That’s fine. If we don’t want to use the word we don’t need to.
If we’re going to use it then let’s use it in a non-racist way.
It’s kind of bizzare to say claim that we shouldn’t use the term “Semite” because it’s outdated but then continue to use “antisemite” and claim it’s only about a tiny subsection of the people that “Semite” used to refer to.
Because “antisemitic” and “Semite”/“Semitic” are completely different words. “Antisemitic” is no longer semantically just the “anti-” affix plus “Semitic”. That’s just how semantic drift works unfortunately. It’s become pretty much completely disconnected from the base morpheme, and most people that use the word don’t even know that the word “Semitic” actually exists in the original sense – it’s practically a bound morpheme now, outside of its use in linguistics. Semantic narrowing is a normal part of language change.
That’s fine. If we don’t want to use the word we don’t need to. If we’re going to use it then let’s use it in a non-racist way.
It’s kind of bizzare to say claim that we shouldn’t use the term “Semite” because it’s outdated but then continue to use “antisemite” and claim it’s only about a tiny subsection of the people that “Semite” used to refer to.
Because “antisemitic” and “Semite”/“Semitic” are completely different words. “Antisemitic” is no longer semantically just the “anti-” affix plus “Semitic”. That’s just how semantic drift works unfortunately. It’s become pretty much completely disconnected from the base morpheme, and most people that use the word don’t even know that the word “Semitic” actually exists in the original sense – it’s practically a bound morpheme now, outside of its use in linguistics. Semantic narrowing is a normal part of language change.