• disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Jew is both a genealogical ethnicity and a religious designation. Islam is a different religion. So, never?

    • Kashif Shah@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Final comment for ya (always happy to continue chatting in our deeper thread though - that was lovely).

      A lot of people conflate Islam with Arab, nowadays (maybe you’ve heard of brown-folks be described as Islamics before, for example)

      So, maybe someday?

      if the dictionary ever updates Islam to mean also mean “a Muslim”.

      • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Oxford defines a Muslim as a person who follows the religion of Islam, so that’s accurate. Based on my comment, I think you may be comparing it to the ethnicity of Jews. There actually is a scientific difference, one is a religion, while the other is a religion and a genealogical ethnicity, and it absolutely can be confusing.

        My ex and I both did DNA testing a few years ago. Hers came back as 99.8% Ashkenazi Jew. Her family emigrated from Russia when the Jews were chased out by the Bolsheviks. Some may consider that Russian ancestry. Scientifically, it’s not. She’s genealogically Jewish. It even has bearing on efficacy of certain medical treatments and hereditary health.

        https://blog.23andme.com/articles/ashkenazi-ancestry-and-health

        So someone could be genealogically Jewish and not practice Judaism, like 45% of Israeli Jews who are non-secular, or someone could practice Judaism without being of Jewish ethnicity. I hope that helps clarify some of the confusion.

        Always down for a pleasant, healthy, and civil conversation. Sorry I fell asleep on you. Haha

    • Kashif Shah@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Semite: “a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs” So, how is it anti-semitic to be pro-palestine?

      • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Yes, that is the etymology. Queer no longer means odd, and literally also means figuratively now.

        Antisemitism is the belief or behavior hostile toward Jews just because they are Jewish. It may take the form of religious teachings that proclaim the inferiority of Jews, for instance, or political efforts to isolate, oppress, or otherwise injure them. It may also include prejudiced or stereotyped views about Jews.

        It is not antisemitic to be pro-Palestine if you ask anyone other than Netanyahu.

        • Kashif Shah@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          So, arguable, anti-semitism is also bigotry toward Arabs, we just have to wait for the language to catch up, got it.

          • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            You have that reversed. Etymology is the study of the origin of words and the way in which their meanings have changed throughout history. The origin of Semite no longer applies to the word as it is used today.

            The only reason it’s unique to Jews is because it’s both a form of racism and religious persecution. One can be genealogically an Ashkenazi Jew but not practice Judaism, or vice-versa.

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          Queer no longer means odd

          Yeah it does. It has additional meanings, but it also retains that one.

          literally now also means figuratively.

          Over my dead body! Just because an authority says something unacceptable is acceptable doesn’t make it so. See also: the Israeli government committing genocide.

          It is not antisemitic to be pro-Palestine

          Correct.

          if you ask anyone other than Netanyahu

          Frustratingly, he’s far from the only Zionist demagogue spreading that particular lie. It’s become less effective recently, but it’s been used to shut down any criticism of the apartheid regime for decades…

          • Belastend@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            literally now also means figuratively.

            Over my dead body! Just because an authority says something unacceptable is acceptable doesn’t make it so. See also: the Israeli government committing genocide.

            Maybe this isnt the right place to interject here: but yes, it now also means figuratively. Not because an authority said so, but because a sizable portion of native english speakers use it to mean figuratively. Thats how language works.

            • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              That’s a textbook appeal to popularity fallacy. Just because many people make the same mistake doesn’t mean it becomes correct.

              The most popular electric car brand is Tesla. That doesn’t mean that Teslas don’t have the build quality of a 1980s Yugo and the price tag of a brand new Jaguar.

              Don’t use other people being stupid as an excuse to be stupid, is what I’m saying.

              • nieminen@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 months ago

                This is a bad comparison. Language absolutely works as described in the previous comment. While certain trends such as using “literally” to mean “figuratively”, are personally super annoying, that doesn’t change the fact it’s 100% correct when enough people do it.

                • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  Nope, both descriptivism and prescriptivism have merit, depending on the specific case.

                  A lot of people using a word as having the opposite meaning out of pure ignorance and/or carelessness is one case where prescriptivism is warranted.

                  I’ll die on this fucking hill 😄

                  • Belastend@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    And you will die on a linguistically untenable hill. Redefining words had happened throughout history and language hasnt died out and its not gotten worse.

              • Belastend@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 months ago

                The OED is, again, descriptive. They observe the change in meaning and update their description accordingly.

                • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Correct. You’ve just described how the language you’re using has come to be. It evolves over time, and the OED is the most respected documenter of that change. We don’t use the same English that was standard a century ago. Wheat is colloquial now is the standard.