Another look at "anti-semitism".

[Pogo]

The term has come to mean "anti-Jewish". It was actually a German who coined the phrase to mean hatred of Jews alone, and this German was, himself, anti-Jewish. Just like Islamophobia has come to mean hatred of Muslims. For instance, there can be no doubt that Penelope is rabidly anti-Jewish. But she will get herself off-the-hook by saying she's not anti-Semitic because she's not against Arabs. So it becomes a play on words. It's too bad that German coined that phrase because it just confuses everyone, and lets vicious anti-Jews get off-the-hook.

I actually have no idea who it gets off the hook, but nor do I care.

I just care about how words work. That's it. So whoever coined the term 'antiSemitic', if he did so to refer to only one of the Semitic groups --- then he was wrong, simple as that.

 

[Shusha]

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.

"Semitic" is a linguistic term delineating a specific group of languages, yes.

'Antisemitism" is a specific term for an irrational hatred of Jews. It should not be usurped for other purposes.

If "Semitic" refers to a group of languages....

.... then its opposite antiSemitic cannot be exclusive.

You can't have it both ways. The term either means a group, or it means one. And it means the former.

Oh please. What would "antisemitism" mean in the context of linguistics and language groups?

Antisemitism is a specific term for a specific type of irrational discrimination. It is not generalized discrimination against all people who speak languages in the Semitic group of languages. It is a specific, defined hatred against only that one peoples.

Correct. It wouldn't make sense. You'd have to be linguistically against the way the (in this case) Semitic languages operate.

And yet --- that's what it has to mean. We can't tag an entire diverse group with a single term and then declare that "anti" in front of that term applies to only one of them.

Would we use the term "antiGermanic" to describe, say, the United States, on the basis that we speak a Germanic language?

Again -- wouldn't make sense.

Anyone who argues that the term actually means something different than its true meaning is only trying to dilute the irrational hatred of Jews which has been going on for thousands of years. Its a deception aimed at denying the existence of this distinct brand of irrational discrimination. (See Penelope 's post as illustration of this).

Not in the least. I'm not even addressing that and not in the least interested. My point is linguistic. That's it. No reason to read extra stuff into it. Actually I'm saying the opposite of what you suggest here.

There is absolutely no purpose in re-defining the term "antisemitism" other than to hide or disguise the irrational hatred of Jews.

Again --- to earmark a general term into only one of its members, that's what's irrational. So yes, there is reason: linguistic clarity. And it's not "re-defining" --- "re-defining" would be singling out a single ethnic group, after you've already included others in the same group --- that's re-defining in midstream.

Sure. The term is linguistically inaccurate. No dispute there. I agree with you. The term is inaccurate.

There are PLENTY of terms which are linguistically inaccurate but have accepted meaning.

There is NO PURPOSE to changing the accepted meaning of this term. Other than to dilute or deny the irrational hatred of Jews.

 

[Shusha]

I just care about how words work. That's it.

Oh, give me a break. You don't care about how words work. There are thousands, probably tens of thousands, of words which have accepted meanings in contradiction to their technical meaning. That's how words work. That's how language works.

 

[Pogo]

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.

"Semitic" is a linguistic term delineating a specific group of languages, yes.

'Antisemitism" is a specific term for an irrational hatred of Jews. It should not be usurped for other purposes.

If "Semitic" refers to a group of languages....

.... then its opposite antiSemitic cannot be exclusive.

You can't have it both ways. The term either means a group, or it means one. And it means the former.

Oh please. What would "antisemitism" mean in the context of linguistics and language groups?

Antisemitism is a specific term for a specific type of irrational discrimination. It is not generalized discrimination against all people who speak languages in the Semitic group of languages. It is a specific, defined hatred against only that one peoples.

Correct. It wouldn't make sense. You'd have to be linguistically against the way the (in this case) Semitic languages operate.

And yet --- that's what it has to mean. We can't tag an entire diverse group with a single term and then declare that "anti" in front of that term applies to only one of them.

Would we use the term "antiGermanic" to describe, say, the United States, on the basis that we speak a Germanic language?

Again -- wouldn't make sense.

Anyone who argues that the term actually means something different than its true meaning is only trying to dilute the irrational hatred of Jews which has been going on for thousands of years. Its a deception aimed at denying the existence of this distinct brand of irrational discrimination. (See Penelope 's post as illustration of this).

Not in the least. I'm not even addressing that and not in the least interested. My point is linguistic. That's it. No reason to read extra stuff into it. Actually I'm saying the opposite of what you suggest here.

There is absolutely no purpose in re-defining the term "antisemitism" other than to hide or disguise the irrational hatred of Jews.

Again --- to earmark a general term into only one of its members, that's what's irrational. So yes, there is reason: linguistic clarity. And it's not "re-defining" --- "re-defining" would be singling out a single ethnic group, after you've already included others in the same group --- that's re-defining in midstream.

Sure. The term is linguistically inaccurate. No dispute there. I agree with you. The term is inaccurate.

There are PLENTY of terms which are linguistically inaccurate but have accepted meaning.

There is NO PURPOSE to changing the accepted meaning of this term. Other than to dilute or deny the irrational hatred of Jews.

Again --- certainly there is. And I don't even have to repeat it because you just posted it. Then you immediately turned around and contradicted.

And no, I don't "accept" it in the first place, exactly for that reason. Much the same reason I never employ the term "GOP".

 

[Pogo]

I just care about how words work. That's it.

Oh, give me a break. You don't care about how words work. There are thousands, probably tens of thousands, of words which have accepted meanings in contradiction to their technical meaning. That's how words work. That's how language works.

"Tens of thousands" is it?

How many words do you think English --- even English, far richer than most --- has?

 

[Ria_Longhorn]

Gentile historian, Paul Johnson, has said that anti-Semitism is a disease of the mind. To the Nutzis on this board -- go get your heads examined!

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

One of the biggest problems is that in the old times, before Christianity and Islam, there were lots of Jews. After Christianity grew. It wasn't like the Christians were just born Christian. Some probably came from being Jews to being Christians. So, are those Christians from that region Semites? Probably.

Then Christians became Muslims. They might still be Semites.

However anti-Semetism is a political tool at times. I got called an anti-Semite by someone on this forum simply because my view of things weren't as his were. I'm certainly not an anti-Semite. I hate the Right wing Israeli govt as much as I hate Hamas. On both sides of the conflict are people who are using conflict for their own political goals and they ruin the lives of normal people to reach those goals.

 

[teddyearp]

I'm not trying to 'water down' the term. I am just expanding it a bit to show that being anti is not only against Israel, but because of being anti Israel you are not helping the Palestinians, therefore anti Palestinian as well.

 

[Shusha]

However anti-Semetism is a political tool at times. I got called an anti-Semite by someone on this forum simply because my view of things weren't as his were. I'm certainly not an anti-Semite. I hate the Right wing Israeli govt as much as I hate Hamas. On both sides of the conflict are people who are using conflict for their own political goals and they ruin the lives of normal people to reach those goals.

No one on this board is called an antisemitic for political purposes, to win an argument or to shut down the other poster, let alone because we disagree with someone. We label people this way in order to reveal inherent, often irrational beliefs about Jewish people, and in particular, beliefs which are applied to the Jewish people and not to other ethnic groups. Notice how the truly blatant antisemites are not usually called out? You know, the ones who come right out and say, "Jews are evil. Jews are devils. Jews will all be punished by G-d". We don't bother with them, for the most part. They are so obviously and obliviously antisemitic there is no point.

But we (or at least I) do tend to call out the "borderlines". Why? Because I want to illuminate how those "borderlines" are using antisemitism to further their argument. If you've been called out as being antisemitic it is because you expressed a concept which:

1. denies Jewish history in the land of Israel, Judea and Samaria.
2. plays to the real Jew/fake Jew dichotomy. (By dividing the collective of the Jewish people into two groups: Zionists and non-Zionists, real Jews and fake Jews, local Jews and European Jews, invaders and locals, birthrights and converts, Jews and Khazars, good Jews and evil Jews).

 

[ForeverYoung436]

However anti-Semetism is a political tool at times. I got called an anti-Semite by someone on this forum simply because my view of things weren't as his were. I'm certainly not an anti-Semite. I hate the Right wing Israeli govt as much as I hate Hamas. On both sides of the conflict are people who are using conflict for their own political goals and they ruin the lives of normal people to reach those goals.

No one on this board is called an antisemitic for political purposes, to win an argument or to shut down the other poster, let alone because we disagree with someone. We label people this way in order to reveal inherent, often irrational beliefs about Jewish people, and in particular, beliefs which are applied to the Jewish people and not to other ethnic groups. Notice how the truly blatant antisemites are not usually called out? You know, the ones who come right out and say, "Jews are evil. Jews are devils. Jews will all be punished by G-d". We don't bother with them, for the most part. They are so obviously and obliviously antisemitic there is no point.

But we (or at least I) do tend to call out the "borderlines". Why? Because I want to illuminate how those "borderlines" are using antisemitism to further their argument. If you've been called out as being antisemitic it is because you expressed a concept which:

1. denies Jewish history in the land of Israel, Judea and Samaria.
2. plays to the real Jew/fake Jew dichotomy. (By dividing the collective of the Jewish people into two groups: Zionists and non-Zionists, real Jews and fake Jews, local Jews and European Jews, invaders and locals, birthrights and converts, Jews and Khazars, good Jews and evil Jews).

Exactly right. How many times has fanger said that Lipush is not "a real Jew" because she's a convert. One of the signs of an anti-Semite. Newsflash: Converts are Jews!

 

[Pogo]

However anti-Semetism is a political tool at times. I got called an anti-Semite by someone on this forum simply because my view of things weren't as his were. I'm certainly not an anti-Semite. I hate the Right wing Israeli govt as much as I hate Hamas. On both sides of the conflict are people who are using conflict for their own political goals and they ruin the lives of normal people to reach those goals.

No one on this board is called an antisemitic for political purposes, to win an argument or to shut down the other poster, let alone because we disagree with someone. We label people this way in order to reveal inherent, often irrational beliefs about Jewish people, and in particular, beliefs which are applied to the Jewish people and not to other ethnic groups. Notice how the truly blatant antisemites are not usually called out? You know, the ones who come right out and say, "Jews are evil. Jews are devils. Jews will all be punished by G-d". We don't bother with them, for the most part. They are so obviously and obliviously antisemitic there is no point.

But we (or at least I) do tend to call out the "borderlines". Why? Because I want to illuminate how those "borderlines" are using antisemitism to further their argument. If you've been called out as being antisemitic it is because you expressed a concept which:

1. denies Jewish history in the land of Israel, Judea and Samaria.
2. plays to the real Jew/fake Jew dichotomy. (By dividing the collective of the Jewish people into two groups: Zionists and non-Zionists, real Jews and fake Jews, local Jews and European Jews, invaders and locals, birthrights and converts, Jews and Khazars, good Jews and evil Jews).

Exactly right. How many times has fanger said that Lipush is not "a real Jew" because she's a convert. One of the signs of an anti-Semite. Newsflash: Converts are Jews!

One of the pitfalls of using the same term to mean variously a religion, or an ethnic group.

And again that's why I'm meticulous about language. Once you start bending words around, you get pitfalls.

 

[fanger]

Jews are not an "ethnic group" it's a religion.
this thread belongs in Religion and Ethics

 

[montelatici]

The original Christians are indisputably originally from the area. But did the Christian (European) Crusaders have the right to displace and rule over the local people, Christian and Muslim, that lived there at the time of the Crusades?

 

[frigidweirdo]

However anti-Semetism is a political tool at times. I got called an anti-Semite by someone on this forum simply because my view of things weren't as his were. I'm certainly not an anti-Semite. I hate the Right wing Israeli govt as much as I hate Hamas. On both sides of the conflict are people who are using conflict for their own political goals and they ruin the lives of normal people to reach those goals.

No one on this board is called an antisemitic for political purposes, to win an argument or to shut down the other poster, let alone because we disagree with someone. We label people this way in order to reveal inherent, often irrational beliefs about Jewish people, and in particular, beliefs which are applied to the Jewish people and not to other ethnic groups. Notice how the truly blatant antisemites are not usually called out? You know, the ones who come right out and say, "Jews are evil. Jews are devils. Jews will all be punished by G-d". We don't bother with them, for the most part. They are so obviously and obliviously antisemitic there is no point.

But we (or at least I) do tend to call out the "borderlines". Why? Because I want to illuminate how those "borderlines" are using antisemitism to further their argument. If you've been called out as being antisemitic it is because you expressed a concept which:

1. denies Jewish history in the land of Israel, Judea and Samaria.
2. plays to the real Jew/fake Jew dichotomy. (By dividing the collective of the Jewish people into two groups: Zionists and non-Zionists, real Jews and fake Jews, local Jews and European Jews, invaders and locals, birthrights and converts, Jews and Khazars, good Jews and evil Jews).

Actually they are, because it happened to me.

Your example of why you would use the term "anti-Semitism" seems to imply that, actually, you do use it for political purposes.

Do you know why I was called an anti-Semite?

Because I said:

Well no. In History what people said happened is usually one of the first ways of figuring out what happened.

The Holocaust happened the way that it did. The History of the Holocaust is something different. It's based on how humans perceive it.

Every year millions of animals die a year in the US alone. 35 million cows, 116 million pigs, 9 billion chickens, 271 million turkeys. The death of these animals at the hands of humans is not so different to the death of Jews in the Holocaust. The difference is that humans will write down in History that the Holocaust happened, that it was an awful event, that suffering was great, and they'll not write much about the animals and don't care about their feelings and won't call it an awful event.

That's History. The TRUTH is what humans find important.

So, there's a fact that in the US billions of animals are slaughtered every year, and the narrative of this is "meh, it's food", but in the Holocaust millions of Jews and others died, and it's considered a tragedy. Yet more animals die every year than Jews died in the Holocaust.

Now, Israel denies the Armenian Genocide, why? Well, because it wants to have the narrative of the Holocaust to be the most important Genocide ever.

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

How about if I talk about how Turkey denies the Armenian Genocide? Does that make me anti-Islamic?


Am I denying Jewish history? Or am I simply saying that History is often manipulated by people and I don't necessarily believe the way people are presenting history? The Holocaust existed, the slaughter of animals exists. No denial. I've worked for some very rich Jewish people, and some of them had marks on them from the Holocaust.

I don't care who calls themselves Jews either.

Yet I still got called an anti-Semite.

 

[Shusha]

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.

 

[Shusha]

I've worked for some very rich Jewish people...

Why bring up rich? Why did you include that in your description? Do you typically bring up people's level of wealth as the main descriptor? Or is that a Jew thing?

See, its a very typical Jewish antisemitic canard. So, if the first descriptor you pull for everyone is their wealth, its fine. I worked for some middle-class people. I worked for some people really struggling to get by. But I rather suspect this is a special term used for Jews. Thus....the shoe is fitting.

 

[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.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I've worked for some very rich Jewish people...

Why bring up rich? Why did you include that in your description? Do you typically bring up people's level of wealth as the main descriptor? Or is that a Jew thing?

See, its a very typical Jewish antisemitic canard. So, if the first descriptor you pull for everyone is their wealth, its fine. I worked for some middle-class people. I worked for some people really struggling to get by. But I rather suspect this is a special term used for Jews. Thus....the shoe is fitting.

Do you want to know why I brought up rich? Because they were all very, very, very, very rich. Most were probably billionaires. I could tell you where I worked, which might make it make more sense. But I'm not fond of giving out such information.

What you're doing is jumping to conclusions that somehow I hate Jewish people because some people say Jews are money grabbers or whatever. Personally I see this in every race, and in every western religion. But people jump to conclusions.

I currently work for rich people. Not as rich as those Jewish people, but nevertheless much richer than I am. So, I would again say I work for rich people. They're not Jewish.

You see the "typical Jewish antisemitic canard" and you want things to fit. You're making shoes fit.

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

 

[fncceo]

Haven’t you just told the Palestinians that your magic book says the land is yours?

You know if Miss 2018 learned to smile and put on some better clothes, she could land herself a rich old man who could get her into movies.

 

[Shusha]

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.