Did you just say something along the lines of this?
How can it be antisemitic when Palestinians are Semites?
Saying one group of Semites is treating another group of Semites appallingly is not Antisemitism.
In short, have you used the ‘semite’ part of ‘Antisemitism’ to refer to all Semites and therefore discredit the word ‘antisemitism’ as normally understood and the accusation behind its use?
If so you have done something which you might believe to be insightful and clever but is, in fact, facile and ignorant. Here is why:
It was coined over 130 years ago in Germany by people specifically discussing Judenhass. In these discussions ‘Jew’ and ‘Semite’ were considered synonyms. It quickly became understood to mean only that and is widely accepted in common parlance to mean the hatred of Jews and nobody else.
Therefore ‘antisemitism’ is a misnomer, that’s no big deal. Greenland isn’t green and the woods in one’s golf bag are not made of wood. But if you refuse to pass somebody their golf club for this reason you wouldn’t just be fired as a caddy, you would be universally considered a dick. ‘Antisemitism’ is a word that has stuck and is commonly accepted to mean something quite specific, namely Jew hatred. If you can find any regular use of ‘antisemitism’ to mean literally, anti the Semitic languages or its speakers, you might be able to make a case for the invention of a clearer term. I suggest you can’t so there is no need.
So what difference does it make that, when broken down into its constituent parts of ‘anti’, ‘Semite’ and ‘ism’, it has a different meaning? Especially when everyone knows what it denotes? Calling a stick of rhubarb an ‘aircraft carrier’ doesn’t mean you can eat an aircraft carrier or land a plane on a stick of rhubarb. .
If you honestly think ‘antisemitism’ doesn’t make sense and this bothers you then simply swap it in your head for ‘anti-Jew’ or ‘Jew-hatred’ and continue the discussion. The disparity between its accepted use and its literal formulation is of no consequence and is entirely irrelevant to any discussion where it is being used.
But you already know this, surely, so why did you attempt to make it mean something other than its universally understood meaning? What purpose does your pseudo-clever interruption serve? That is a serious question and it is worth searching within yourself for an answer.
We all say stupid things due to ignorance so don’t feel too ashamed if that is what occurred. However, you have been told now and so lack the excuse of ignorance. If your mistake is repeated again it is not from ignorance but from malign intent, likely from a desire to mask your hatred and exculpate yourself or others of the offence of antisemitism by denying it exists. Be in no doubt that if you choose to do this you are an unmentionable, a four letter word, a dissembler, a liar and someone to be vilified or ignored.
22 thoughts on “You know what it means so why are you bullshitting?”
Well put. They know and continue to hide behind ‘but they’re all semites’ bs. Shall be quoting this plenty….tx
You are wrong. The term Semite dates back and came into common usage in the 1780’s.
Don’t print lies to support propaganda!
Ah. Well I never talked about ‘Semite’. I talked of ‘antisemite’. Meaning you’re not just wrong, you can’t even read.
The Jason posting above used the term ‘anti-semite’ to attack Alison himself not many months ago.
Jason pretends to be Jewish, he has done for years online.
Jason claims that he is of Germanic Jewish ancestry.
Jason abuses the fact that his surname is Schumann, to also display anti-semitism himself on twitter/other social networks.
Jason is an imposter. Jason isn’t Jewish. The Germanic Jewish name would be Schulman.
If I’m incorrect, please accept this as a challenge and prove me wrong.
We both know you can’t.
You, Jason aka Debatingculture on twitter, are a disgrace and it makes perfect sense why you cling on to a disgusting woman like Alison. Both of you are appalling excuses for humans.
Jews cannot transfer Nazi guilt to another race. Palestinians & darker coloured Jews have been treated nearly as bad as Jews in Warsaw ghetto were. Overwhelming military power against homemade resistance by a Native group can never be justified anywhere. Only good Indian is a dead Indian is a sad part of USA history & Israel is now emulating that for the sake of land. Most people associate the term Semite as being those from Mid-East area. Hair-splitting that term is like a Nazi measuring the length of a nose to determine life or death for the nose’s owner.
That’s a total change of subject.
It’s nothing like the Warsaw Ghetto.
You are making Jews Nazis. Hmmm. Standard.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think the fact that you cannot mention this subject. Or other historical events in relation to a certain group of people. Is an infringement on free speech.
I love it when people raise a subject and then say… “you cannot mention this subject!” and claim a (non-existent) infringement of free speech. Straight out of the Ken Livingstone book of fakery and linguistic contortion
Wait, I thought name calling was during adolescence. This article clearly ends the debate but confuses me with more labels. Why do we feel as though everyone needs to be on a certain team? Semites and antisemites (I have no idea what I’m talking about) are my brothers.
Let me get this straight David. You are demanding an acceptance of the meaning of ” antisemitism” being as it is universally understood?
I think what I think on this is more than adequately explained in the piece. If you have objections to it I’d love to hear them.
So you have no need of unnatural pseudo ” definitions” like the IHRA thingy ? And of course I have no objections
It’s simply not relevant. That’s a stage after this argument.
Interesting. I may be misrepresenting you but it reads like…..
Stage one is saying that the meaning of ” antisemitism” is as it is understood by the 1.5 billion speakers of the language. Stage two is to say that that isn’t what it means but its meaning is as stipulated by a few bums on chairs around a table. You are a true son of Waffling Norm.
You’re a fool
That maybe so. But to reiterate. You are a true son of Waffling Norm
You came with nothing and finished with less.
You have to defer to a man that, upon feeling uncomfortable, finishes with ” you’re a fool” and counts that as finishing with a lot.
“Felt uncomfortable” hahahahha
LikeLiked by 1 person