone](3) is [type](4).Let's examine the quote again, shall we?
The "people" here is a group. Represented in-thread by Henri.
However, your objection is to Henri - and people like him - attempting to widen the definition of antisemitism to include, in your words, "someone" is "anti"(semitic).
Your position here is very clear. Antisemitism is prejudice against Jews (for being Jewish). But you're also justifying this by claiming that (technically) Semitic people are antisemitic, and therefore can't ever be included.
Now, I agree that antisemitism as we all use it refers to Jews and not all Semitic demographics, however I object to you implicitly calling Palestinians and / or Arabs in general antisemitic. They're the "someone" in your quote. Which is why I said "someone" is not a people.
It's okay to say "antisemitism actually refers to prejudice against Jews specifically". It's not okay to say "you can't use antisemitism to describe (actions against) Palestinians because they're antisemitic themselves". Because you can't prove that. It's a negative assumption about Palestinians for no other reason than they're Palestinian.
You know there's a word for that too, right?
Rushing to call something "word abuse" doesn't strengthen your argument, and it doesn't help support your claim in the OP of wanting to hear people's opinions.
The UK has issues with a wide array of bigotry. This includes Islamaphobia as well as antisemitism, regardless of whether or not you've seen either personally.
And here's an actual example of a (1), who outright includes (4) as a part of (2), although kinda in reverse.Thankfull the language isn't dead and don't mean the word was used more often against the jews don't mean the Jews aren't antisemitic when attack another semitic peoples as the palestinians.
Again, assuming bad faith because it's convenient for your argument to do so doesn't really affirm what you said about wanting to hear peoples' opinions. But I'll try this one more time.I could blame MY "bad English" - but I could also blame YOUR low comprehension skills.
There are some [people](1) that think that there exists a [group](2) of which [someone](3) is [type](4).
Now, you read it as: (1) think that (2) partially(3) includes (4).
But what I actually meant: (1) think that (2) exists and there's ALSO a (3) who are (4) towards (2).
To regroup it better: Some people(1) think that some other people(3) are "anti"(4) towards "Semites"(2).
Again, I can give you some slack based on MY "non-native" English, but I also have certain reasonable doubts that you "misread" it on purpose.
So what you're saying is that you actually meant "people think the word Semitism exists" (which it does), that people can be "anti" towards (they can) . . . and that this is wrong?Obviously. Including people who think that there exists a "Semitism" of which someone is "anti". Which is plain FALSE and WRONG.
Hence - this thread. At least let's speak words by using them in the meaning they ACTUALLY HAVE, ya know.
Oh, and also why I always write it as "antisemitism" - to stress that it's NOT "anti"-"Semitism".
Opinions are opinions, but words are words, don't you agree?
No, it's not. Because antisemitism is NOT targeting anyone who isn't specifically Jewish. Not Arabs, not Assyrians, not anyone else. Just Jews.Again, assuming bad faith because it's convenient for your argument to do so doesn't really affirm what you said about wanting to hear peoples' opinions. But I'll try this one more time.
Here's the quote:
So what you're saying is that you actually meant "people think the word Semitism exists" (which it does), that people can be "anti" towards (they can) . . . and that this is wrong?
I think you're getting too hung up on semantics. I don't agree with Henri's position because "antisemitism" as we commonly understand it is directly solely at Jews despite Semitic people being a far wider and more varied demographic on the whole, but I also believe you can absolutely be "anti" "Semitic" (people). We just call that racism though.
Also, as I said before, all three spellings of antisemitism are accepted. You can spell it however you like, but you don't get to tell people their spelling is incorrect just because you think it might be mistakenly applied to other Semitic people. The spelling is fine.
I get the feeling you're not reading my posts.No, it's not. Because antisemitism is NOT targeting anyone who isn't specifically Jewish. Not Arabs, not Assyrians, not anyone else. Just Jews.
So when you INSIST on "Semitism" - you also INSIST on "anti-Semitic Israel attacking Arab Semites".
Which is why I. Made. This. Thread.
To battle the antisemitic fallacies which PEOPLE LIKE YOU spread and thrive on.
And here's a 1.000.000 shekels question:
Link me a Wiki (or equivalent) page for "Semitism" (in that specific word form), will ya?
Because, again, to be "anti-something", there must be a standalone word for that "something".
So, if you insist on "anti-Semitism" - show me a Wiki page for "Semitism", of which "some people" are "anti".
Let's see.
I get you can't show me a "Semitism" page anywhere (beyond what I linked myself), because there isn't one.I get the feeling you're not reading my posts.