Is it true that people misuse the word "racist"/"Anti-Semite" /"bigot" to shut down criticism?
-
This post did not contain any content.
No.
That clear things up?
-
This post did not contain any content.
Yes.
Does that clear things up?
-
This post did not contain any content.
Maybe.
I hope that clears things up.
-
This post did not contain any content.
what's up with the "clear things up" phrase?, is this site run by bots?
-
This post did not contain any content.
Yes.
Anyone who criticizes Israel is called an antisemite but Chuck Schumer, the highest ranked USA Jewish politician, say criticizing Israel is not antisemitism.
-
what's up with the "clear things up" phrase?, is this site run by bots?
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. -
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
Yes, you bigot. Stop gaslighting me.
-
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.
-
what's up with the "clear things up" phrase?, is this site run by bots?
Most people on these forums can't think for themselves and are just parroting others to fit in.
-
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
-
I think we should be able to criticize all identities
people of any identity or any identity? there's a difference
-
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?
-
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?
They take 'think of the children' too far for sure
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
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.
-
This post did not contain any content.
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.
-
I think we should be able to criticize all identities
I agree, if you mean: We should be able to criticize individuals for their own actions.
Not entire groups of people based on generalizations.
-
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
-
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.
-
This post did not contain any content.
You can't be an atheist without calling out religions for the hate, war, and genocide that they cause.
If it's a jewish person that you're talking to, you'll get accused of antisemitism. If they're muslim, then you're islamophobic. If they're christian, you're a satanist.
Religions use these words as a form of stealth blasphemy law. They can't pass laws that forbid criticizing their religion, so they just shout baseless hate at people trying to stop religious hate. "You can't stop my religious hate, you're a hater!".
Yeah, right.
This causes a problem, because there are jewish people trying to genocide muslim people, while muslim people try to genocide jewish people. That's some actual hate right there. Atheists don't want anyone dead, just educated and not lied to by religious assholes. These religious people? They want to kill and torture their religious enemies with as much hate as possible.
It's not the same. All the hate is coming from the religious side. It always has been.
