Is it true that people misuse the word "racist"/"Anti-Semite" /"bigot" to shut down criticism?
-
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.
Yes surely israel is doing the genocide but have you considered how coddled western jews' feelings about it?
-
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.
If they're christian, you're a satanist.
I mean, at least that would be spot on. Satanism, as in the Church of Satan, is a non-religious atheist organization.
-
This post did not contain any content.
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 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.
You can’t be an atheist without calling out religions for the hate, war, and genocide that they cause.
Yes you can! Atheism is not an ideology. You're talking about anti-theists and plenty of us non-believers don't wanna be associated with those people.
-
If they're christian, you're a satanist.
I mean, at least that would be spot on. Satanism, as in the Church of Satan, is a non-religious atheist organization.
I think you might have that mixed up with the satanic temple. Afaik the church of satan describes itself as a religion
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
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.
-
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.
-
I think you might have that mixed up with the satanic temple. Afaik the church of satan describes itself as a religion
The one in San Francisco. I always forget which is which, but I know the one I mean is originally based out of SF.
-
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.
-
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.
Wait, what's the difference between a Nazi and a conservative? That's a change in degree not in kind.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Sometimes.
There's also digressive victimhood. That's where someone in a dominant group is accused of wrongdoing, and they claim victimhood on some other axis.
When dominant groups are accused of discrimination against non-dominant groups, they often seek to portray themselves as the victims of discrimination instead. Sometimes, however, members of dominant groups counter accusations of discrimination by invoking victimhood on a new dimension of harm, changing the topic being discussed. Across three studies (N = 3081), we examine two examples of this digressive victimhood – Christian Americans responding to accusations of homophobia by claiming threatened religious liberty, and White Americans responding to accusations of racism by claiming threatened free speech.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103121001360
-
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.
-
Wait, what's the difference between a Nazi and a conservative? That's a change in degree not in kind.
Most Conservatives aren't Nazis.
-
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
wrote last edited by [email protected]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.
-
This post did not contain any content.
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.
-
Most Conservatives aren't Nazis.
I am sure many US conservatives would deny this, but they are actively mourning a wanna be Nazi. Also, MAGA is literally a Nazi movement in disguise.
I would normally agree with you, but I am not so sure anymore.
-
This post did not contain any content.
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.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Yes and it happens left right up down middle. No single group is immune to it.
-
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.
-
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.
