Another look at "anti-semitism".

[Shusha]

Then the killing of billions of animals (in the US alone) every year, is far more of a tragedy than the killing of the Jews in WW2.

Most people find equating human deaths with animal deaths to be an abhorrent concept. I get it that you don't. (Taking you at your word). But people are going to have a hard time understanding that throwing a human being into an oven is equivalent to setting a trap for a rat or squashing a cockroach. You get that, right?

 

[Shusha]

This is why I get called an anti-Semite, because people can't be bothered to figure out what I'm talking about.

Alternatively, rather than blaming a communication failure on the other party, you might want to consider refining your own communication.

There are fairly typical markers of antisemites. One of those markers is repeating typical canards. Like rich Jews. (Something you incidentally doubled down on in your last post, rather than walking away from).

If you don't want to be mistaken for being antisemitic, you might want to take under advisement the sorts of things we are point out to you read as such. Make sense?

 

[frigidweirdo]

The death of these animals at the hands of humans is not so different to the death of Jews in the Holocaust.

Does this make me an anti-Semite because this is what I see?

Dude. Um. Yeah. In spades. Duh. Are you kidding me? Oh, honey.

1. You are equating the lives of human beings with animals. You are literally dehumanizing the Jewish people. You are deliberately choosing to draw a parallel between a questionable nutritional and moral practice and the murder of human beings. Jewish human beings.

2. You are deliberately using the Jewish people as an example. Why did you choose the Jewish people as your example? Why not the Armenians? Why not the Cambodians? Why not the Rohingya? Why not the Tutsi? Why not the First Nations peoples of the Americas?

3. The slaughter of cows for food (as an example) may be immoral. (I don't think it is, but I respect your point if view). But it is not equivalent to destroying all cows with black spots because those particular cows are not to be considered cows, but simply carrots and therefore not subject to the normal rules. Do you see what I am saying? The Nazis put Jews in a sub-human category. Something other. It would be the equivalent of downgrading cows with black spots to carrots. Which are permissible to kill.

Yes, I'm equating the lives of humans with animals. Not equating the lives of Jews with the lives of animals, but of humans.

In fact this was my who point. The narrative that people give will be dependent on how people see things. I'm a vegetarian.

No, I'm not literally dehumanizing Jewish people. This is the other problem. People like you are willing to jump to massive conclusions that simply are not true.

So someone sees things one way, I see things another way. Someone wants to force me to accept their way, so they shout "anti-Semite"

You said no one was doing this. And now you're saying it's actually happening.

I was using Jewish people as an example because I was responding to someone talking about the Holocaust. Also, I was using an example of mass murder compared to mass murder. The holocaust is one of the most prominent, if not the most prominent, of Genocides in the world.

Now, again, you're jumping to conclusions that you want to make. You took me comparing some tragedy with another that I think is a tragedy. I did this in order to prove a point, that the narrative of history is not just about what actually happens.

Fact. Billions of animals a year are slaughtered.
Fact. Millions of Jews were slaughtered in WW2.
Fact. Billions is more than millions.

So, if we take the pure facts, we take away all emotion. We say that death is a tragedy. Then the killing of billions of animals (in the US alone) every year, is far more of a tragedy than the killing of the Jews in WW2. That's emotionless.

Now, we take history.

Fact. History says that the slaughter of Jews in WW2 was one of the biggest tragedies the world has ever seen.
Fact. History doesn't even bother to use the word tragedy for the slaughter of billions of animals in the US every year.

Does this suggest that History is ONLY what happened?

No, it suggests that History is more than just what happened. It's how people tell the narrative.

Now, does this make me an anti-Semite for seeing this?

So why not Cambodians? Well, the person I was replying to said:

Suppose the holocaust deniers are somehow magically able to obtain and destroy all photographs, accounting records, lists of names and all other physical evidence of the systematic murder of some six million Jews and other people. Would this be proof that the holocaust never happened and therefore is truly not included in the past happenings on the planet?

Ah, does this make the person I was replying to an anti-Semite because they used Jews and not Cambodians? Why am I an anti-Semite because I used Jews as an example, but this person isn't an anti-Semite because they used Jews as an example?

Point 3.

I grew up around cows. The cows that were slaughtered for meat were the same kind of cows.

There are 800 types of cows. Are all types of cows consumed in the USA? No. But not all animals are killed and eaten.

In fact doing things to cats is different to doing things to cows.

SPCA of Texas

I found this. It says killing animals is against the law. Clearly not as animals are killed all the time and it's legal, in Texas.

We differentiate between animals.

Yes, the Nazis put humans in sub-human conditions. The term "sub-human" is based on how we, as humans, would expect to be treated. But then animals are also in "sub-human" conditions and we don't give a damn.

We do downgrade cattle to something that we can kill. That's the point.

Okay. So I'm going to take you at your word here. You are not really downgrading humans so much as upgrading animals. You are putting each animal death on par with each human death.

I can actually respect that, while completely disagreeing with it.

Here's my suggestion going into the future, if you don't want to be mistaken for being antisemitic. When discussing animal genocide vs human genocide -- don't address a particular group of humans (or animals). Even if your opponent does first. Don't buy into that division or comparison. Just don't. For the very reason we are having this discussion -- its comes across, perhaps, in a way you do not intend.

But the question here is, does it make me an anti-Semite? Does it justify me being abused by people on this forum?

I'll take your suggestions and ignore them. Not because I don't want to listen to other people, but because I do get really fed up with people jumping instantly to some default in their head.

It's like they know you're a liberal, so they decide you vote Democrat. They decide you like Hillary. They decide you are pro-this and anti-that. It annoys me greatly.

If people can't take the effort to understand what I'm actually talking about and sometimes I deliberately set them up for this. It's not so hard. Too many people on this forum are like that. You've taken to the time to figure things out. Others don't.

You said people don't just call people anti-Semites because they don't agree with people. I think I've proven you wrong on that one.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Then the killing of billions of animals (in the US alone) every year, is far more of a tragedy than the killing of the Jews in WW2.

Most people find equating human deaths with animal deaths to be an abhorrent concept. I get it that you don't. (Taking you at your word). But people are going to have a hard time understanding that throwing a human being into an oven is equivalent to setting a trap for a rat or squashing a cockroach. You get that, right?

Maybe they do. And I was making a point using that.

Then I got shouted down for being an anti-Semite.

If you get shouted down for that, then what won't you get shouted down for with the use of "anti-Semite"?

 

[frigidweirdo]

This is why I get called an anti-Semite, because people can't be bothered to figure out what I'm talking about.

Alternatively, rather than blaming a communication failure on the other party, you might want to consider refining your own communication.

There are fairly typical markers of antisemites. One of those markers is repeating typical canards. Like rich Jews. (Something you incidentally doubled down on in your last post, rather than walking away from).

If you don't want to be mistaken for being antisemitic, you might want to take under advisement the sorts of things we are point out to you read as such. Make sense?

Ah, so I have to go down to their level?

Basically if I had gone down to other people's level on this forum, I'd just be telling everyone they're an idiot in every post because they don't agree with me.

But feel free to call anyone an anti-Semite who says that some Jews are rich.

Look. I'm not anti-Semitic. I'm not anti-gay. I take all people as they come. An asshole is an asshole whether they're Jewish, Atheist, non-believer, Buddhist, Chinese, Chilean, Botswana, black, red, blue, green, whatever.

I'm not one of these people who gets cowed down because they're worried they might say something racist or homophobic. I had a gay boss once and I said something that I was confident wasn't homophobic and I'm sure he took offense because he took the line that straight people can't talk about gay people kind of attitude. I don't care.

I'll talk about Jews, Israelis etc, in the manner I see it. I'll talk about Muslims in the manner I see it.

I'm not going to pander to people who jump to conclusions and then hurl insults after one or two posts. I will not lower myself to that.

The fact the some Jewish people will hurl the "anti-Semite" insult at people in order to force the other to think in the manner they want is there, and it's happened to me, and I don't think it's right. That person in on my ignore list. I don't need to talk to such people. I have a lot of people on my ignore list. Whatever. I'll talk to those who don't insult.

 

[GHook93]

While I agree with your post for the most part, I would caution you about usurping a term which has always been intended to mean "anti-Jewish" and applying it to other groups. Antisemitism is not a generally applied term, like "discrimination". It means a very specific, very unique type of discrimination directed only at the Jewish people.

Actually it's a linguistic term, and the Semitic languages include both Hebrew and Arabic as well as others. So that's not very specific.

The term antisemitism has be coined to mean hatred of the Jews. Which nearly all Muslims fit that mold. So take your bullshit somewhere else


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Pogo]

While I agree with your post for the most part, I would caution you about usurping a term which has always been intended to mean "anti-Jewish" and applying it to other groups. Antisemitism is not a generally applied term, like "discrimination". It means a very specific, very unique type of discrimination directed only at the Jewish people.

Actually it's a linguistic term, and the Semitic languages include both Hebrew and Arabic as well as others. So that's not very specific.

The term antisemitism has be coined to mean hatred of the Jews. Which nearly all Muslims fit that mold. So take your bullshit somewhere else


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

And yet, it can't mean that. By definition. If you weren't pissing time away reading USMB on your fucking phone while sitting at a red light maybe you would have figured that out by now.

Once again the premise was that the term "antiSemitic" is specific to Jews. But "Semitic" isn't specific at all, therefore nor can its opposite be. And none of this refers to "nearly all Muslims" or any Muslims at all, or Jews either for that matter, since "Semitic" is a reference to language --- not religion.

 

[Shusha]

You said people don't just call people anti-Semites because they don't agree with people. I think I've proven you wrong on that one.

On the contrary. You have clearly expressed thoughts that are easily construed as antisemitic as they duplicate common antisemitic canards. (Dude! Equating animals with Jews is antisemitic! WTF?)

I disagree with you. I think its perfectly fine to slaughter and eat animals for nutritive value (assuming humane care for them while alive). The fact that I disagree with you is NOT reason to call you antisemitic.

BUT the canards you employ to further your argument are antisemitic. You use Jews as examples. You were called out on that. If that was unintentional, you would have thought about it, reflected on it, possibly apologized for offending Jewish people. And changed your habit. You didn't. Instead you further excused and justified your use of Jews as an example, even knowing it was offensive and labelled you as antisemitic.

I teach self-defense to people, often young people. Here is what I tell them about boundaries (simplified). If you put a boundary in place (ie please do not specifically equate Jews to animals), and they ignore and reject your boundary then it is not a mistake. They are intentional in their actions.

You are doing just that. You are being intentional in your justification about equating Jews (specifically) with animals.

 

[Shusha]

Maybe they do. And I was making a point using that.

Then I got shouted down for being an anti-Semite.

So maybe don't use Jews as an example. Then you can escape that altogether. Use humans generally. Instead of specific groups. Its not a difficult concept.

 

[jillian]

Jews are anti-Semitic.

No need to be silly

she's not being "silly". she's being her jew-hating self.

 

[Indeependent]

So, I asked some time ago, "Who are considered 'semites'" in this thread:

Anti-Semitism and Zionism

I do not believe that anyone understood where I was going with that question, so I will continue here. This is one wiki definition (and ANYONE can edit Wikipedia so don't go on with that 'slant'):

Semitic people - Wikipedia

Let me get to the point here. The anti-semetic card has been thrown around to those who are anti-Israel and perhaps anti-Jews. Pro-Palestinians have been given this label as well. And its a Sunday, the first day of the week and I have nothing better to do, hehe.

Many who post here as pro-Palestinian have no peaceful solution for the Palestinians, they only want the total destruction of the NATION of Israel. That is NEVER going to happen. The end result of going down that road is not going to be good for the Palestinians.

So, yes, in my honest opinion, Pro-Palestinians are anti-Semitic, not only because they hate the Nation of Israel and/or the Jews, but also because they do not ever have any proposition for a truly lasting peace for any of the people that live in that region.

Anit-Semitism in my opinion means that they also do not care at all for the welfare of the Palestinians as well.

Somewhere between half a person and a full person out of a hundred can explain anything at all in terms of Israel/West Bank Jordanians.
You are giving most 2 State Solution people way too much credit.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You said people don't just call people anti-Semites because they don't agree with people. I think I've proven you wrong on that one.

On the contrary. You have clearly expressed thoughts that are easily construed as antisemitic as they duplicate common antisemitic canards. (Dude! Equating animals with Jews is antisemitic! WTF?)

I disagree with you. I think its perfectly fine to slaughter and eat animals for nutritive value (assuming humane care for them while alive). The fact that I disagree with you is NOT reason to call you antisemitic.

BUT the canards you employ to further your argument are antisemitic. You use Jews as examples. You were called out on that. If that was unintentional, you would have thought about it, reflected on it, possibly apologized for offending Jewish people. And changed your habit. You didn't. Instead you further excused and justified your use of Jews as an example, even knowing it was offensive and labelled you as antisemitic.

I teach self-defense to people, often young people. Here is what I tell them about boundaries (simplified). If you put a boundary in place (ie please do not specifically equate Jews to animals), and they ignore and reject your boundary then it is not a mistake. They are intentional in their actions.

You are doing just that. You are being intentional in your justification about equating Jews (specifically) with animals.

Easily confused by people who are looking to be offended.

So if I use rich + Jew in the same sentence people get offended. But I worked for rich Jews. It's a fact. I didn't work for poor Jews, Middle Class Jews. People can choose to be offended, or they can choose not to.

How is equating Jews with animals anti-Semitic?

They are animals. I am an animal. You are an animal. All human beings are animals.

animal | Definition of animal in US English by Oxford Dictionaries

"A living organism which feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli."

If I said Jews weren't a living organism which feeds on organic matter, that might be anti-Semitic.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/yes-humans-are-animals-so-just-get-over-yourselves-1588990060

"
Yes, Humans Are Animals -- So Just Get Over Yourselves, Homo sapiens"

Well, you think it's fine to kill.

Imagine if Hitler had used Jews as food. Would that have been okay?
It's actually a very good question to make people question how they see the world.

Your answer is going to be "No". I know the default answers and I could probably guess why you'd say this, and I could probably guess some reasons why you'd say this is wrong. For the most part people have fear and they'll protect their own in order to stop them from being targeted.
So, Jews don't want harm to Jews because they're Jews. Christians don't want harm to Christians because they're Christians. So, if a Christian gets killed in Egypt, Christians in America might get shocked. But they won't be shocked by the US govt bombing the crap out of Iraq, because they see Iraq as a Muslim country and therefore only Muslims are getting killed. They don't know there are Christians in Iraq (even in Saddam's cabinet).

But yes, disagreeing with me is not a reason to call me anti-Semitic.

But it's funny how the person I was responding too used Jews as an example, and he's not anti-Semitic, but I follow his lead and suddenly I'm doing something you consider anti-Semitic.

Is this similar to a black person calling another black person "nigg*r" and a white person doing the same thing having different actions? Or is it merely that because this person is DEFENDING Jews then you'd not call them anti-Semitic, but because I'm not defending Jews therefore I'm therefore open to being labelled anti-Semitic?

You put boundaries in place, not me. If I go over your boundaries and then you call me an anti-Semite, that's your call. You might however be wrong.

If saying Jews are animals get me called an anti-Semite, when Jews are animals, because all humans are animals then there really isn't much I can do about it.

Again, the topic was about what History was, and it confirms my view that History is what people THINK it is, and not what actually happened.

 

[Shusha]

If saying Jews are animals get me called an anti-Semite, when Jews are animals, because all humans are animals then there really isn't much I can do about it

You keep doubling down. Its telling.

If you think all humans are animals then you should STOP USING JEWS SPECIFICALLY AS AN EXAMPLE OF THAT AND INSTEAD SAY ALL PEOPLE.

From now on, whenever equating animals and humans just don't pick a specific group of people.

Dude, this isn't hard.

 

[Shusha]

Imagine if Hitler had used Jews as food. Would that have been okay?

Wow. You REALLY just don't get it, do you?

You are asking the wrong question. You are framing the question in the wrong way. You are selecting a specific group of humans and asking if it is okay to eat them. WRONG QUESTION.

The correct question is whether or not it is permissible for humans to eat other humans. (As a preparatory question for asking if it is permissible to eat living things generally).

The framing of the question begs to differentiate between Jews and other humans. It ASSUMES that there is a difference between eating Jews and eating people in general. Do you get it now? Stop making a distinction between Jews and other humans.

The correct question is: Imagine if (national leader) had used humans for food. Would that have been okay?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Maybe they do. And I was making a point using that.

Then I got shouted down for being an anti-Semite.

So maybe don't use Jews as an example. Then you can escape that altogether. Use humans generally. Instead of specific groups. Its not a difficult concept.

So, if someone comes on here and starts talking about Jews, I should not reply talking about Jews because a non-Jew talking about Jews is anti-Semitic?

Wow.

 

[frigidweirdo]

If saying Jews are animals get me called an anti-Semite, when Jews are animals, because all humans are animals then there really isn't much I can do about it

You keep doubling down. Its telling.

If you think all humans are animals then you should STOP USING JEWS SPECIFICALLY AS AN EXAMPLE OF THAT AND INSTEAD SAY ALL PEOPLE.

From now on, whenever equating animals and humans just don't pick a specific group of people.

Dude, this isn't hard.

Ah, ah, it's telling.

You don't agree with me, you're a fucking anti-Semite.

I got it. It's telling that every time I use certain things Jewish people don't like, I will get "anti-Semite" thrown at me.

So, I cannot refer to Jewish people at all?

I didn't equate Jews to animals. I equated the Holocaust to the daily slaughter of animals. Two different things.

 

[Shusha]

So, I cannot refer to Jewish people at all?

I didn't equate Jews to animals. I equated the Holocaust to the daily slaughter of animals. Two different things.

So, you equated the slaughter of Jews to the slaughter of animals. That is exactly equating Jews to animals. Dude, really?

You can refer to the Jewish people whenever you mean the Jewish people specifically. As in whenever you intend to specifically separate Jews from the rest of humanity. There are plenty of good reasons to do so. (Such as discussing Jewish culture, the Hebrew language, specific Jewish holidays, Jewish beliefs, Jewish law, Jewish myths, Jewish history, Jewish foods, Jewish clothing, Jewish songs, Jewish stories, Jewish Holy Places, Jewish historical places, Jewish prayers, Jewish mythical or historical characters, Jewish literature.)

Discussing the permissibility of killing human beings is NOT a good reason to discuss Jews as specific and distinct from the rest of humanity.


Is this really so hard to understand?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Imagine if Hitler had used Jews as food. Would that have been okay?

Wow. You REALLY just don't get it, do you?

You are asking the wrong question. You are framing the question in the wrong way. You are selecting a specific group of humans and asking if it is okay to eat them. WRONG QUESTION.

The correct question is whether or not it is permissible for humans to eat other humans. (As a preparatory question for asking if it is permissible to eat living things generally).

The framing of the question begs to differentiate between Jews and other humans. It ASSUMES that there is a difference between eating Jews and eating people in general. Do you get it now? Stop making a distinction between Jews and other humans.

The correct question is: Imagine if (national leader) had used humans for food. Would that have been okay?

No, I don't seem to get why I keep getting told I'm an anti-Semite because I say things Jews don't like.

No, you're wrong, or at least you're looking to be offended. Hitler killed 6 million Jews in Concentration Camps and elsewhere. Some Jews will say the Holocaust is all about Jews. No one else need apply to have been the victim of the Holocaust.

It's a political tool.

holocaust | Definition of holocaust in US English by Oxford Dictionaries

"the Holocaust The mass murder of Jews under the German Nazi regime during the period 1941–45. More than 6 million European Jews, as well as members of other persecuted groups, such as gypsies and homosexuals, were murdered at concentration camps such as Auschwitz."

Look at the wording here. The Holocaust is the "mass murder of Jews under the German Nazi regime", then it goes on to say, in the next sentence "as well as member of other persecuted groups".

Yes, Jews suffered badly in the Holocaust. But they were not the only ones.

The Roma saw between 90,000 and 220,000 people killed according to Michael Berenbaum. "Berenbaum, Michael (2006). The World Must Know: The History of the Holocaust as Told in the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. ISBN 978-0-8018-8358-3." or 200,000 and 1.5 million by Hancock. "Hancock, Ian (2005). "True Romanies and the Holocaust: A Re-evaluation and an overview". The Historiography of the Holocaust. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 383–96. ISBN 1-4039-9927-9."

Here I have a population in 1939 of about 1 million. So the Holocaust was potentially as bad for the Roma people as for the Jewish people. Yet the Holocaust has been taken over by certain people as being about the Jews only.

Now, if I did this. If I take something and make it specifically about the Jews, I'm an anti-Semite. If a Jewish person does this, they're not. Go figure.

No, the correct question is what I asked. Why? Well, because we're talking about anti-Semitism. Should I start talking about the Cambodians instead? No, because then you'll tell me I'm off topic. Basically, you can't win.

Basically you want me to not say stuff that politically makes the Jewish community stronger, simply so Jews don't get offended.

I'm sorry, this is like blasphemy laws which are ridiculous.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So, I cannot refer to Jewish people at all?

I didn't equate Jews to animals. I equated the Holocaust to the daily slaughter of animals. Two different things.

So, you equated the slaughter of Jews to the slaughter of animals. That is exactly equating Jews to animals. Dude, really?

You can refer to the Jewish people whenever you mean the Jewish people specifically. As in whenever you intend to specifically separate Jews from the rest of humanity. There are plenty of good reasons to do so. (Such as discussing Jewish culture, the Hebrew language, specific Jewish holidays, Jewish beliefs, Jewish law, Jewish myths, Jewish history, Jewish foods, Jewish clothing, Jewish songs, Jewish stories, Jewish Holy Places, Jewish historical places, Jewish prayers, Jewish mythical or historical characters, Jewish literature.)

Discussing the permissibility of killing human beings is NOT a good reason to discuss Jews as specific and distinct from the rest of humanity.


Is this really so hard to understand?

Let's do some simple facts here.

Are humans animals?
Are Jews humans?
Are Jews animals?

You may answer yes or no to each question.

Let's just try these out here, do it nice and simple so I don't give you too much of an excuse to be offended.

 

[Shusha]

You forgot to ask:

Are animals human?

Are Catalans humans?
Are Armenians human?
Are Cambodians human?
Are Tutsis human?
Are Arabs human?
Are French human?
Are Spanish humans?
Are Turks human?
Are Koreans human?
Are Americans human?
Are Canadians human?
Are Japanese humans?