In colloquial parlance, anti-Semitic means anti-Jew so I doubt there is any risk of misunderstanding.

If you're semetic, you're a "son" of Abraham. It applies to Arabs as well as Israelites.

Biologically speaking, most Jews (Ashkenazi) are from Khazaria, and thus of Turkic origin, not Semitic. But anti-Semitic, despite its origin, just means anti-Jew.

Keep your fanciful , false definitions at home. You just hate Semitic folk because you can't get into heaven.

lol was that to me?

The root word Semite gives the false impression that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic people. However, the compound word antisemite was popularized in Germany in 1879[6] as a scientific-sounding term for Judenhass (Jew-hatred),[7][8][9] and that has been its common use since then.[10]

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism)

Furthermore, "Semitic" doesn't denote any sort of ethnicity. It technically just means someone who speaks a semitic language, which can literally be anyone who's willing to learn. To demonstrate, here is where semitic languages are from:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/Semitic_languages.svg

And this is where arabic is spoken:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Arab_World_Green.svg

^^All those people are semitic

The thing is, there has never been persecution of arabs on the same scale as jews, so when you're talking about anti-semitic persecution it's almost always going to be anti-jewish persecution. And since jews are a type of semitic people, the term is correct.

Yeah, only Basque folk, Estonian folk, Sami folk, and Semetic folk get to go to heaven. Where we get to frolic with the god who manages to be omnipotent and all powerful at the same time, which is a oxymoron. But we get free honey and milk, so who are we to complain.

We regularly encounter words like "inflammable" tha don't mean what you think they'd mean if you dissect them.

But they do - inflammable does mean not able to be alighted (and the opposite).

Historically, the word "anti-Semitic" has been used to specifically indicate opposition to Jews. It's not "wrongly wielded"- it just doesn't follow the etymological patterns you're trying to impose.

It just doesn't make sense, and there's a very clear alternative word: anti-Jew, or anti-Israel.

Furthermore, "Semitic" doesn't denote any sort of ethnicity.

It does - the Semitic folk, who generally speak Semitic tongues. It's a macroethnicity, but Semites live, in Malta, in Mediterranean Africa, and in the Middle East, and share common, Middle Eastern values.

The thing is, there has never been persecution of arabs on the same scale as jews, so when you're talking about anti-semitic persecution it's almost always going to be anti-jewish persecution.

Anti-Semitic means chiefly anti-Arab, but also anti-Israelite and a few others. If you mean just anti-Jew (and most Jews don't even live in Israel, and are not Semitic), then say anti-Jew. It's like saying that anti-Asia means foremost anti-Tajikistan.

It does - the Semitic folk, who generally speak Semitic tongues. It's a macroethnicity, but Semites live, in Malta, in Mediterranean Africa, and in the Middle East, and share common, Middle Eastern values.

The term Semitic people or Semitic cultures (from the biblical "Shem", Hebrew: שם‎) was a term for people or cultures who speak or spoke the Semitic languages. The term, together with the parallel terms Hamitic and Japhetic, is now obsolete.

According to some scholars the concept of Semitic ethnicity does not exist[5] or should be avoided.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people)

There is no common culture, religion, or ethnicity between semitic peoples, so therefore they are not a panethnicity as you suggest. Arabs can be considered a panethnicity due to having a somewhat unified arab culture, but no such culture exists between semitic peoples such as arabs, assyrians, jews, etc. In fact, they don't even speak the same language, as the semitic branch of languages is a language family, not a single language.

Anti-Semitic means chiefly anti-Arab, but also anti-Israelite and a few others. If you mean just anti-Jew (and most Jews don't even live in Israel, and are not Semitic), then say anti-Jew. It's like saying that anti-Asia means foremost anti-Tajikistan.

In its common usage, "Anti-semitic" refers only to jews. What it technically should mean is irrelevant if nobody uses it that way.

Also, as I've said, "Semitic" refers to a linguistic group, and not a cultural or geographic one. Most jews around the world speak yiddish or hebrew, and are therefore semitic.

Edited 5/6/2016 18:09:59

There is no common culture, religion, or ethnicity between semitic peoples, so therefore they are not a panethnicity as you suggest. Arabs can be considered a panethnicity due to having a somewhat unified arab culture, but no such culture exists between semitic peoples such as arabs, assyrians, jews, etc. In fact, they don't even speak the same language, as the semitic branch of languages is a language family, not a single language.

Common culture? Definitely loads, they are all come from the same nomads who wandered Arabia, they all know the saying "A magpie flock can slay a camel.", they both have like thoughts. Faith? Yes, definitely, it's pretty obvious: Islam. Ethnicity? If you mean by this solidarity, then, yes, definitely. Everyone says they're Arab, and every Arab learns Official Arabic, along with site Arabic. And between the peninsular Arabs and the by far minority Assyrians, Jews, and Amhars, they all share the same Abrahamic faith; frankly, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism should be thought of the same faith, just different macrobranches, as there's so much overlap from what they believe in, and they all came from more or less the same root. There are many differences, to be sure, but not as much as Tengrism or Hinduism (which itself is not a very unified faith, but still counted as one). And they speak like tongues, as Indoeuropeans do.

In its common usage, "Anti-semitic" refers only to jews. What it technically should mean is irrelevant if nobody uses it that way.

Anti + Semitic, means you're against Semtic folk: Arabs of all kinds, Israelites, Amhars, and more. It's just fully insensible to do such a thing, and it is a duty of those who speak English to never abuse a word to this extent. A majority can be wrong.

Also, as I've said, "Semitic" refers to a linguistic group, and not a cultural or geographic one. Most jews around the world speak yiddish or hebrew, and are therefore semitic.

I never even said anything about it being a cultural or geographic group, but just that it's wrong for anti-Semite to mean exclusively anti-Jew, when there are Jews who are not Semitic, and most Semites are not Jews. Also, Yiddish is not a Semitic tongue, and I looked it up, about 40% all Jews in the world speak Hebrew, so it would be wrong to make any generalisations that they are all Semitic.

Common culture? Definitely loads, they are all come from the same nomads who wandered Arabia, they all know the saying "A magpie flock can slay a camel.", they both have like thoughts. Faith? Yes, definitely, it's pretty obvious: Islam. Ethnicity? If you mean by this solidarity, then, yes, definitely. Everyone says they're Arab, and every Arab learns Official Arabic, along with site Arabic. And between the peninsular Arabs and the by far minority Assyrians, Jews, and Amhars, they all share the same Abrahamic faith;

All of the similarities you've listed are between arabs, who are indeed mostly arabic speaking as well as mostly muslim. While most people who speak semitic languages are indeed arabs, there is a significant minority of 10% who speak other semitic languages such as Hebrew, Amharic and Tingrinya. Simply claiming that one out of ten people simply don't exist or are irrelevant is not valid.

frankly, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism should be thought of the same faith, just different macrobranches, as there's so much overlap from what they believe in, and they all came from more or less the same root. There are many differences, to be sure, but not as much as Tengrism or Hinduism (which itself is not a very unified faith, but still counted as one). And they speak like tongues, as Indoeuropeans do.

When studying religion, they often are; Along with Baha'ism, they are referred to as "Abrahamic religions".

Anti + Semitic, means you're against Semtic folk: Arabs of all kinds, Israelites, Amhars, and more. It's just fully insensible to do such a thing, and it is a duty of those who speak English to never abuse a word to this extent. A majority can be wrong.

It is a duty of a speaker of any language to make sure that first and foremost they are understood by the person they are speaking to. Even if it is a term such as "Anti-jew" that is easily understandable simply by intuition, if it is not one that is widely used, it just makes you seem condescending when you use it.

The prophet Abraham peace be upon him was a muslim not a jew or catholic. And Islam is a monotheistic religion, and it's the true religion. And Islam is not the same as judaism or the beliefs of the catholics and protestants.

Seeing that Abraham lived around 2600 years ago and Islam has only existed for about 1300, It's a logical impossibility that Abraham was Muslim.

But they do - inflammable does mean not able to be alighted (and the opposite).

No. Wrong. http://blog.dictionary.com/inflammable/

And a muslim is not a democrat, a muslim believes only in the law of ALLAH, and a muslim doesn't believe in man made law. So if a person describes himself to Islam and he believes in democracy or secularism or liberalism then such a person is an apostate.

This is why I call Islam a cancer on Western culture. Everything he said there is true, and inescapable. Tell me that can integrate into Western culture, and I'll call you a liar.

Edited 5/6/2016 20:03:28

All of the similarities you've listed are between arabs, who are indeed mostly arabic speaking as well as mostly muslim. While most people who speak semitic languages are indeed arabs, there is a significant minority of 10% who speak other semitic languages such as Hebrew, Amharic and Tingrinya.

There are 300 million Arabs of some kind, 30 million Amhars, 7 million Tigrays, 5 million Israelites, and noone really else. I'd say that the Semitic folk are very unified. Minorities should not be left out, but it's about 90% these folk are Muslim. It's like saying that landweights don't dominate the world, since 1/10 folk live on an island (Australia excluded).

So, if you picked 2 Semtic folk at random, there'd be 82% likeliness that they share the same faith, and 76% they share the same faith, which is better to most macroethnicites: Germanic, Chinese, Italic, so on.

When studying religion, they often are; Along with Baha'ism, they are referred to as "Abrahamic religions".

Yes, but in my thought, they are just pretty much the same, although Christians, Muslims, and Jews all disagree. Bahaï, on the other hand, I do not say is so like them, Bahaï believes that one god is what all the monotheistic faiths preach, and this is the same god, and blends many faiths.

It is a duty of a speaker of any language to make sure that first and foremost they are understood by the person they are speaking to.

Well, duty met here, and what I am doing is the same object, but for the long-time, to make the tongue sensible and less confusing, and thus more understandable.

And Islam is not the same as judaism or the beliefs of the catholics and protestants.

Oh, please, you even both worship Jesus as the Messiah, who will come back on the Apocolypse.

And a muslim is not a democrat, a muslim believes only in the law of ALLAH, and a muslim doesn't believe in man made law. So if a person describes himself to Islam and he believes in democracy or secularism or liberalism then such a person is an apostate.


This is why I call Islam a cancer on Western culture. Everything he said there is true, and inescapable. Tell me that can integrate into Western culture, and I'll call you a liar.

He's not even a Muslim, and I can tell you that fundamentalist Christianity and Judaism and other dogmatisms would suffer from the same problems - they listen to only their ruler (God) and his laws, not manmade laws, but that is why there is moderation, and irreligion to save every country from becoming a theocracy, as they once were.

But Muslims don't have moderation and irreligion because anyone who tries is killed.

Also, he speaks Arabic and Berber. That doesn't sound like your typical Nederlander

Edited 5/6/2016 20:34:30

But Muslims don't have moderation and irreligion because anyone who tries is killed.

Read this, it will confirm some of what you say, and deny others.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/

But in short, that's totally false, with Ba'athism being a major example.

Also, he speaks Arabic and Berber. That doesn't sound like your typical Nederlander

Can't you tell a lying troll when you see one? He probably doesn't even speak French or German, let alone Arabic or Berber (and Berber is not even one tongue - it's several, without any unified version, unlike Arabic (with an unified version)). Dutch and English, I believe this, not more.

Edited 5/6/2016 21:26:51

There are 300 million Arabs of some kind, 30 million Amhars, 7 million Tigrays, 5 million Israelites, and noone really else. I'd say that the Semitic folk are very unified. Minorities should not be left out, but it's about 90% these folk are Muslim. It's like saying that landweights don't dominate the world, since 1/10 folk live on an island (Australia excluded).

So, if you picked 2 Semtic folk at random, there'd be 82% likeliness that they share the same faith, and 76% they share the same faith, which is better to most macroethnicites: Germanic, Chinese, Italic, so on.

A minority doesn't have to have a one in two prevalence to be coutned as a significant population share. I fact, i'd say that even one in twenty (5%) is pretty significant.

Around 10% of arabs are christian, and combined with all the other semitic folks who are both semitic and not arabs, that's 20% of people, which is no small minority. While it isn't larger than 4 out of five, one of five is still a significant population proportion, and way too much to generalize and say that for practical purposes doesn't even exist.

Yes, but in my thought, they are just pretty much the same, although Christians, Muslims, and Jews all disagree. Bahaï, on the other hand, I do not say is so like them, Bahaï believes that one god is what all the monotheistic faiths preach, and this is the same god, and blends many faiths.

There are important theological differences, make no mistake. However, from your standpoint (I'm assuming you're irreligious, I apologize if I'm mistaken), The scriptural people are pretty much the same, the scriptures are very similar, as you've already pointed out Jesus is even upheld as the saviour of the jews in the Quran.

Well, duty met here, and what I am doing is the same object, but for the long-time, to make the tongue sensible and less confusing, and thus more understandable.

You're not really convincing anyone to give up their "Antisemitism", and it's pretty much just annoying to refuse to use terms that everyone uses because they are technically incorrect.

He's not even a Muslim, and I can tell you that fundamentalist Christianity and Judaism and other dogmatisms would suffer from the same problems - they listen to only their ruler (God) and his laws, not manmade laws, but that is why there is moderation, and irreligion to save every country from becoming a theocracy, as they once were.

Secularism came from christian thinkers in western nations, not from irreligious folks...

Around 10% of arabs are christian

Can you source this, this seems very high, the only Arabic countries where there is a big number of Christians is in Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine. Egypt, too, but it's very small proportionally in Egypt.

combined with all the other semitic folks who are both semitic and not arabs

They are not united in faith, either.

A minority doesn't have to have a one in two prevalence to be coutned as a significant population share. I fact, i'd say that even one in twenty (5%) is pretty significant.

The thing is, it doesn't even have one-in-five prevalence at 10%, and 10% is where I (and psychologically, humans) cut off for significance, generally. In statist, it's generally 5%, but depends on settings. Anyhow, the point is, that these minorities don't really make it ified, they're too small to.

You're not really convincing anyone to give up their "Antisemitism", and it's pretty much just annoying to refuse to use terms that everyone uses because they are technically incorrect.

What is annoying to me, is to see these blatantly wrong words being wielded, when there's such an obvious alternative word - anti-Jew or anti-Israelite. And it is like you say - it helps to communicate to wield the right words.

Secularism came from christian thinkers in western nations, not from irreligious folks

They didn't come from fundamentalists, but they came from Christian thinkers who ignored bits of the Book to become un-Christianly tolerant.

The thing is, it doesn't even have one-in-five prevalence at 10%, and 10% is where I (and psychologically, humans) cut off for significance, generally. In statist, it's generally 5%, but depends on settings. Anyhow, the point is, that these minorities don't really make it ified, they're too small to.

What? Any sources for this? It looks like you're conflating the concept of statistical significance (alpha values) with human perceptions of populations.

It looks like you're conflating the concept of statistical significance (alpha values) with human perceptions of populations.

That is what I am doing, I don't see anything wrong with that in this case.