I think the thing with the word “antisemitism” is that it has been so thoroughly associated with nazis that it has become a weapon in itself. People wrestle over what it means because most people internalized “antisemites are bad”. If you can get “antisemite” associated with your enemy, you win.
It shouldn’t be a thing really. In a good faith conversation not between linguists, people should just clarify what they mean.
I just can’t agree with this line of reasoning. It’s so close to all the violent white supremacists who whine about how unfair and damaging it is to be called racist.
Hatred against jews has uniquely strong roots in western cultures that merits a specific term - every right wing conspiracy theory is still just reheated blood libel and protocols of the elders of zion. It’s deserving of a powerfully negative term.
If your opponent in an argument is antisemitic, you should win. Of course, anti-zionism is not antisemitism and criticism of the state of israel is not antisemitism.
Misuse of the term is something to be challenged through discourse, rather than scrapping the term, I think.
Oh, you are misunderstanding me. Antisemitism is a fine word in itself, what I’m arguing against is not the word antisemite itself. I am arguing against the pointless arguments over what the word means, the “what you really mean” or the “you are using the wrong word because technically it shouldn’t mean what people use it for” arguments.
And I also think it’s an okay argument to have, if society really has long-held conflicting beliefs over what a word means. Like the word “socialist”. It makes sense to argue over what that means. But trying to redefine “antisemite” as someone who hates Jews and Arabs as well is stupid, since in usage it was specifically used for people hating Jews.
I think the thing with the word “antisemitism” is that it has been so thoroughly associated with nazis that it has become a weapon in itself. People wrestle over what it means because most people internalized “antisemites are bad”. If you can get “antisemite” associated with your enemy, you win.
It shouldn’t be a thing really. In a good faith conversation not between linguists, people should just clarify what they mean.
I just can’t agree with this line of reasoning. It’s so close to all the violent white supremacists who whine about how unfair and damaging it is to be called racist.
Hatred against jews has uniquely strong roots in western cultures that merits a specific term - every right wing conspiracy theory is still just reheated blood libel and protocols of the elders of zion. It’s deserving of a powerfully negative term.
If your opponent in an argument is antisemitic, you should win. Of course, anti-zionism is not antisemitism and criticism of the state of israel is not antisemitism.
Misuse of the term is something to be challenged through discourse, rather than scrapping the term, I think.
Oh, you are misunderstanding me. Antisemitism is a fine word in itself, what I’m arguing against is not the word antisemite itself. I am arguing against the pointless arguments over what the word means, the “what you really mean” or the “you are using the wrong word because technically it shouldn’t mean what people use it for” arguments.
And I also think it’s an okay argument to have, if society really has long-held conflicting beliefs over what a word means. Like the word “socialist”. It makes sense to argue over what that means. But trying to redefine “antisemite” as someone who hates Jews and Arabs as well is stupid, since in usage it was specifically used for people hating Jews.
Ah! My apologies.
Yep, totally agree. It seems like irrelevant trolling at best.