So Labour's attack dogs were lying psycho's....well lying fantasist's more accurately.

Ah, I see your problem.

You think anti-semitic is the joining of two words to mean something different instead of meaning anti (against) the second part (semitic).


The same as anti-man or anti-woman could mean people who do not like tomatoes.



What do you think manhole means?
 
Sponsored Links
EFLImpudence said:
Ah, I see your problem.

You think anti-semitic is the joining of two words to mean something different instead of meaning anti (against) the second part (semitic).


The same as anti-man or anti-woman could mean people who do not like tomatoes.



What do you think manhole means?
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter what the two separate words mean. Antisemitism has been defined by a globally recognised organisation, which nearly everyone is happy to adopt, except you. You only refuse to accept it on the basis that two separate words mean something different.
If a globally recognised organisation defined antiwoman or antiman to mean people who do not like tomatoes, and nearly everyone was happy to adopt that definition, then it could mean people who do not like tomatoes.
Obviously it doesn't because a globally recognised organisation has not defined it as such. It's another example of your resort to absurdity, just like your previous ant - giraffe absurdity.

That's the beauty of social construction. It describes the process of shared assumptions about reality. Anyone who refuses to accept the shared assumption is the one who is out of step. Do you also deny social construction is a real occurrence?

What does 反猶太主義 mean? It's another example of a social construct event.

Manhole has a shared assumption of reality for an opening for people to enter the drainage, but it's not limited to men and everyone accepts that.
If we take the word apart, it could mean a a hole that only a man can enter, or a hole in a man, or a man-shaped hole, or any other imagined meaning.

If I describe you as a trainwreck, you're not literally a crashed train.

Do you also refuse to accept the shared meaning of understand?
 
You seem to be forgetting that I was actually using your accepted definition when saying that Fillyboy was antisemetic by calling Tel Aviv a dump.

Going back to what gave rise to that and aroused you - I said "Depends what you mean by antisemitism", so was what Labour did to attract all this damaging bad publicity really your anti-semitism or was it just something that upset some Jewish people?
 
Also in reply to your reasons for what I consider a misnomer, where does it leave Semitic people who are not Jewish?

Do we have to invent another word for them?


It is not as easy as likening it to calling me a train-wreck because that does not alter the definition of a train-wreck and train-wrecks still exist and everyone knows what they are.
 
Sponsored Links
EFLImpudence said:
You seem to be forgetting that I was actually using your accepted definition when saying that Fillyboy was antisemetic by calling Tel Aviv a dump.

Going back to what gave rise to that and aroused you - I said "Depends what you mean by antisemitism", so was what Labour did to attract all this damaging bad publicity really your anti-semitism or was it just something that upset some Jewish people?
Click to expand...
I was intrigued by you describing the accepted definition of antisemitism as flawed.
It's taken several posts to arrive at an agreed definition.
I've asked you several times to explain why you think it's flawed.
You've avoided answering.
You're still avoiding answering.
 
EFLImpudence said:
Also in reply to your reasons for what I consider a misnomer, where does it leave Semitic people who are not Jewish?

Do we have to invent another word for them?
Click to expand...
Semitic people:
Semites, Semitic peoples or Semitic cultures was a term for an ethnic, cultural or racial group. The terminology is now largely obsolete outside the grouping "Semitic languages" in linguistics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people
​
Note: The terminology is now largely obsolete. It's use was based in the Victorian concepts of race.
It's obsolete largely because antisemitism has come to mean racism against Jews.
The terms "anti-Semite" or "antisemitism" came by a circuitous route to refer more narrowly to anyone who was hostile or discriminatory towards Jews in particular
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people
​
Call them by their collective ethnicity, culture or nationality. Or remain in the mindset of nearly one hundred years ago.
Objections to the usage of the term, such as the obsolete nature of the term "Semitic" as a racial term and the exclusion of discrimination against non-Jewish Semitic peoples, have been raised since at least the 1930s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people
​
How does etymology compare to other disciplines if we try to retain one hundred year old ideology?
 
Well, I have done it several times - anyway:

It is flawed because Semitism has no more to do with being Jewish than it has to with being Muslim.

It was hijacked by the IHRA so that any criticism of Jews or Israel can be immediately silenced by a claim of racism which is not applicable to religions nor nationalities.

It is/was not contradicted because everyone is afraid of criticising anything connected with anything to do with the holocaust (IHRA) knowing that that itself would be greeted with cries of antisemitism and racism.
 
EFLImpudence said:
It is not as easy as likening it to calling me a train-wreck because that does not alter the definition of a train-wreck and train-wrecks still exist and everyone knows what they are.
Click to expand...
The use of trainwreck to describe people is an example of a social construct.
It's exactly the same as antisemitism, or racism which are other social constructs.

How about fire engine?
It's obviously not an engine that creates fire.
Fire Engineering is not about designing appliances for keeping warm.
 
Yep as EFL says

Tis just a way of stifling any criticism of Israel by playing the race / discrimination card
 
EFLImpudence said:
It is flawed because Semitism has no more to do with being Jewish than it has to with being Muslim.
Click to expand...
How can you say that, when it clearly and unambiguously describes antisemitism as:
“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. ..”​
Additionally,
Semitic people:
Semites, Semitic peoples or Semitic cultures was a term for an ethnic, cultural or racial group. The terminology is now largely obsolete outside the grouping "Semitic languages" in linguistics...
The terms "anti-Semite" or "antisemitism" came by a circuitous route to refer more narrowly to anyone who was hostile or discriminatory towards Jews in particular
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people​

Any flaw is a figment of your imagination.


EFLImpudence said:
It was hijacked by the IHRA so that any criticism of Jews or Israel can be immediately silenced by a claim of racism which is not applicable to religions nor nationalities.
Click to expand...
Again, there is a clear unambiguous explanation that criticism of Israel is permitted.
However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.
https://www.state.gov/defining-anti-semitism/​
Criticism of any other ethicity is probably also racism. Thus criticism of Jews is also racism. But criticism of Israel is not necessarily racism, or antisemitism.


EFLImpudence said:
It is/was not contradicted because everyone is afraid of criticising anything connected with anything to do with the holocaust (IHRA) knowing that that itself would be greeted with cries of antisemitism and racism.
Click to expand...
I think you are grasping at straws. One can discuss antisemitism without reference to the holocaust.
It's a bit like resorting to the comparison of Hitler in a discussion. It demonstrates a lost cause.
 
EFLImpudence said:
I will post this again.

https://www.tikkun.org/who-gets-to-define-anti-semitism

If you disagree then so be it.
I might just think you have ulterior motives.

I can say no more.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. If you prefer to adopt the ideology of a newspaper, which is outdated and is based in Victorian beliefs, over the accepted modern-day meaning which has been defined by an internationally recognised organisation and adopted by governments and other organisations around the world.

I just think you might have ulterior motives.

The paper describes itself as:
Tikkun has been a platform for young writers to emerge as public intellectuals and for established thinkers and academics to posit groundbreaking philosophies and radical ideas.
https://www.tikkun.org/about-tikkun​
When in reality it's proffering outdated, one hundred year old ideas.
 
I have to agree with EFL.

Any criticism is labelled anti semitism.

I was arguing with someone I know how ironic I felt it was that the once persecuted Jews were taking land from the Palestinians, diverting rivers, cutting off electricity and water supplies etc...... I was immediately labelled anti-Semitic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Sponsored Links
Back
Top