Posted here to avoid flaming. Not to take too long on this, but here it is -Stevertigo
- Hope I have not offended anyone. -HS
- I don't see how anything youve written has been in any way offensive. But I understand the caution; I apparently offend people quite often. ;)-SV
1. Anti-Semitism is the persecution of Jews - Would this mean that anyone who persecutes any Jew for any reason is an AS? The current def is: it is animosity towards them as a religious or ethnic group. -HS
- this leaves open the interpretation of whether its one instance or the tendency as a whole. Maybe a. b. sections can go under this, instead of separate definitions below. -SV
- IMHO, the problem is not one vs. whole. If my Jewish neighbor plays music too loud and I complain, it is not AS. Accusing him of deicide, would make the qualitative difference. The current def. reflects this. -HS
- I think this is a bit overthought. I simply proposed a line by line definition, which seems to work in other controversial contexts. The definitions arent necessarily mutually exclusive, or contradicting, but should reflect different ways to look at the subject, in the simplest ways. -SV
- I don't mind line-by-line defs, as long as it satisfies these conditions. So far I don't think it does, sorry. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 21:40, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
2. Any "ism" has its history, which should not be a part of its definition. -HS
- Anti-Semitism as a history is long-dating and old enough to justify a mention, dont you think? Especially considering that its a neologism by comparison to what often used to describe? Considering an order for these definitions, I think this is a close second. -SV
- To mention in the article - most definitely, but I would object to making it a part of the definition. You are correct, the phenomenon is millenia old, but the terminology is new, and unfortunately its a misnomer. -HS
- I appreciate your understanding of the term. Even though its a "misnomeric neologism" (!?), it still is the term used to refer to these things. Unless English were to borrow the Hebrew terms (which might be a better solution), AS is it. I understand that my view regarding the mention for the history is unconventional, but am rather stuck on it. AS, more than almost any other particular "ism," has a history, and that in my mind is the second most important definition of the term, as it is used today.-SV
- The character of persecutions changed from political to religious to racial - and back to political today, but the common motives stay the same. History is being made everyday, I object adding history to the def. If you're really interested in the subj. please see Talk:History of anti-Semitism, its archives and the article itself. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 21:40, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
3. It is in a human nature to rationalize our actions or beliefs. Never met (or read about) any AS who would admit their hatred is irrational. There is always a "good" reason, even if it is self-contradictory: Jews brought about Communism (alt: Capitalism, etc), they are powerful and mean (alt: they dribble their victimhood and make industry out of it), etc. -HS
- And an alcholic is "not an alcoholic." Whether its admitted or not is beside the point. The stereotype may have cultural rationalizations, but its still irrational bigotry. But I concede that this could be merged with 1. -SV
- I understand. Again, adding this into the def. would shift the discussion from where it belongs: a hate speech/crime into a subjective and undefined "rationalization" domain. If the hatred can be reationalized, does this make it disappear? The Nazis committed their atrocities being certain that they are doing good to Germany. Does that reduce their guilt? I say not. -HS
- Hm. Well, the Nazis werent the one guilty ones eh? And after Hitler took coercive control over Germany, where could you draw the line between someone with genuine AS and someone just going along by necessity? Im talking about AS not so much per the individual, but as a name given to a wave of "irrational" hostility, which in the case of AS is directed at "Jews," whatever the definitions (1/4 5/8ths, non-Aryan looking, doesnt go to church, etc) happens to be. -SV
- It's a slippery slope, let's agree. I hope you're not going to exclude from responsibility those (adults in their right mind) who participated in deliberate, premeditated mass murder "by necessity". IMHO we should not redefine "hatred" or "intolerance" etc. here. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 21:40, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
4. I see the same subjectivity problem with perception and characterisation. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 22:18, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, to distinguish the ends of a spectrum between an irrational prejudice and an irrational fear of an irrational prejudice. But it would be a bit far to say that this is just a perceptual thing. -SV
- We are talking about the def. here, right? My intent is to make the definition as clear as possible. The rest belongs to the article. JMHO. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 02:01, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I agree. I just think that we can give a sample of what comes below, by what comes at top. This might in the end only have 2 parts, like with terrorism article. I think this ordered approach has worked well, for the definition of controversial, multifaceted, misnomeric terms. -SV
- As long as we don't open a can of worms, fine. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 21:40, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
5. This gives some due to the fact that the term holds some political potency.
PS.If I have time, I should like to merge our discussions into an ordered tier, if that would be helpful. -Stevertigo
- Done. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 21:40, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)