Yes and it happens left right up down middle. No single group is immune to it.
Yes fascists misuse it. Misuse of language is a cornerstone of fascism.
This is the big thing with people using the term “Anti-Semite”, when us Khazars (what most call Jews) aren’t even Shemitic at all (We’re Japethites). I fully understand the implications of that as a partial German-American Khazar myself. The terms racist and bigot are not as destructive as Anti-Semite, and we were the ones who made the latter stronger than the two former, though we also tend to use that if people don’t like what we’re doing.
You can thank Rome for teaching us how to be barbarians, though.
Yes, but people also misuse the idea that’s it’s misused to shut people up.
E.g.: hey maybe we shouldn’t starve children to death?
Zionist: wow why do you only criticise Israel like this, you anti-semite!
Point goes unanswered, OP probably feels the need to defend themselves instead of pursuing their valid point.
Alternatively…
Racist: some groups are just not compatible with western culture
Someone: you can’t make assumptions about massive groups of people. Many people come to the west because they don’t agree with their culture. To assume everyone from one place is the same is racist.
Racist: wow there you go! Don’t engage just scream “racist” at everyone you don’t like.
Again, point goes unanswered. The person probably feels the need to defend this accusation again
you can’t make assumptions about massive groups of people. Many people come to the west because they don’t agree with their culture. To assume everyone from one place is the same is racist
I think you are wrong here, you need to look at how likely this case is,how much they like western culture & How many people don’t agree with their culture?
But IMO usually they(anti immigrations) are sold narrative, that it is threat to them by political parties who want easy win,third party organizations who hire lobbyists for their cause & religious groups, just like communists sell their idea. IMO such diversity is good.
Yes, all the time. People will call you a “fascist”, “racist” simply for wanting laws to be enforced, e.g illegal immigrants to be deported.
oh wow. a new instance to block.
at least you’re wearing your cult on your sleeve now.
Imagine being this mad about people simply wanting to make this country better. Yeah sure just live in your social bubble and keep calling everyone you don’t like a fascist. Perfect strategy, worked so well for the liberals recently.
If there is ever any conceivable way to act as if one has the morally higher ground, 99.9% of people will use it with an Ad Hominem attack to avoid dealing with the actual point of an argument. ESPECIALLY on the internet. No matter what political, academic or just plain nerdy configuration of people you have, no matter what topic they are discussing. If anyone ever catches even the faintest whiff of a position that they think is morally inferior, they will unfailingly disregard any logic, context and relating in favor of demonizing the opponent. Because there is no sugar sweeter to the human mind than thinking themselves morally superior.
Please be aware, any accusation that could be used to vilify an opponent, and make one potentially look like the Good Guy for calling them out WILL be used. Some people are shit, and others will easily rationalize themselves into believing whatever is convenient, with the flimsiest evidence.
Issues that are especially fraught, the sort of accusations that really get people riled up are especially tempting for such people.
Yes.
Does that clear things up?
Some do, but it’s both sides. It’s especially prevalent in the Israel/Palestine complex, where polarization is strong. People name themselves Antisemites and Zionists and are most of the time unable to have a rational discussion. I hope this clears things up.
Yes.
Anyone who criticizes Israel is called an antisemite but Chuck Schumer, the highest ranked USA Jewish politician, say criticizing Israel is not antisemitism.
I think we should be able to criticize all identities
What do you mean by that? I don’t think it makes much sense to generalize criticism about groups of people, because people are just so different. Even if there are statistical commonalities in these that differentiate them from others, the differences between individuals of a group will always be bigger than these commonalities.
people of any identity or any identity? there’s a difference
That would depend on the common traits of an identity, no?
Pedophiles is an identity that i don’t think have many redeeming qualities, do you?
alright. that’s a specific identity. but should we criticize everyone with blue eyes or everyone with long fingers? i don’t think any identity is inherently fair game for criticism, but i do think that any individual of any identity is open to criticism for abhorrent behavior such as sexual abuse
Every identity is open for criticism, but it doesn’t mean that the criticism is valid.
I agree, if you mean: We should be able to criticize individuals for their own actions.
Not entire groups of people based on generalizations.
Well, Israel is a country, not a group of people, nor is it explicitly a religion, despite having an official state religion.
To wit: If criticizing Israel is antisemitism, then is a criticism of Poland seen as anti-catholic? Are criticisms of Somalia seen as anti-Muslim? Denmark/Anti-Lutheran, Thailand/anti-buddhism, Turkey/anti-atheist?
The last one is a bit of a stretch, since Turkey is merely officially secular, and not explicitly atheist, but my point is that for the above named pairings, criticism of the state isn’t considered to be attacks against the religion.It’s a bit silly to have an exception for just the one country, isn’t it?
Not entire groups of people based on generalizations.
Depends on the group. If the basis for the group identity is being criticized, that is valid. If there is institutional problems, criticizing the group for being complicit is valid.
It is only invalid when the criticism is aimed at generalizations that apply to less than half of the group, or are based on inaccurate stereotypes.
You’re right, we should examine each and every single nazi individually - to make sure they’re up to standards. We wouldn’t want to accidentally accuse a swastika-wearing nazi of being a nazi if they’re just not up to the task.
Oh wait, that’s fucking stupid, and so are you.
Don’t join hate groups if you don’t want to be associated with that hate group. If you do, you’re part of that group and no amount of ‘i don’t discriminate on generalizations’ is going to get you out of your hate group membership.
“But I’m one of the good nazis!!!” - eat shit and die.
Oh wait, that’s fucking stupid, and so are you.
I don’t generally start posts like this, but I feel the line above was my invitation:
Hey, dumbass. If you would settle down for one minute and think about the words that you’re looking at before you start flipping out on people, you might realize that
JOINING A NAZI GROUP IS THE ACTION OF AN INDIVIDUAL.
PARTICIPATING IN A NAZI ACTIVITIES ARE THE ACTIONS OF AN INDIVIDUAL.
SUPPORTING OR DONATING TO NAZI GROUPS IS AN ACTION OF AN INDIVIDUAL.
I’m talking about shit like: The Nazis were German, so Germans are Nazis. Israel is committing genocide, so Jews are evil. There was a trans school shooter, so trans people are dangerous.
Go take all your impotent energy and do something useful instead of blowing up on people who are on the same side as you, you stupid ignorant fuck.
In case you are serious: easy there, tiger.
The OP was asking about terms like ‘racist’ – not nazi. Yes, anyone walking in a group where there’s a swastiza flag can be appropriately called a nazi because they chose to join in a group with that flag, BUT just because a person is considers themself a ‘conservative’ does not also make them a racist just as being a ‘lefty’ does not make them antisemetic. Maybe they are, but it takes an action or at least a comment – not a general label – to make a judgement.
Yes? Dismissing criticism by playing victim and attacking the critic’s motive and painting them a Very Bad Person™ is one of the lowest effort cards out there. It’s constantly employed everywhere, regardless of what group the user might represent.
Edit: I hope this clears things up.
Maybe.
I hope that clears things up.
In all seriousness, I think this is the right answer. Like anything in life, these words are tools, which some people use appropriately and others misuse to shut down a valid discussion.
There are a few things at play.
First, there is the negative connotation of those words. Almost universally, people think of bigotry, anti-Semitism, and racism as bad things. Like, indefensibly bad. So pointing those things out is a good thing, because we should not tolerate bigotry in any form.
Unfortunately, I had to use the qualifier “almost” in that paragraph, and the group that does thing bigotry is OK is growing larger and louder. Several superpower countries are currently led by avowed bigots, and their supporters either pretend they aren’t bigots or celebrate that they don’t feel the need to hide their bigotry. The more ignorant hatred there is, the more it spreads.
But most average people still don’t want to be called those things, even when they are. The feew that embrace it provide political cover to the vast majority that just want to hate people without being called names.
So right off the bat, just the act of accurately labeling bigotry, anti-Semitism, or racism is already a bit of a conversation ender, and it’s not alwaysclear whether the person being a bigot even cares that you recognize it.
Next thing we have to clarify is that there is legitimate criticism to go around to practically any group. Specifically, the state of Israel is currently engaged in a violent, brutal, and merciless genocide of the Palestinians. This is a fact, and it is not in dispute.
But then there are anti-Semites who would like to see all of the Jewish people in Israel killed. Their response to one genocide would be to engage in another. As previously mentioned, those voices are growing in number and volume, and any time their is legitimate criticism of Israel, their voice join the chorus of outrage to steer the conversation towards eradication.
There’s an old saying that 11 people who have dinner with a Nazi are a dozen Nazis. If you are seated at the “stop genocide” table, and a Nazi sits down to say "yeah, and kill all the Jews,"you have a responsibility to your cause to disavow them. But that’s really difficult in the age of Twitter to separate yourself and disavow every Nazi who wants to support you. So when the Israeli government points at your table and says “those who criticize Israel are being anti-Semitic,” you can’t say that everyone who criticizes Israel isn’t being anti-Semitic. Nuance doesn’t fit in a soundbite. Look at how many words I needed just to get to a point where I could say “Criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic, but many critics of Israel are anti-Semitic” without making it sound like I am defending the genocide in Gaza. And I will still probably get downvotes on both ends from people who do defend the genocide, but also from anti-Semites who don’t like being called out.
And that brings us around to the ouroboros of intent in political discourse. Your original question was whether people misuse those accusations to shut down criticism, and the answer is unequivocally yes. Even if the criticism is valid, and even if there are bigots among the critics, using those terms to describe or defend against critics is a tool to shut down the debate. Let’s stick with Israel as an example. Israel is engaged in genocide. They have an interest in shutting down the debate. Anti-Semites want to kill all the Jewish people in Israel. They have an interest in mainstreaming their hatred and making peaceful revolution impossible. It serves both interests to label all critics of Israel as anti-Semitic, and the vast majority of reasonable people who don’t think genocide is good are merely stuck between two sets of violent conservatives. Neither the Israeli government nor the bigots who hate Jewish people care about how many innocent people die. And it’s always the innocent who do most of the dying.
We see this same avalance of hatred and ignorance when we talk about racism or really any form of bigotry. Any criticms that are even remotely valid are co-opted by hate groups because it helps promote their faction of conservativism, and then pointing it out helps the targets of criticism avoid accountability. And then the sheer quantity of accusations leveled dilutes the power of those words in the public consciousness, emboldening the actual racists, anti-Semites, and bigots.
TLDR yes, people “misuse” those labels to shut down criticism, even when they are accurate, and even when it is used by the bigots themselves.
Very well said. There is also an effect at play here where the more dire an accusation is, the more our natural tendency is to believe it. Take a more extreme example: pedophile. If your neighbor is accused of being a pedophile, however flimsy the evidence, people are going to start acting as if it is true.
It’s logical behavior, in a way, because dangers with more serious consequences need to be taken more seriously. Its safer to just assume a dangerous threat is really a threat even if you’re not sure about the data. This is terrible for those with suspicion cast on them, but it is a thing.
what’s up with the “clear things up” phrase?, is this site run by bots?
It’s fun to be silly and the fediverse has a bit of a “ministry of silly walks” vibe to it. I hope that helps clear things up.
It’s a common turn of phrase that people use when explaining something to someone who seems unclear on a subject.
I hope this clears things up.
I just copied the first answer but changed the conclusion. Third guy continued the pattern and at least I found it funny.
Anyway to answer your question yes, accusing someone of being any or all of the above is used as a tool to make others not listen to their argument but rather disregard them outright. If you hear someone use it you should probably put extra effort into figuring it out yourself.
What zxqwas said, I think the third guy was pretty funny too.
Most people on these forums can’t think for themselves and are just parroting others to fit in.
Try calling out Jewish billionaires and see how far you get on here 🤣
Apparently they deserve their right to support genocide in peace.
Somehow calling out Christians for their poor conduct doesn’t warrant censorship…
