World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
The article doesn't have any statements from the protestors about why they were protesting there. Seems like a glaringly obvious omission.
Also, it's not exactly clear where "there" even was
Was this demonstration actually in response to the play performance or did they just happen to be near each other?
I was noticing that, and a suspicious lack of reason for why this play would be singled out. Those kinds of omission make this super sketchy imo, it often indicates not that the protestors had no point or were antisemitic, but that they had a point and the article is withholding it to paint them as antisemites. Hopefully there are first hand sources or less biased news articles that explain it
Also, Palestinians are Semites...
That's not what antisemitism means. This is like thinking that antipasto means someone is opposed to Pasto. Two different words.
Not a good example. Anti = before, pasto = meal. Antipasto is what you eat before the main dish. Whether people have meant antisemitism to mean specifically Jewish persons (a bad reading), the fact remains that Arabs are Semites and Palestinians are Arabs.
This article has nothing to do with Semites. You are wandering down a pointless thought experiment, and likely attempting to derail the conversation. I can understand your confusion; antisemitism as a word is historically derived from the same root as Semite, much as "antipasto" and "pastor" are derived from the same Latin root, although they have no common meaning today. Antisemitism is and has always been a specific prejudice against Jews.
Merriam-Webster | Oxford | Cambridge | Dictionary.com | Collins | American Heritage | The Atlantic (article)
That was something you just made up.
If you want to throw a definition at me that shows that antisemitism only applies to Jewish persons, then I can just as easily show you a definition that the word "literally" now means "really a lot" as in "I literally died when I heard that". Language use changes.
What on earth are you talking about? You give me an awful lot of credit if you think I made up EVERY dictionary. I don't think I missed any except for the community forums like wiktionary and urbandictionary. Of course language changes. That's why professional linguists are employed by professional dictionaries to study the language and why words are frequently added or changed. That doesn't mean words mean whatever you feel like at the moment.
You understood the use of the word in the article. You are trying to derail the conversation to make it about etymology rather than the subject of the news. You are wasting my time, as I've already sent you links to SIX dictionaries and an article in a major publication. You sent nothing but your personal feelings.
Just as an fyi it's first use is in 1881 as interchangeably anti Judaic and anti semitic.
The use of anti semitic to mean anti Judaic is in fact bigoted as fuck. The word is literally taken from a racist who thought openly that Arabs were lesser than a Jew and didn't care he was throwing them under the bus right alongside Jews. Just say anti Judaic since it's actually accurate to an inarguable level and doesn't make some weird bigoted class system.
The person we are responding to has an agenda. They aren’t in it to exchange ideas, they are in it to force you to accept their view of world. This person is offended personally that we don’t automatically agree.
There's tons of that here, same as Reddit just more echo chambers.
You notice it when you’re downvoted heavily and go back an hour later to see that you’ve been voted into the low positives again. It’s really sad how people astroturf so often.
I don't care about downvotes, I find it funny more often than not especially if they come with a ban for a odd reason.
This Lemmy instance seems to be pretty light on bans but others are not so much.
Many Jewish organizations have advocated using the term "Jew hate" in order to avoid the linguistically and historically problematic "antisemitism" or "anti-Semitism," but I am skeptical of the success.
By the way, you are close, but to clarify: the term was originated by Wilhelm Marr, who founded the Antisemiten-Liga (League of Anti-Semites) in 1879. This organization was not concerned with Semites in general, but with Jews in particular, as evinced by publications such as "Do not choose a Jew!" "Jew's Mirror," and "The War of the Jews." You are absolutely right in that it is bigoted and coined by a bigot.
I'm for anti Judaic, follows the same form but it's accurate.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/anti-Semitism
No I'm correct, it want used until 1881 not 1879 and Wilhelm was scared of Jews he however didn't think much of and disliked arabs. He only added specificity to make sure people knew he was against semites generally and Jews specifically. I dunno if you've actually read his book but it makes it pretty clear.
I'm not sure where they are getting the date - maybe that was the first use in English? The group was founded in 1879. The term (at least in German) traces to that date.
I don't speak German and I haven't read any of his works, so I appreciate your educating me on that point. If there is an English-language resource I can learn more about his anti-Arab views, please share it. TIA
They sourced it boss. It's the first published use, could it have been used before? Sure, we just have evidence of it.
I have a translated copy somewhere, I'll dig to see if I can find it.
I'm confused about the reply - is it possible you missed a word? In any case, you can see from the source I mentioned that the word dates from at least 1879 in German print, but again, we are arguing about 2 years. It looks like Douglas Harper made a small error on his excellent website, but no one's perfect. Again, I appreciate you taking the time to share. Which book are you referring to though? He has several as I mentioned.
(see also Encyclopedia Britannica, German Digital Library, Brill)
Dictionaries aren't great with etymology just as an fyi.
The league was forged in 79, correct. The word wasn't used in a known publication that we can verify until 1881, first known publication is always the winner in etymology because publication generally equals acceptance. I dunno if you've seen mean girls but it's "fetch" in example of you get my meaning.
You're being very confusing now. I didn't say anything about a dictionary in our conversation. I sent you links from a research encyclopedia, a scholarly series, and two different records of the primary source. Did you have trouble viewing them? Let me know if you need others or if there is a problem I'm missing. Sorry if I'm asking you to simplify things too much as this is not my area of study.
Were you able to find the name of that book by the way? I have not seen any translations online, but in the German I have not been able to find any references to Arabs at all. It would help if I knew where you were looking.
Britannica is both a dictionary and an encyclopedia bud.
It's Wilhelm's book dude, your citing its author who coined the term in the later book after creating the society like three years earlier.
Der Sieg des Judenthums über das Germanenthum – Vom nichtconfessionellen Standpunkt aus betrachtet.
Der Sieg des Judenthums über das Germanenthum is only one of a half-dozen books and other publications Marr wrote. It does not discuss, nor even mention Arabs.
Thanks anyway. Have a good one.
It does but sure, have a nice night.
You are mistaken, once again. I'm not sure why you continually double down on easily disproven facts, even after seeing evidence.
There is a brief passage about the "Jewish Press" siding with Turkey in the Russo-Turkish War, but that is framed entirely as a criticism of the "Jewish press," not a criticism of the Turks. It makes no mention of Arabs whatsoever.
Marr references "Semites" or "Semitism" (etc.) 26 times in the work, and those are explicit, exclusive references to Jews or the Jewish people all 26 times. This is all plain for anyone to see. The entire work is publicly available. I'm sorry, but there doesn't seem to be anything I can learn from you on this subject.
What disproof? Nuh uh isn't a refutation.
Dude I'm not going to explain to you how to read nuance that Ctrl f doesn't give.
You already said good day, are you going to say that every time and keep contradicting yourself?
This hilarious part is that I am actually a linguist. But you're obviously sensitive to this topic so I'll walk away.
Sensitive? You are the one arguing that every dictionary is wrong. If you have an axe to grind, take it up with your editors - not me.
You could have walked away just now, you had every chance.
You're acting in bad faith. Stop putting words in my mouth, stop projecting yourself at me. Whatever is going on here comes from your own insecurities. You appeal to authority in every exchange, and you are gatekeeping how other are allowed to use language as if there was some objective truth in the use of language. Every part of this is done for your own purposes that have nothing to do with this conversation.
Walk away, stop talking.
How is that relevant?
Because the play involved Jewish protagonists even though it had nothing to do with Israel or Palestine? That's the point.
Pro-Palestinian protests are justified, but when they do things like this or things like defacing the statue of Anne Frank, they are clearly being appropriated by those who say Zionism so they can avoid the antisemitism label.