• Kashif Shah@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Semite: “a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs” So, how is it anti-semitic to be pro-palestine?

    • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Yes, that is the etymology. Queer no longer means odd, and literally now also means figuratively.

      Antisemitism is the belief or behavior hostile toward Jews just because they are Jewish. It may take the form of religious teachings that proclaim the inferiority of Jews, for instance, or political efforts to isolate, oppress, or otherwise injure them. It may also include prejudiced or stereotyped views about Jews.

      It is not antisemitic to be pro-Palestine if you ask anyone other than Netanyahu. I know many Jews that resent him for using that term in defense of his actions, and the actions of the IDF.

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        Queer no longer means odd

        Yeah it does. It has additional meanings, but it also retains that one.

        literally now also means figuratively.

        Over my dead body! Just because an authority says something unacceptable is acceptable doesn’t make it so. See also: the Israeli government committing genocide.

        It is not antisemitic to be pro-Palestine

        Correct.

        if you ask anyone other than Netanyahu

        Frustratingly, he’s far from the only Zionist demagogue spreading that particular lie. It’s become less effective recently, but it’s been used to shut down any criticism of the apartheid regime for decades…

        • Belastend@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          literally now also means figuratively.

          Over my dead body! Just because an authority says something unacceptable is acceptable doesn’t make it so. See also: the Israeli government committing genocide.

          Maybe this isnt the right place to interject here: but yes, it now also means figuratively. Not because an authority said so, but because a sizable portion of native english speakers use it to mean figuratively. Thats how language works.

            • Belastend@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              6 months ago

              The OED is, again, descriptive. They observe the change in meaning and update their description accordingly.

              • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                6 months ago

                Correct. You’ve just described how the language you’re using has come to be. It evolves over time, and the OED is the most respected documenter of that change. We don’t use the same English that was standard a century ago. Wheat is colloquial now is the standard.

          • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            6 months ago

            That’s a textbook appeal to popularity fallacy. Just because many people make the same mistake doesn’t mean it becomes correct.

            The most popular electric car brand is Tesla. That doesn’t mean that Teslas don’t have the build quality of a 1980s Yugo and the price tag of a brand new Jaguar.

            Don’t use other people being stupid as an excuse to be stupid, is what I’m saying.

            • Belastend@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              No, that is just how linguistics work. Language is decided descriptively, not prescriptively

              • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                Nope, both descriptivism and prescriptivism have merit, depending on the specific case.

                A lot of people using a word as having the opposite meaning out of pure ignorance and/or carelessness is one case where prescriptivism is warranted.

                I’ll die on this fucking hill 😄

                • Belastend@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  And you will die on a linguistically untenable hill. Redefining words had happened throughout history and language hasnt died out and its not gotten worse.

                  • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    And you will die on a linguistically untenable hill

                    Is this your way of warning me against going hiking in Wales? 😉

                    language hasn’t died out

                    Of course not. That’s literally impossible. Don’t be fatuous, Jeffrey.

                    and its not gotten worse.

                    That’s of mixed veracity at best.

            • nieminen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              This is a bad comparison. Language absolutely works as described in the previous comment. While certain trends such as using “literally” to mean “figuratively”, are personally super annoying, that doesn’t change the fact it’s 100% correct when enough people do it.

      • Kashif Shah@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        6 months ago

        So, arguable, anti-semitism is also bigotry toward Arabs, we just have to wait for the language to catch up, got it.

        • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          You have that reversed. Etymology is the study of the origin of words and the way in which their meanings have changed throughout history. The origin of Semite no longer applies to the word as it is used today.

          The only reason it’s unique to Jews is because it’s both a form of racism and religious persecution. One can be genealogically an Ashkenazi Jew but not practice Judaism, or vice-versa.

            • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              It’s possible. Language evolves. You’re likely not going to get it to catch on with root awareness. That’s hardly how English has evolved for the last century.

                  • Kashif Shah@lemmy.sdf.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    You know, I haven’t looked at anything linguistics related since taking Latin in college, but I am roughly aware of there being a trend of new words being added for sometimes popular usage reasons as opposed to true neologisms.

                    Totally random, but one of my favorite things about studying Latin was finally understanding who/whose/which lol