On the careful use of some Group Labels

[LateStarter]

Several posts have suggested that caution about using the label "Jew" indicates a personal association of the word "Jew" with negative connotations and that, by making that association, a person demonstrates that they are somewhat antisemitic or, at the very least, provincial / ignorant.

I strongly disagree and it concerns me that such a view only exaggerates and exacerbates the problem.

My caution is emphatically NOT because I associate the word "Jew" with negative connotations. The association of the word "Jew" with negative connotations is not my doing. The association exists out there in the broad historical context of the wider world. I am aware of the existence of negative connotations, so I take care. That is all.

[PeteD01]

Several posts have suggested that caution about using the label "Jew" indicates a personal association of the word "Jew" with negative connotations and that, by making that association, a person demonstrates that they are somewhat antisemitic or, at the very least, provincial / ignorant.

I strongly disagree and it concerns me that such a view only exaggerates and exacerbates the problem.

My caution is emphatically NOT because I associate the word "Jew" with negative connotations. The association of the word "Jew" with negative connotations is not my doing. The association exists out there in the broad historical context of the wider world. I am aware of the existence of negative connotations, so I take care. That is all.

It is not so much that not using the terms "Jew/Jews" is antisemitic in itself but can be indicative of antisemitism, and I have stated that it might just be ignorance.

You are indicating that the association exists in "the broad historical context in the wider world" and I would argue that this is precisely because there is the widely disseminated idea that there is something unsavory about Jews - that idea sits at the center of antisemitism and its propagation is the ongoing antisemitic project.

Do not overthink this.

It is not so that words have firmly attached meanings that survives independent of context - unless the word is a very narrow technical term.

Meaning is created on the fly through the use of language, which in this case would mean that if well meaning people stopped using the terms appropriately, the only meaning remaining would be negative.

Antisemites use the terms "Jew/Jews" as pejoratives and the easiest way to push back on this is to use the terms appropriately, with respect and good intentions.

Ask yourself what the alternative would be: avoiding the use of these words not even the vast majority Jews themselves find objectionable?

Think about it. What if well meaning people stopped using the terms "Jew/Jews"?

It would remove the words from conversation except in antisemitic circles.

That is a completely unacceptable proposition.

Jewish person or Jew?

For many years, especially following World War II and in reaction to the anti-Semitic use of the word, it was considered offensive to refer to someone as a Jew, using the proper noun form of the term. Instead, it was preferable to use the adjectival form, Jewish. We see this in the phrase Jewish American.

However, in the past decade, there has been a movement to reclaim use of the word Jew by some members of the Jewish community. Essentially, instead of saying “I am a Jewish person,” some choose to say “I am a Jew.” Despite this movement, when using the term it is important to pair it with the indefinite article a or no articles at all, rather than the definite article the. While the difference may seem minor, using the definite article implies a stereotypical, monolithic Jewish figure, which is anti-Semitic. Lastly, the use of Jew as a verb is undeniably offensive.

Additionally, the spelling of anti-Semitic itself is controversial, with some arguing that the hyphen should be dropped. You can read a summary of this debate here.

https://www.dictionary.com/e/jewish-judaism-terms/#jewish-person-or-jew

[GuitarStv]

I think @GuitarStv hit the nail on the head bringing up the preference for the using "black" as an adjective and not a noun. With how large anti-black racism has been looming in public consciousness for the last few years, it makes sense people would begin to default to that phrasing as a baseline form of avoiding offense when talking about any group of people.

Of for sure, which is why that example is different from the rest of the list of terms he mentioned earlier.

As Pete said, there's no universal rule. For some populations the noun version is offensive, for others it isn't.

What we're talking about are populations where the noun version is *not* offensive, especially within that community, but folks feel uncomfortable saying those nouns because they've been raised around those nouns having negative connotations.

Like if you grew up around a lot of Jews, like I have, then you will likely be totally comfortable with saying "she is a Jew." Or if you grew up around a lot of Mexicans, like I have, then you will be comfortable saying "They're Mexicans." But if you have mostly grown up with the terms "Jew" and "Mexican" having a vague or obvious negative connotation, then you may default to always saying "Jewish people" and "Mexican people/people from Mexico."

I feel like I've somehow been super unclear but I don't know how to be clearer.

I also didn't mean to detail the thread, I was just trying to offer some perspective and clarity on a conflict that was kind of relevant to me.

Can I persuade you / PeteD01 that my caution re. use of the word "Jew" is not a personal failing ?  -  in a separate Topic:  On the careful use of some Group Labels

I'm not going to engage further for risk of taking things off opic again, but for the record I never considered it a personal failing, only an indicator that the person likely hasn't spent much time with Jews.

That's not quite the vibe that I got from the earlier comments made:

Now, as a Jew, I have no problem if you call me "a Jew" or "a Jewish person" but Pete is spot on, if someone very conspicuously avoids using the term "Jew" in polite company, it 100% gives the impression that they were raised to hear "Jew" as having negative connotations.

We do notice when someone won't say it.

I never really thought about it before . . . but "The Jewish people/person over there." sounds less likely to cause offense than "The Jew/Jews over there." to my ear so I think it's my default.  I would do the same with "Arab", "Black", "Gay", "African", or "Mexican" as well, but not "American", "Canadian", or "Christian".  It's not so much because I think that these are bad words, but because I want to sidestep any association with negative use of the terms.  Adding 'people/person' just seems less likely to have potential to cause offense.

Paradoxically it indicates that you don't have positive associations with those labels if you feel that saying them isn't comfortable.

It tells me you haven't spent much time engaging with those cultures.

There's a lot of 'personal failing' vibe going on there.  From the 'you were raised to think negatively of Jews' to the 'you don't have positive associations with minorities' to the 'you haven't engaged with culture other than your own' . . . might not have been what was meant, but that's certainly the read that I was getting.  Maybe I was totally misreading it, but it kinda hurt.

Ask yourself what the alternative would be: avoiding the use of these words not even the vast majority Jews themselves find objectionable?

I guess because the time that we live in places greater emphasis on what other white people think than whatever the minority group impacted thinks?

To take an example . . . black hat/white hat software testing (a term taken from cowboy westerns and having nothing at all to do with race) became verboten because white people decided that it offended black people.  I've never actually met a black person who thought this was an important or sensible change to make . . . but have run into dozens of angry white people who do.

In this environment it becomes normalized to tiptoe around anything that might even slightly cause offense.  Hence the preference for 'Jewish people' rather than 'Jew'.  Not from racist upbringing, but from oversensitivity brought about by fear of reprisal - whether the reprisal makes any sense or not.

[LateStarter]

Thanks for engaging Pete.

Several posts have suggested that caution about using the label "Jew" indicates a personal association of the word "Jew" with negative connotations and that, by making that association, a person demonstrates that they are somewhat antisemitic or, at the very least, provincial / ignorant.

I strongly disagree and it concerns me that such a view only exaggerates and exacerbates the problem.

My caution is emphatically NOT because I associate the word "Jew" with negative connotations. The association of the word "Jew" with negative connotations is not my doing. The association exists out there in the broad historical context of the wider world. I am aware of the existence of negative connotations, so I take care. That is all.

It is not so much that not using the terms "Jew/Jews" is antisemitic in itself but can be indicative of antisemitism, and I have stated that it might just be ignorance.

This is exactly my objection. You state that either I am antisemitic or I'm ignorant. Are those the only possibilities you're willing to grant me ?

You are indicating that the association exists in "the broad historical context in the wider world" and I would argue that this is precisely because there is the widely disseminated idea that there is something unsavory about Jews - that idea sits at the center of antisemitism and its propagation is the ongoing antisemitic project.

Do not overthink this.

It is not so that words have firmly attached meanings that survives independent of context - unless the word is a very narrow technical term.

Meaning is created on the fly through the use of language, which in this case would mean that if well meaning people stopped using the terms appropriately, the only meaning remaining would be negative.

Antisemites use the terms "Jew/Jews" as pejoratives and the easiest way to push back on this is to use the terms appropriately, with respect and good intentions.

Ask yourself what the alternative would be: avoiding the use of these words not even the vast majority Jews themselves find objectionable?

Think about it. What if well meaning people stopped using the terms "Jew/Jews"?

It would remove the words from conversation except in antisemitic circles.

That is a completely unacceptable proposition.

I agree. However, from my declared position on the matter - If you think I'm not fighting the good fight with sufficient vigour, you can only accuse me of timidity or similar. You can't accuse me of antisemitism.

Jewish person or Jew?

For many years, especially following World War II and in reaction to the anti-Semitic use of the word, it was considered offensive to refer to someone as a Jew, using the proper noun form of the term. Instead, it was preferable to use the adjectival form, Jewish. We see this in the phrase Jewish American.

However, in the past decade, there has been a movement to reclaim use of the word Jew by some members of the Jewish community. Essentially, instead of saying “I am a Jewish person,” some choose to say “I am a Jew.” Despite this movement, when using the term it is important to pair it with the indefinite article a or no articles at all, rather than the definite article the. While the difference may seem minor, using the definite article implies a stereotypical, monolithic Jewish figure, which is anti-Semitic. Lastly, the use of Jew as a verb is undeniably offensive.

Additionally, the spelling of anti-Semitic itself is controversial, with some arguing that the hyphen should be dropped. You can read a summary of this debate here.

https://www.dictionary.com/e/jewish-judaism-terms/#jewish-person-or-jew

Again, I mostly agree.

A great example of this is the word "gay" that went from an insult to a generally acceptable alternative to "homosexual".
During the transition, careless use could earn you a punch in the face. It paid to take care and, to some extent, it still does. Doesn't make me a homophobe though.

[LateStarter]

Jewish person or Jew?

For many years, especially following World War II and in reaction to the anti-Semitic use of the word, it was considered offensive to refer to someone as a Jew, using the proper noun form of the term. Instead, it was preferable to use the adjectival form, Jewish. We see this in the phrase Jewish American.

However, in the past decade, there has been a movement to reclaim use of the word Jew by some members of the Jewish community. Essentially, instead of saying “I am a Jewish person,” some choose to say “I am a Jew.” Despite this movement, when using the term it is important to pair it with the indefinite article a or no articles at all, rather than the definite article the. While the difference may seem minor, using the definite article implies a stereotypical, monolithic Jewish figure, which is anti-Semitic. Lastly, the use of Jew as a verb is undeniably offensive.

Additionally, the spelling of anti-Semitic itself is controversial, with some arguing that the hyphen should be dropped. You can read a summary of this debate here.

https://www.dictionary.com/e/jewish-judaism-terms/#jewish-person-or-jew

Incidentally, can you explain the bolded statement above ? It makes no sense to me.

[fell-like-rain]

I'm a Jew, and these are the things I am concerned about w.r.t. antisemitism these days:

• a right-wing nutjob coming to shoot up my synagogue
• left-wing nutjobs who think murdering thousands of innocent people is an 'act of resistance'

(And to a lesser degree, employment discrimination, which, surprise!, is still pretty rampant against Jews despite all the 'wealthy and powerful' bullcrap)

People using the term "Jewish person" versus "a Jew" does not make the list. It tends to be abundantly clear from context whether someone is making an innocuous statement or trying to imply something negative, regardless of which words they use.

[Chris Pascale]

I'm a Jew, and these are the things I am concerned about w.r.t. antisemitism these days:

• a right-wing nutjob coming to shoot up my synagogue
• left-wing nutjobs who think murdering thousands of innocent people is an 'act of resistance'

(And to a lesser degree, employment discrimination, which, surprise!, is still pretty rampant against Jews despite all the 'wealthy and powerful' bullcrap)

People using the term "Jewish person" versus "a Jew" does not make the list. It tends to be abundantly clear from context whether someone is making an innocuous statement or trying to imply something negative, regardless of which words they use.

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

Our best friends in our neighborhood are Jewish. They come over on Christmas and Easter, and we go there on Passover and Hanukkah.

If I'm recalling correctly, I guess if you asked their religion, they'd say Jewish, but if you ask them about who they are, they'd say Jew.

[PeteD01]

Thanks for engaging Pete.

Several posts have suggested that caution about using the label "Jew" indicates a personal association of the word "Jew" with negative connotations and that, by making that association, a person demonstrates that they are somewhat antisemitic or, at the very least, provincial / ignorant.

I strongly disagree and it concerns me that such a view only exaggerates and exacerbates the problem.

My caution is emphatically NOT because I associate the word "Jew" with negative connotations. The association of the word "Jew" with negative connotations is not my doing. The association exists out there in the broad historical context of the wider world. I am aware of the existence of negative connotations, so I take care. That is all.

It is not so much that not using the terms "Jew/Jews" is antisemitic in itself but can be indicative of antisemitism, and I have stated that it might just be ignorance.

This is exactly my objection. You state that either I am antisemitic or I'm ignorant. Are those the only possibilities you're willing to grant me ?

Invoking "ignorance" in the context of someone saying or writing something that might be objectionable, when considering a backstory the person is clearly unaware of, should be interpreted as done inadvertently and without malice without actually making excuses.
For example, I am ignorant of a great many things, I suspect that I am actually ignorant of most what's going on in the universe.
So, it is "ignorance" in the sense of being unaware of something pertinent to the issue at hand, not in the sense that someone is "ignorant" as a personal quality, as implied for example by saying someone is an ignoramus.
Of course, diagnosing "ignorance" as exculpating something always requires ruling out "willful ignorance", which is indicative of either maliciousness or plain old stupidity.

You are indicating that the association exists in "the broad historical context in the wider world" and I would argue that this is precisely because there is the widely disseminated idea that there is something unsavory about Jews - that idea sits at the center of antisemitism and its propagation is the ongoing antisemitic project.

Do not overthink this.

It is not so that words have firmly attached meanings that survives independent of context - unless the word is a very narrow technical term.

Meaning is created on the fly through the use of language, which in this case would mean that if well meaning people stopped using the terms appropriately, the only meaning remaining would be negative.

Antisemites use the terms "Jew/Jews" as pejoratives and the easiest way to push back on this is to use the terms appropriately, with respect and good intentions.

Ask yourself what the alternative would be: avoiding the use of these words not even the vast majority Jews themselves find objectionable?

Think about it. What if well meaning people stopped using the terms "Jew/Jews"?

It would remove the words from conversation except in antisemitic circles.

That is a completely unacceptable proposition.

I agree. However, from my declared position on the matter - If you think I'm not fighting the good fight with sufficient vigour, you can only accuse me of timidity or similar. You can't accuse me of antisemitism.

I´m not accusing you of antisemitism.

Most people who are uneasy using the terms "Jew/Jews" when perfectly appropriate are doing it because they are afraid of offending someone and that can be traced back to not knowing Jews in real life and being unaware (ignorant of) that they have been insidiously influenced by antisemitic tropes that are unfortunately rather prevalent.

Jewish person or Jew?

For many years, especially following World War II and in reaction to the anti-Semitic use of the word, it was considered offensive to refer to someone as a Jew, using the proper noun form of the term. Instead, it was preferable to use the adjectival form, Jewish. We see this in the phrase Jewish American.

However, in the past decade, there has been a movement to reclaim use of the word Jew by some members of the Jewish community. Essentially, instead of saying “I am a Jewish person,” some choose to say “I am a Jew.” Despite this movement, when using the term it is important to pair it with the indefinite article a or no articles at all, rather than the definite article the. While the difference may seem minor, using the definite article implies a stereotypical, monolithic Jewish figure, which is anti-Semitic. Lastly, the use of Jew as a verb is undeniably offensive.

Additionally, the spelling of anti-Semitic itself is controversial, with some arguing that the hyphen should be dropped. You can read a summary of this debate here.

https://www.dictionary.com/e/jewish-judaism-terms/#jewish-person-or-jew

Again, I mostly agree.

A great example of this is the word "gay" that went from an insult to a generally acceptable alternative to "homosexual".
During the transition, careless use could earn you a punch in the face. It paid to take care and, to some extent, it still does. Doesn't make me a homophobe though.

[PeteD01]

Jewish person or Jew?

For many years, especially following World War II and in reaction to the anti-Semitic use of the word, it was considered offensive to refer to someone as a Jew, using the proper noun form of the term. Instead, it was preferable to use the adjectival form, Jewish. We see this in the phrase Jewish American.

However, in the past decade, there has been a movement to reclaim use of the word Jew by some members of the Jewish community. Essentially, instead of saying “I am a Jewish person,” some choose to say “I am a Jew.” Despite this movement, when using the term it is important to pair it with the indefinite article a or no articles at all, rather than the definite article the. While the difference may seem minor, using the definite article implies a stereotypical, monolithic Jewish figure, which is anti-Semitic. Lastly, the use of Jew as a verb is undeniably offensive.

Additionally, the spelling of anti-Semitic itself is controversial, with some arguing that the hyphen should be dropped. You can read a summary of this debate here.

https://www.dictionary.com/e/jewish-judaism-terms/#jewish-person-or-jew

Incidentally, can you explain the bolded statement above ? It makes no sense to me.

The bolded part refers to antisemitism being the mother of all conspiracy theories.
As these go, Jews are accused to have immutable characteristics/traits that drives them to cause harm to non-Jews.

Every known vice is ascribed to them as a collective trait - character assassination on a collective scale and a powerful way of "othering" Jews.
The bolded statement also refers to the most organized and massively state sponsored propaganda campaign in order to make any reference to "Jew/Jews" likely to elicit negative emotions in the populace.
The perps of course were the Nazis and their effort culminated in a fake movie documentary: "The eternal Jew" (note the definite article the)

Interestingly, the expensive multi-year campaign by the Nazi authorities had limited success among the German populace, which may be traced to the fact that in 1930s Germany most people still knew Jews personally and the defamation was less successful than hoped for, but of course successful enough to allow the Nazi plans to proceed.

[Dollar Slice]

I'm very curious if the people advocating so hard for the "Jew as noun" position are going to be doing the same for every other group, e.g. referring to "the gays" and "do you see that man over there, the Black in the red shirt?"

Or would you feel absolutely humiliated to do that in front of your friends and family because it makes you sound like a horrible bigot?

Asking as a Jewish person who absolutely gets my hackles up when someone uses the word "Jew" as a noun... not every time, but many times.

[LateStarter]

Thanks for engaging Pete.

Several posts have suggested that caution about using the label "Jew" indicates a personal association of the word "Jew" with negative connotations and that, by making that association, a person demonstrates that they are somewhat antisemitic or, at the very least, provincial / ignorant.

I strongly disagree and it concerns me that such a view only exaggerates and exacerbates the problem.

My caution is emphatically NOT because I associate the word "Jew" with negative connotations. The association of the word "Jew" with negative connotations is not my doing. The association exists out there in the broad historical context of the wider world. I am aware of the existence of negative connotations, so I take care. That is all.

It is not so much that not using the terms "Jew/Jews" is antisemitic in itself but can be indicative of antisemitism, and I have stated that it might just be ignorance.

This is exactly my objection. You state that either I am antisemitic or I'm ignorant. Are those the only possibilities you're willing to grant me ?

Invoking "ignorance" in the context of someone saying or writing something that might be objectionable, when considering a backstory the person is clearly unaware of, should be interpreted as done inadvertently and without malice without actually making excuses.
For example, I am ignorant of a great many things, I suspect that I am actually ignorant of most what's going on in the universe.
So, it is "ignorance" in the sense of being unaware of something pertinent to the issue at hand, not in the sense that someone is "ignorant" as a personal quality, as implied for example by saying someone is an ignoramus.
Of course, diagnosing "ignorance" as exculpating something always requires ruling out "willful ignorance", which is indicative of either maliciousness or plain old stupidity.

You are indicating that the association exists in "the broad historical context in the wider world" and I would argue that this is precisely because there is the widely disseminated idea that there is something unsavory about Jews - that idea sits at the center of antisemitism and its propagation is the ongoing antisemitic project.

Do not overthink this.

It is not so that words have firmly attached meanings that survives independent of context - unless the word is a very narrow technical term.

Meaning is created on the fly through the use of language, which in this case would mean that if well meaning people stopped using the terms appropriately, the only meaning remaining would be negative.

Antisemites use the terms "Jew/Jews" as pejoratives and the easiest way to push back on this is to use the terms appropriately, with respect and good intentions.

Ask yourself what the alternative would be: avoiding the use of these words not even the vast majority Jews themselves find objectionable?

Think about it. What if well meaning people stopped using the terms "Jew/Jews"?

It would remove the words from conversation except in antisemitic circles.

That is a completely unacceptable proposition.

I agree. However, from my declared position on the matter - If you think I'm not fighting the good fight with sufficient vigour, you can only accuse me of timidity or similar. You can't accuse me of antisemitism.

I´m not accusing you of antisemitism.

Most people who are uneasy using the terms "Jew/Jews" when perfectly appropriate are doing it because they are afraid of offending someone and that can be traced back to not knowing Jews in real life and being unaware (ignorant of) that they have been insidiously influenced by antisemitic tropes that are unfortunately rather prevalent.

I think I'm wasting my time here. I've explained my position and I maintain that it's rational and sensible.

You seem determined to insist that prejudice and/or ignorance are, regardless, probably at the root - based on your broad knowledge of the contents of "most people's" minds.

I'm your ally in the fight against antisemitism*, yet you seem determined to push me into the antisemitic_and/or_ignorant enemy camp. That seems like a very poor strategy.

*and, equally, any other damned discriminatory-ism

[LateStarter]

Jewish person or Jew?

For many years, especially following World War II and in reaction to the anti-Semitic use of the word, it was considered offensive to refer to someone as a Jew, using the proper noun form of the term. Instead, it was preferable to use the adjectival form, Jewish. We see this in the phrase Jewish American.

However, in the past decade, there has been a movement to reclaim use of the word Jew by some members of the Jewish community. Essentially, instead of saying “I am a Jewish person,” some choose to say “I am a Jew.” Despite this movement, when using the term it is important to pair it with the indefinite article a or no articles at all, rather than the definite article the. While the difference may seem minor, using the definite article implies a stereotypical, monolithic Jewish figure, which is anti-Semitic. Lastly, the use of Jew as a verb is undeniably offensive.

Additionally, the spelling of anti-Semitic itself is controversial, with some arguing that the hyphen should be dropped. You can read a summary of this debate here.

https://www.dictionary.com/e/jewish-judaism-terms/#jewish-person-or-jew

Incidentally, can you explain the bolded statement above ? It makes no sense to me.

The bolded part refers to antisemitism being the mother of all conspiracy theories.
As these go, Jews are accused to have immutable characteristics/traits that drives them to cause harm to non-Jews.

Every known vice is ascribed to them as a collective trait - character assassination on a collective scale and a powerful way of "othering" Jews.
The bolded statement also refers to the most organized and massively state sponsored propaganda campaign in order to make any reference to "Jew/Jews" likely to elicit negative emotions in the populace.
The perps of course were the Nazis and their effort culminated in a fake movie documentary: "The eternal Jew" (note the definite article the)

Interestingly, the expensive multi-year campaign by the Nazi authorities had limited success among the German populace, which may be traced to the fact that in 1930s Germany most people still knew Jews personally and the defamation was less successful than hoped for, but of course successful enough to allow the Nazi plans to proceed.

Well yeah, that's the context, but what does the statement actually say ?

"Despite this movement, when using the term it is important to pair it with the indefinite article a or no articles at all, rather than the definite article the. While the difference may seem minor, using the definite article implies a stereotypical, monolithic Jewish figure, which is anti-Semitic."

I'll paraphrase it for clarity:

It is important not to use the term "the Jew" because it implies a stereotypical, monolithic Jewish figure, which is anti-Semitic.

Or, more bluntly, never say "the Jew" - it's always derogatory.

WTF ?

[PeteD01]

Jewish person or Jew?

For many years, especially following World War II and in reaction to the anti-Semitic use of the word, it was considered offensive to refer to someone as a Jew, using the proper noun form of the term. Instead, it was preferable to use the adjectival form, Jewish. We see this in the phrase Jewish American.

However, in the past decade, there has been a movement to reclaim use of the word Jew by some members of the Jewish community. Essentially, instead of saying “I am a Jewish person,” some choose to say “I am a Jew.” Despite this movement, when using the term it is important to pair it with the indefinite article a or no articles at all, rather than the definite article the. While the difference may seem minor, using the definite article implies a stereotypical, monolithic Jewish figure, which is anti-Semitic. Lastly, the use of Jew as a verb is undeniably offensive.

Additionally, the spelling of anti-Semitic itself is controversial, with some arguing that the hyphen should be dropped. You can read a summary of this debate here.

https://www.dictionary.com/e/jewish-judaism-terms/#jewish-person-or-jew

Incidentally, can you explain the bolded statement above ? It makes no sense to me.

The bolded part refers to antisemitism being the mother of all conspiracy theories.
As these go, Jews are accused to have immutable characteristics/traits that drives them to cause harm to non-Jews.

Every known vice is ascribed to them as a collective trait - character assassination on a collective scale and a powerful way of "othering" Jews.
The bolded statement also refers to the most organized and massively state sponsored propaganda campaign in order to make any reference to "Jew/Jews" likely to elicit negative emotions in the populace.
The perps of course were the Nazis and their effort culminated in a fake movie documentary: "The eternal Jew" (note the definite article the)

Interestingly, the expensive multi-year campaign by the Nazi authorities had limited success among the German populace, which may be traced to the fact that in 1930s Germany most people still knew Jews personally and the defamation was less successful than hoped for, but of course successful enough to allow the Nazi plans to proceed.

Well yeah, that's the context, but what does the statement actually say ?

"Despite this movement, when using the term it is important to pair it with the indefinite article a or no articles at all, rather than the definite article the. While the difference may seem minor, using the definite article implies a stereotypical, monolithic Jewish figure, which is anti-Semitic."

I'll paraphrase it for clarity:

It is important not to use the term "the Jew" because it implies a stereotypical, monolithic Jewish figure, which is anti-Semitic.

Or, more bluntly, never say "the Jew" - it's always derogatory.

WTF ?

There are a number of issues with this.

You can't just strip away all context and expect clarity in terms of meaning - it leads to absurd results.
It's like arguing about what the verb "to put" out of context really means.

Just look a any dictionary and you will find many words with many different meanings that sort themselves out during the actual use of the words.

Using the definite article + singular term "the Jew" in order to project imaginary characteristics that are somehow shared by all Jews is at the center of the antisemitic conspiracy theory - and that's what the text is about and it is indisputable.

Now of course, the definite article + singular term "the Jew" can be just that: a reference to a single person.

But you are not going to know what meaning you are dealing with unless context is provided.
Hence the statement ...never say "the Jew" - it's always derogatory. is nonsensical because the meaning is indeterminate out of context.

But I can see where the confusion is coming from - the text is not that clear for everyone.

Here is another article:

Let's Start Using the Word Jew
By YVETTE MILLER
APRIL 25, 2017

“Jew” is a singular word, the article claimed: used by both Jews to describe themselves, as well as by anti-Semites as an insult.  For many today, “Jew” sounds provocative: the term “Jewish person” is more often used instead.

A recent example: Donald Trump’s recent speech extolling the holidays of Passover and Easter.  “Good people of all faiths, Christians and Muslims and Jewish and Hindu” the President extolled: only “Jews” were called by an adjective - Jewish - instead of by a proper noun.  (This verbal tic isn’t limited to President Trump; previous presidents too, including Presidents Obama and Reagan, also referred to “Jewish people” or “Jewish families”, not “Jews”.)

https://www.jpost.com/blogs/from-chicago-to-jerusalem/lets-start-using-the-word-jew-488930

[Raenia]

Maybe a really simple example to dissect would help?

"Jews will celebrate Passover tonight" vs. "The Jews will celebrate Passover tonight."

Do those two statements sound/feel different to people? To me they do, a bit, even though it's an outwardly innocuous statement.

I guess I've just never heard someone in real life use "The Jews" in a sentence that doesn't end in some kind of anti-Semitic statement, while I don't hear "Jews" in the same context. "Jews celebrate Passover," while "The Jews control the media with space lasers."

Thoughts?

[GuitarStv]

Maybe a really simple example to dissect would help?

"Jews will celebrate Passover tonight" vs. "The Jews will celebrate Passover tonight."

Do those two statements sound/feel different to people? To me they do, a bit, even though it's an outwardly innocuous statement.

I guess I've just never heard someone in real life use "The Jews" in a sentence that doesn't end in some kind of anti-Semitic statement, while I don't hear "Jews" in the same context. "Jews celebrate Passover," while "The Jews control the media with space lasers."

Thoughts?

I dunno.  "Jews control the media with space lasers." still doesn't sound acceptable to me.  :D

[Raenia]

Maybe a really simple example to dissect would help?

"Jews will celebrate Passover tonight" vs. "The Jews will celebrate Passover tonight."

Do those two statements sound/feel different to people? To me they do, a bit, even though it's an outwardly innocuous statement.

I guess I've just never heard someone in real life use "The Jews" in a sentence that doesn't end in some kind of anti-Semitic statement, while I don't hear "Jews" in the same context. "Jews celebrate Passover," while "The Jews control the media with space lasers."

Thoughts?

I dunno.  "Jews control the media with space lasers." still doesn't sound acceptable to me.  :D

But that's just some Jews, not all The Jews together as a monolith! :P

[PeteD01]

Precisely.

"The Jews" hints at a conspiracy all Jews are part of whereas "Jews" doesn't.

[GuitarStv]

I get it.  The problem is that not all Jews have access to the space lasers, so we're being unfair with 'The Jews'.

[LateStarter]

Precisely.

"The Jews" hints at a conspiracy all Jews are part of whereas "Jews" doesn't.

Precisely.

Caution is wise when using the words "Jew/Jews" as some may, for example, interpret a reference to a conspiracy.

[simonsez]

Just ask the people you know what they prefer and use that.

Language is so regional, cohort-specific, period-specific, etc. that you might offend someone in real life because of some good intentioned-reading online that had zero connection to the individual in your life.  I mean, sure, know general trends and history as much as possible but don't think that will suffice for every person you encounter in which certain characteristics are relevant in a conversation.

And if you do accidentally offend someone with a noun or adjective and that happens to be the worst part of your day, apologize, try your best to see where the offended person is coming from, and be thankful that was the worst part of your day.  Many would love to trade their "worst issues of the day" with you.

[LateStarter]

Just ask the people you know what they prefer and use that.

Language is so regional, cohort-specific, period-specific, etc. that you might offend someone in real life because of some good intentioned-reading online that had zero connection to the individual in your life.  I mean, sure, know general trends and history as much as possible but don't think that will suffice for every person you encounter in which certain characteristics are relevant in a conversation.

And if you do accidentally offend someone with a noun or adjective and that happens to be the worst part of your day, apologize, try your best to see where the offended person is coming from, and be thankful that was the worst part of your day.  Many would love to trade their "worst issues of the day" with you.

Seems reasonable to me. However, the act of asking is just one way of being careful, ie. exactly what I and others have advocated from the start.

The issue here is that such caution is being interpreted as a sure sign of inner prejudice. That's what I'm disputing, and will continue to dispute.

[PKFFW]

I've got to side with LateStarter here. This thread reads like some people are getting offended at the idea that other people are erring on the side of caution and making a genuine effort to not be offensive. I'm not a Jew/Jewish person/Person of the Jewish faith/any other descriptor or nomenclature that might indicate any sort of Jewish-ness, but it seems to me a bit of a reach to suggest what is pretty clearly being suggested throughout this thread.

[maizefolk]

A recent example: Donald Trump’s recent speech extolling the holidays of Passover and Easter.  “Good people of all faiths, Christians and Muslims and Jewish and Hindu” the President extolled: only “Jews” were called by an adjective - Jewish - instead of by a proper noun.

Hindu is an adjective (in this context). If it were a noun it would be "hindus". Unless the author of that piece thinks there is only one good hindu person in the world (or believes Trump thinks that.)

[ATtiny85]

I've got to side with LateStarter here. This thread reads like some people are getting offended at the idea that other people are erring on the side of caution and making a genuine effort to not be offensive. I'm not a Jew/Jewish person/Person of the Jewish faith/any other descriptor or nomenclature that might indicate any sort of Jewish-ness, but it seems to me a bit of a reach to suggest what is pretty clearly being suggested throughout this thread.

I assumed the catalyst for this was that the original poster who raised the issue in the other thread (called out a poster for being an anti-Semite because they used Jewish people in a response) was trying to compensate for some of their internal thoughts.

[blue_green_sparks]

There is a rub to all of this. Hypersensitivity to language and political correctness up-the-yazuu are certainly not traditional liberal values, but you can bet it all serves to drive a large group of fed-up moderates to the right side of the aisle in these days of social media and political AI. I have been misinterpreted and grilled a few times by the purist language police and it does make someone question their values. If this type of stuff is your cause, the far-right thanks you for your service, I am sure.

Most older people out there working didn't get "correctness training" in their college days but I did notice the HR departments worked super-hard making up for that. We had some brilliant engineers from an earlier generation who were let go over nothing more than an innocent generational faux pas. What a humiliating way to end a great career. The young engineers who remained were relatively clueless and did a good two hours of work a day, maybe. My own inbox got so full I pulled back my FIRE goals and clocked out early.

[Chris Pascale]

Just ask the people.......

Now you sound crazy!

[PeteD01]

This is long but that is how the analysis maps out.
I'm doing this on the fly, it doesn't take much time at all because once you know how the duck walks...

I also want to reiterate that I have lived and am living in the deep south and unfortunately in areas which have experienced mass shootings, one in a black church, the other recently in a dollar store. Both were attacks by white supremacists  on the local black community.
We have seen ever more neo-Nazis moving to the state and have seen a huge increase in antisemitic activity, from projection of propaganda onto buildings to leaflets thrown on front lawns as well as graffiti and banners from highway overpasses.
My tolerance for this segregationist/antisemitic drivel is at exactly zero.

...
I assumed the catalyst for this was that the original poster who raised the issue in the other thread (called out a poster for being an anti-Semite because they used Jewish people in a response) was trying to compensate for some of their internal thoughts.

Ok, so let's map it out starting with the first post:

...
Heh, yeah, the Swedes were really tolerant of other cultures until other cultures moved to Sweden...which pretty much makes them like everywhere else I guess.  it has got to be quite easy to be tolerant of a culture you don't interact with.

I grew up in a rural southern US town, half black & half white.  Was pretty clear cut the blacks hated at worst and distrusted at best the whites and the whites hated at worst and distrusted at best the blacks.  It kinda made practical sense given the consequences (I walked thru the wrong part of town as the sun set when I was 12 and got beaten to a pulp by a dozen youth with lead pipes). 
 
Yet I don't think anyone that I met in that town had any hate or distrust toward Jewish people....I assume because we had never met a Jewish person so had no opinion of them (except that maybe Seinfeld was a pretty funny show).  Or at least none of them beat me with a pipe so no strong feelings were created. 
 
So yeah, given the history and mix its pretty obvious Israel will be a mess forever, some years will just be hotter than others, and places like Sweden are much more new to it but it will grow over time.

This is the original post and it doesn't really make a coherent argument for the final message which may be paraphrased as: "majorities and minorities will always be at each other's throat and it can only get worse."
That is a classic radical right message right there.
When dealing with radical right speech one has to remember that, in large part, it does not hang together very well in terms of logic or veracity because the primary objective is not to analyze and extract information, but rather the evocation of imagery and emotional states/reactions either as ends in themselves or to induce an emotional state that makes the concluding message feel right.

So at this point we have two indicators that suggest the text being radical right speech:

1. The concluding message (to put it bluntly: keep the races apart)
2. Lack of serious argument (there is repetition, anecdotes, analogies, associations etc.)

With the post identified as possible radical right hate speech, the next logical step is to analyze it like poetry - because this type of speech does its work the way poetry does, or one might even consider it (bad) poetry as I do, and no, it wasn't my own idea:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-rhetoric/


So let's start with an inventory of ideas and suggestions that are contained in the text and that might resonate with the intended audience:

...
Heh, yeah, the Swedes were really tolerant of other cultures until other cultures moved to Sweden...which pretty much makes them like everywhere else I guess. 

1. Tolerance between cultures only happens when they do not interact ... and that is a universal truth.

it has got to be quite easy to be tolerant of a culture you don't interact with.

1b. Repetition of idea 1.

I grew up in a rural southern US town, half black & half white. 

2. Establishes a sense of symmetry

Was pretty clear cut the blacks hated at worst and distrusted at best the whites and the whites hated at worst and distrusted at best the blacks. 

3. Expands upon 2. by proposing equal levels of hate and distrust between the groups at hand. The sense of symmetry is strengthened by an odd symmetric structure in the sentence. The statement starts out with proposing that what follows is self-evident. (he's really belaboring the symmetry point now, isn't he)

It kinda made practical sense given the consequences (I walked thru the wrong part of town as the sun set when I was 12 and got beaten to a pulp by a dozen youth with lead pipes).

4. An allusion to sundown towns.  Interestingly, the race of the attackers nor the attacked are not stated but it is clear by now that the author is white and so this is an anecdote of racist black on white violence although everyone down here knows that sundown towns excluded minorities, especially blacks, often with serious violent consequences if someone was caught after hours.
https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/sundown-towns/

5. Invocation of the image of a dozen black youths violently attacking a white person. I´d say this image corresponds to a lynching with reversed roles - so it´s projection employed to create a sense of fear in the reader, black and white alike.

6. Remember the sense of symmetry that was so insistently introduced? Here it reappears: so if whites get attacked after hours then sundown towns are not a big deal - just stay out and you won't get beat up, right?   
 
Yet I don't think anyone that I met in that town had any hate or distrust toward Jewish people....I assume because we had never met a Jewish person so had no opinion of them (except that maybe Seinfeld was a pretty funny show).  Or at least none of them beat me with a pipe so no strong feelings were created.

7. The image of a white youth being beat up by a gang of Jews is created (It is not important that it´s stated that it didn't happen - poetry does not work that way.)
 
So yeah, given the history and mix its pretty obvious Israel will be a mess forever,

8. Obviously, there is nothing obvious about this no matter how hard the author tried to make the reader feel

... some years will just be hotter than others, and places like Sweden are much more new to it but it will grow over time.

9. The idea of the inevitability of endless and worsening intergroup violence as the natural state of affairs is put forward. This ideological position obscures the role of authoritarian governments, their henchmen and beneficiaries of internal minority repression and amounts to not much more than a pseudo-naturalistic justification for majority rule.

So now we have three indicators that suggest the text being radical right speech:

1. The concluding message (to put it bluntly: keep the races apart)
2. Lack of serious argument (there is repetition, anecdotes, analogies, associations etc.)
3. Extensive use of imagery and rhetorical devices that together work coherently to make the idea that perpetual intergroup strife is the natural human condition and that keeping them separate is the best thing for all - in other words: a defense of segregation.

I was now convinced at 99+% that I'm dealing with typical white supremacist hate speech and I think that a response is required.

The problem with responding to poetic hate speech is that by trying to directly dispute lies and distortions one gives the opponent the opportunity to repeat the same points while denying everything - but repetition is one of several rhetorical devices that keep functioning in terms of evoking emotion even when a perfunctory denial is included.
So it is important to keep in mind that the opponent will likely try to exploit the debate to repeatedly air the talking points fully knowing that it will also work in the negative.

...
Heh, yeah, the Swedes were really tolerant of other cultures until other cultures moved to Sweden...which pretty much makes them like everywhere else I guess. it has got to be quite easy to be tolerant of a culture you don't interact with.

BS. Sweden has a long history of racism which just happened to not come up on the media radar for some time. They are just reverting to form. (And it is not just Sweden having this issue, Scandinavian countries do have a problem with integration of even long term resident immigrants)
(simple statement of fact that holds up when checked.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Sweden 

I grew up in a rural southern US town, half black & half white.  Was pretty clear cut the blacks hated at worst and distrusted at best the whites and the whites hated at worst and distrusted at best the blacks.  It kinda made practical sense given the consequences (I walked thru the wrong part of town as the sun set when I was 12 and got beaten to a pulp by a dozen youth with lead pipes). 

Your experience growing up in a southern US town in the aftermath of slavery, civil war and Jim Crow has no parallel in the rest of the world in terms of recent history. That rest of the world is much less fucked up than what you experienced.
(This is meant as a provocation and a notice where this is going to go.)
 
Yet I don't think anyone that I met in that town had any hate or distrust toward Jewish people....I assume because we had never met a Jewish person so had no opinion of them (except that maybe Seinfeld was a pretty funny show).  Or at least none of them beat me with a pipe so no strong feelings were created. 

Just for the record, Jewish people and Jewish persons are generally referred to as Jews. Your assiduous avoidance of the term makes me think that you are not as untouched by antisemitism as you might think (edit for clarity) by not personally knowing any Jews in your youth - or you run in circles where "Jew" is considered an insult. But whatever.
(Not using the terms "Jew/Jews" when appropriate, particularly when using substitutes is awkward as it is in this case. An anomaly that disrupts the flow of the text, if you will.)
 
So yeah, given the history and mix its pretty obvious Israel will be a mess forever, some years will just be hotter than others, and places like Sweden are much more new to it but it will grow over time.

There is no reason to assume that Israel will be a mess forever and Sweden might just be on track to face its so far largely unacknowledged racism.

And finally, this thread is about Israel vs Hamas - not about your neuroses, so take it somewhere else.
(This is just a reminder that no rational argument was put forward to support the notion that "Israel will be a mess forever".
Accepted at face value would mean that the discussion in this thread is useless and a waste of time.
Thank you - that is enough)

Now, there is a reason why I picked his avoidance of the term "Jews"?

It's really simple:

Hardcore white supremacist antisemites have an exclusively negative view of Jews and they think and write in stereotypes and imagery.
Using the terms "Jew/Jews" in a positive sense really messes with their mental imagery and they can't use it fluently without misbehaving.
Their antisemitism is so repulsive that it doesn't even fly in many right wing circles, even if they have their own variations of it.
They are insecure in that respect and afraid of misbehaving and being exposed as what they are.

And finally, it might spark a discussion about why antisemites avoid the terms "Jew/Jews" but also many gentiles because they are still being influenced by the long history of these terms in the English language being used as antisemitc slurs by gentiles.
Despite what many posters are saying, that does not mean that they are all antisemites, unless one believes that every thought rushing through one´s mind is an original thought and thus part of what one is.

The reality is that thoughts and ideas float around and some are just a form of environmental condition and the way to deal with them is thought defusion:

https://washingtoncenterforcognitivetherapy.com/cognitive-defusion/

And finally, language changes all the time because the historical context changes.
In this dynamic process, words disappear, meaning changes (even turning into its opposite).
In this respect, gentiles learning that "Jew/Jews" are not derogatory unless used intentionally by an antisemite is a positive thing with good chances of succeeding, and it messes directly with the antisemitic project, because what are they always saying?
They say "We only say out loud what others are only thinking", but that is subject to change.

[PeteD01]

I've got to side with LateStarter here. This thread reads like some people are getting offended at the idea that other people are erring on the side of caution and making a genuine effort to not be offensive. I'm not a Jew/Jewish person/Person of the Jewish faith/any other descriptor or nomenclature that might indicate any sort of Jewish-ness, but it seems to me a bit of a reach to suggest what is pretty clearly being suggested throughout this thread.

I think it is premature to try to take sides here, the main reason being that there has not been anything like a debate here.
Without first breaking the whole thing up into a number of propositions which can be turned to individually for debate.
An organized approach is really the only way to sort complex subjects out - unless one is satisfied with how one feels about something.

[PeteD01]

A recent example: Donald Trump’s recent speech extolling the holidays of Passover and Easter.  “Good people of all faiths, Christians and Muslims and Jewish and Hindu” the President extolled: only “Jews” were called by an adjective - Jewish - instead of by a proper noun.

Hindu is an adjective (in this context). If it were a noun it would be "hindus". Unless the author of that piece thinks there is only one good hindu person in the world (or believes Trump thinks that.)

That is correct - I wonder why the orange one did that...

[maizefolk]

A recent example: Donald Trump’s recent speech extolling the holidays of Passover and Easter.  “Good people of all faiths, Christians and Muslims and Jewish and Hindu” the President extolled: only “Jews” were called by an adjective - Jewish - instead of by a proper noun.

Hindu is an adjective (in this context). If it were a noun it would be "hindus". Unless the author of that piece thinks there is only one good hindu person in the world (or believes Trump thinks that.)

That is correct - I wonder why the orange one did that...

I wonder why the author of the piece you quoted didn't notice it and instead made the incorrect statement (claiming only one adjective instead of 50/50 nouns/adjectives).

[RetiredAt63]

A recent example: Donald Trump’s recent speech extolling the holidays of Passover and Easter.  “Good people of all faiths, Christians and Muslims and Jewish and Hindu” the President extolled: only “Jews” were called by an adjective - Jewish - instead of by a proper noun.

Hindu is an adjective (in this context). If it were a noun it would be "hindus". Unless the author of that piece thinks there is only one good hindu person in the world (or believes Trump thinks that.)

That is correct - I wonder why the orange one did that...

Given the bad grammar skills he has repeatedly displayed, I would put it down to his inability to create good consistent sentence structure.  What's the old saying?  Something like "never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity".

[PeteD01]

A recent example: Donald Trump’s recent speech extolling the holidays of Passover and Easter.  “Good people of all faiths, Christians and Muslims and Jewish and Hindu” the President extolled: only “Jews” were called by an adjective - Jewish - instead of by a proper noun.

Hindu is an adjective (in this context). If it were a noun it would be "hindus". Unless the author of that piece thinks there is only one good hindu person in the world (or believes Trump thinks that.)

That is correct - I wonder why the orange one did that...

Given the bad grammar skills he has repeatedly displayed, I would put it down to his inability to create good consistent sentence structure.  What's the old saying?  Something like "never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity".

Actually it is the author of the piece who missed it and I didn't pay enough attention quite honestly.

But this does not detract from the argument as I have repeatedly written that this is not at all about universal rules.

[ATtiny85]

This is long but that is how the analysis maps out.

As a friend used to say, "must not have been too far off to get that sort of reaction"

You can map it out all you want, dissect every letter and word, and so on. However, in the end, you don't know a fucking thing for sure about how the poster actually is on the inside. You can play all the percentages you want, but in the end you tossed a label on someone without cause. But whatever, it's the internet and all of us who are honest would admit to doing the same thing. In fact, your use of "the orange one" caused me put a few more descriptors on you that may or may not be accurate.

[PeteD01]

This is long but that is how the analysis maps out.

As a friend used to say, "must not have been too far off to get that sort of reaction"

You can map it out all you want, dissect every letter and word, and so on. However, in the end, you don't know a fucking thing for sure about how the poster actually is on the inside. You can play all the percentages you want, but in the end you tossed a label on someone without cause. But whatever, it's the internet and all of us who are honest would admit to doing the same thing. In fact, your use of "the orange one" caused me put a few more descriptors on you that may or may not be accurate.

Be my guest.

Just remember that there is overlap between right wing speech and ChatGPT output and that fact checking can flag both, right wing speech and LLM output, whereas an underlying coherent poetic narrative is exclusive to right wing speech as current LLMs are unable to simulate that.

This has a lot of people bent out of shape because if a main marker for LLM output is absence of a coherent poetic narrative, detection and management of LLM outputs would involve demonstrating the presence or absence of a poetic narrative.
This would in practice amount to a right wing speech detector.

And so just to let you know: the text is almost certainly not LLM generated based on that criterion alone.

Edit: And, I almost forgot to mention, I already knew that this would derail the thread where the original post is and that's why I suggested that it is off topic in my first response. 
I thought a detailed explanation from my side would be necessary, eventually.
And here we are and the long response is in the right thread.

[PKFFW]

Heh, yeah, the Swedes were really tolerant of other cultures until other cultures moved to Sweden...which pretty much makes them like everywhere else I guess.  it has got to be quite easy to be tolerant of a culture you don't interact with.

I grew up in a rural southern US town, half black & half white.  Was pretty clear cut the blacks hated at worst and distrusted at best the whites and the whites hated at worst and distrusted at best the blacks.  It kinda made practical sense given the consequences (I walked thru the wrong part of town as the sun set when I was 12 and got beaten to a pulp by a dozen youth with lead pipes).
 
Yet I don't think anyone that I met in that town had any hate or distrust toward Jewish people....I assume because we had never met a Jewish person so had no opinion of them (except that maybe Seinfeld was a pretty funny show).  Or at least none of them beat me with a pipe so no strong feelings were created.
 
So yeah, given the history and mix its pretty obvious Israel will be a mess forever, some years will just be hotter than others, and places like Sweden are much more new to it but it will grow over time.

Now having seen the original post, I can only assume it is my complete lack of Jewish-ness that causes me to not have any problem with the use of "Jewish person" in this post.

Having said that, I tend to generally agree with the broad outline of the rest of your analysis.  In that, the quoted post really is nothing more than an assertion that (paraphrasing) everyone is fucked and racist and will never get along.

ETA:  And, in my own personal experience, and I acknowledge that to be a very non-scientific and miniscule sample size, I also agree that as a general rule of thumb, people who espouse that sort of thinking tend to lean to the right, and more specifically, the far right.

[LateStarter]

great big snip . . .


And finally, it might spark a discussion about why antisemites avoid the terms "Jew/Jews" but also many gentiles because they are still being influenced by the long history of these terms in the English language being used as antisemitc slurs by gentiles.
Despite what many posters are saying, that does not mean that they are all antisemites, unless one believes that every thought rushing through one´s mind is an original thought and thus part of what one is.

The reality is that thoughts and ideas float around and some are just a form of environmental condition and the way to deal with them is thought defusion:

https://washingtoncenterforcognitivetherapy.com/cognitive-defusion/

The black bolded part relates to one of the issues that require breaking down.

If a person's thoughts have been contaminated by the general hum of prejudice that floats around the world, and exposure to the Nazi propaganda films and Hitler's speeches we've all seen, etc. etc. to the extent that they have come to believe that Jews are fundamentally inferior people and thus that "Jew" is an insult, etc., they are antisemitic.

You seem to want to call this ignorance rather than antisemitism, but that's not so. You can charitably say that ignorance is probably the cause, but it remains antisemitic behaviour coming from antisemitic beliefs. It's not the active and fervent antisemitism of a far-right extremist who's investing time and energy in his cause, but it's antisemitism all the same.

If you accuse someone of believing that "Jew" is an insult, you are calling them an antisemite.

And finally, language changes all the time because the historical context changes.
In this dynamic process, words disappear, meaning changes (even turning into its opposite).
In this respect, gentiles learning that "Jew/Jews" are not derogatory unless used intentionally by an antisemite is a positive thing with good chances of succeeding, and it messes directly with the antisemitic project, because what are they always saying?
They say "We only say out loud what others are only thinking", but that is subject to change.

re. the blue bolded parts:

You are still insisting that the main problem is that non-Jews believe that "Jew" is a derogatory term, and that they need to learn that it's not.

Not once have you acknowledged that polite sensitivity, completely devoid of prejudice, can also explain a non-Jew's hesitancy about calling someone a "Jew".

Did you read the NYTimes and JPost articles you linked in previous replies ?

These are the words of Jews discussing this very issue:

NYTimes:
"I'm a Jew". For most of us, speaking such a sentence would feel odd, even scary. But it doesn’t have to. It shouldn’t.

JPost:
Reading, I realized that I too am more apt to use the term “Jewish” instead of “Jew”, which somehow sounds more old-fashioned and, yes, even potentially offensive to my ears.  Just then, my young son came in and started reading over my shoulder.  Nodding, he agreed with my unspoken thoughts.  “Of course the word ‘Jew’ is offensive: it’s a bad word in English!” he explained.


The NYTimes article ends as follows (my bold):
So it’s time for us to own “Jew.” We can do so by using the word more ourselves, and by giving everyone else permission to call Jews Jews. We can rescue, as Louis C. K. would say, the “polite thing” from the slur. Jews are what we are, after all, and the anti-Semites shouldn’t be the only ones saying so.

Bingo. Give me permission. Don't demand and then accuse me of prejudice if I sometimes hesitate out of respect for the sensitivities described, by Jews, above.

[PeteD01]

If a person's thoughts have been contaminated by the general hum of prejudice that floats around the world, and exposure to the Nazi propaganda films and Hitler's speeches we've all seen, etc. etc. to the extent that they have come to believe that Jews are fundamentally inferior people and thus that "Jew" is an insult, etc., they are antisemitic.

If someone avoids the use of the terms "Jew/Jews" because they believe that Jews are fundamentally inferior people they are definitely antisemitic and antisemites - but not because they avoid the terms but because they believe that Jews are fundamentally inferior people.

You seem to want to call this ignorance rather than antisemitism, but that's not so.

I'm not calling this ignorance - see above.

You can charitably say that ignorance is probably the cause, but it remains antisemitic behaviour coming from antisemitic beliefs. It's not the active and fervent antisemitism of a far-right extremist who's investing time and energy in his cause, but it's antisemitism all the same.

If you accuse someone of believing that "Jew" is an insult, you are calling them an antisemite.

Not automatically, but I definitely would assess the reaction after pointing out that "Jew" is not an insult unless used as such and that the belief that it is an insult is an antisemitic belief.

And finally, language changes all the time because the historical context changes.
In this dynamic process, words disappear, meaning changes (even turning into its opposite).
In this respect, gentiles learning that "Jew/Jews" are not derogatory unless used intentionally by an antisemite is a positive thing with good chances of succeeding, and it messes directly with the antisemitic project, because what are they always saying?
They say "We only say out loud what others are only thinking", but that is subject to change.

re. the blue bolded parts:

You are still insisting that the main problem is that non-Jews believe that "Jew" is a derogatory term, and that they need to learn that it's not.

No, the main problem is that many gentiles avoid the term "Jew" out of polite sensitivity, completely devoid of prejudice without realizing that their avoidance behavior could also be an expression of cultural antisemitism - that's where ignorance comes in.

Not once have you acknowledged that polite sensitivity, completely devoid of prejudice, can also explain a non-Jew's hesitancy about calling someone a "Jew".

I have explicitly and several times stated that a non-Jew's hesitancy about calling someone a "Jew" because of polite sensitivity, completely devoid of prejudice does happen because of ignorance of the link to cultural antisemitism.

Did you read the NYTimes and JPost articles you linked in previous replies ?

These are the words of Jews discussing this very issue:

NYTimes:
"I'm a Jew". For most of us, speaking such a sentence would feel odd, even scary. But it doesn’t have to. It shouldn’t.

JPost:
Reading, I realized that I too am more apt to use the term “Jewish” instead of “Jew”, which somehow sounds more old-fashioned and, yes, even potentially offensive to my ears.  Just then, my young son came in and started reading over my shoulder.  Nodding, he agreed with my unspoken thoughts.  “Of course the word ‘Jew’ is offensive: it’s a bad word in English!” he explained.


The NYTimes article ends as follows (my bold):
So it’s time for us to own “Jew.” We can do so by using the word more ourselves, and by giving everyone else permission to call Jews Jews. We can rescue, as Louis C. K. would say, the “polite thing” from the slur. Jews are what we are, after all, and the anti-Semites shouldn’t be the only ones saying so.

Bingo. Give me permission. Don't demand and then accuse me of prejudice if I sometimes hesitate out of respect for the sensitivities described, by Jews, above.

Don´t worry, you are obviously at ease using the terms "Jew/Jews" appropriately with either neutral or positive connotations and that is something antisemites really have trouble with - and that brings us full circle to where all this started.

[LateStarter]

We're still talking past each other PeteD01.

How about we play this through, explaining our thoughts at each stage ? Maybe that will finally clarify the issue.

The scene:
We are at a gathering that includes Jews and non-Jews. We've seen/heard enough of each other to know that you're Jewish and I'm not.
Now we are speaking alone/together for the first time. Nobody can overhear us.

LateStarter:
Thoughts: I'll be careful about using the word Jew because, whilst it has zero negative connotations in my personal beliefs and I completely understand that it's not an insult, I also know that some listeners can find it jarring or may perceive it as an insult. And, right now, I have no idea about Pete's personal views on the matter.
Speech: Nice gathering, eh? I don't usually get to spend much time with, er, um, er, Jewish people.

PeteD01:
Thoughts: This guy thinks Jew is an insult due to his ignorance of cultural antisemitism, or worse. I need to educate him - he needs to learn that Jew is not an insult.
Speech: It's ok, you can call us Jews. Jew is not an insult unless used as such, and a belief that it is an insult is an antisemitic belief.


That's my understanding of where you'd go - though probably not in those blunt words. Please edit. What would you think? What would you say?
And please also predict my follow-up thoughts / speech - same as I predicted yours.

[PeteD01]

We're still talking past each other PeteD01.

How about we play this through, explaining our thoughts at each stage ? Maybe that will finally clarify the issue.

The scene:
We are at a gathering that includes Jews and non-Jews. We've seen/heard enough of each other to know that you're Jewish and I'm not.
Now we are speaking alone/together for the first time. Nobody can overhear us.

LateStarter:
Thoughts: I'll be careful about using the word Jew because, whilst it has zero negative connotations in my personal beliefs and I completely understand that it's not an insult, I also know that some listeners can find it jarring or may perceive it as an insult. And, right now, I have no idea about Pete's personal views on the matter.
Speech: Nice gathering, eh? I don't usually get to spend much time with, er, um, er, Jewish people.

PeteD01:
Thoughts: This guy thinks Jew is an insult due to his ignorance of cultural antisemitism, or worse. I need to educate him - he needs to learn that Jew is not an insult.
Speech: It's ok, you can call us Jews. Jew is not an insult unless used as such, and a belief that it is an insult is an antisemitic belief.


That's my understanding of where you'd go - though probably not in those blunt words. Please edit. What would you think? What would you say?
And please also predict my follow-up thoughts / speech - same as I predicted yours.

I would most certainly not react to something that I consider to be most likely just some social awkwardness around Jews that inevitably will resolve itself simply by socializing with Jews - and your scenario would provide just that medicine.
So, no, I wouldn't say anything and wouldn't think much about it at all.

There is also the issue that meaning is created on the fly through use of language. By implication, change of meaning would also be created through use of language.
That means that shifts of meaning are induced subconsciously by exposure to language and not so much by theoretical considerations or per decree.
 
So even the value of this entire discussion, in terms of shifting the perception of the terms "Jew/Jews" as somehow negative towards neutral/positive, likely lies not so much in the cognitive component but simply in the exposure of the readers to the appropriate use of "Jew/Jews" in a neutral/positive sense throughout.

(and for the record: I´m gentile, I just happen to be heavily socialized in Jewish environments at work and privately)

[LateStarter]

We're still talking past each other PeteD01.

How about we play this through, explaining our thoughts at each stage ? Maybe that will finally clarify the issue.

The scene:
We are at a gathering that includes Jews and non-Jews. We've seen/heard enough of each other to know that you're Jewish and I'm not.
Now we are speaking alone/together for the first time. Nobody can overhear us.

LateStarter:
Thoughts: I'll be careful about using the word Jew because, whilst it has zero negative connotations in my personal beliefs and I completely understand that it's not an insult, I also know that some listeners can find it jarring or may perceive it as an insult. And, right now, I have no idea about Pete's personal views on the matter.
Speech: Nice gathering, eh? I don't usually get to spend much time with, er, um, er, Jewish people.

PeteD01:
Thoughts: This guy thinks Jew is an insult due to his ignorance of cultural antisemitism, or worse. I need to educate him - he needs to learn that Jew is not an insult.
Speech: It's ok, you can call us Jews. Jew is not an insult unless used as such, and a belief that it is an insult is an antisemitic belief.


That's my understanding of where you'd go - though probably not in those blunt words. Please edit. What would you think? What would you say?
And please also predict my follow-up thoughts / speech - same as I predicted yours.

I would most certainly not react to something that I consider to be most likely just some social awkwardness around Jews that inevitably will resolve itself simply by socializing with Jews - and your scenario would provide just that medicine.
So, no, I wouldn't say anything and wouldn't think much about it at all.

I'll take that - it's close enough. I'm out. Thanks.

For the record, I still disagree that the issue is my social awkwardness, it's simply sensitivity, but at least it's no longer my ignorance regarding cultural antisemitism. Good enough.

Also, I'll just mention that I've been puzzled from the start by the theory that "socialising with Jews" will significantly reduce my desire to avoid causing offence*. If I get to know 100 Jews, what does that tell me about the other 20 million ? My assumption is that Jews are as diverse as people are diverse. And, we know beyond all doubt, that some are less keen on hearing the word.    But I think we've pushed this far enough . . .

*If you've spent time socialising with British people, you'll know that we are (stereotypically!) painfully polite and eager to avoid 'causing a scene'. It's somewhat true - I have some of that in me.

There is also the issue that meaning is created on the fly through use of language. By implication, change of meaning would also be created through use of language.
That means that shifts of meaning are induced subconsciously by exposure to language and not so much by theoretical considerations or per decree.
 
So even the value of this entire discussion, in terms of shifting the perception of the terms "Jew/Jews" as somehow negative towards neutral/positive, likely lies not so much in the cognitive component but simply in the exposure of the readers to the appropriate use of "Jew/Jews" in a neutral/positive sense throughout.

I agree.

(and for the record: I´m gentile, I just happen to be heavily socialized in Jewish environments at work and privately)

That's hilarious ! I obviously made an incorrect assumption. My apologies.

[GuitarStv]

So much of language is not even spoken.  The exact same thing can be interpreted very differently depending on context, who is saying it, and how it's being said.  I suspect that this wouldn't really be a problem if we were all speaking in person - because it's much easier to determine intent from non-verbal cues.

[Kris]

At least one Jewish person disagrees with Pete.

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZPRvS6KKk/

[PeteD01]

At least one Jewish person disagrees with Pete.

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZPRvS6KKk/

Thanks. I was beginning to worry ...

[Dollar Slice]

At least one Jewish person disagrees with Pete.

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZPRvS6KKk/

Two, but everyone ignored my post earlier and I don't expect that to change. Our opinion doesn't count.

[PeteD01]

At least one Jewish person disagrees with Pete.

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZPRvS6KKk/

Two, but everyone ignored my post earlier and I don't expect that to change. Our opinion doesn't count.

Actually I did not ignore your post but didn't quite get what you were getting at.
But let me try anyways - at the risk of being off a bit:

I'm very curious if the people advocating so hard for the "Jew as noun" position are going to be doing the same for every other group, e.g. referring to "the gays" and "do you see that man over there, the Black in the red shirt?"

Or would you feel absolutely humiliated to do that in front of your friends and family because it makes you sound like a horrible bigot?

Asking as a Jewish person who absolutely gets my hackles up when someone uses the word "Jew" as a noun... not every time, but many times.

I can only presume that you see the use of the determinate article the is problematic when used with the noun Jew/Jews - and that is certainly true because it can be misunderstood:

1. It may point at a shared characteristic/stereotype/activity ascribed to Jews as a group like in The Jews are xyz or The Jews are doing xyz. This obviously can be very problematic.

2. On the other hand The Jews of Seville or Maimonides was the most famous Jew in the Middle Ages is perfectly appropriate as the definite article refers to a group of Jews characterized by living in Seville in the first case and to the place in history of the famous Jew Maimonides in the second. The use is neutral and does not refer to some characteristic (positive or negative) ascribed to Jews for the mere fact that they are Jews.

And there is more.

The bottom line is that one should avoid the definite article the when using the noun Jew/Jews or other group designators, especially when the designator itself is a characteristic and not a neutral name of a group as in your examples, unless one is perfectly fluent in the matter.

Instead, use either no article or the indefinite article a - much less likely to make a mistake when used in the proper context and with good intent.

Let me just mention two more things: one is that all this does apply not solely to the noun Jew/Jews and the second is that I am really talking about managing the relational frame that has been damaged by antisemitism but can certainly be repaired.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_frame_theory#:~:text=Hayes%20of%20University%20of%20Nevada,create%20bidirectional%20links%20between%20things.


Last year a dictionary publisher in Germany did the following (and German Jews did not miss a beat in pointing out the seriousness of the issue):

The Duden dictionary had recently added an explanation to its online edition saying that “occasionally, the term Jew is perceived as discriminatory because of the memory of the National Socialist use of language. In these cases, formulations such as Jewish people, Jewish fellow citizens or people of the Jewish faith are usually chosen.”

This caused them some trouble:

This explanation led to an outcry from leading Jewish groups and individuals who stressed that identifying themselves or being called Jews is not discriminatory, in contrast to what Duden’s definition implied.

The head of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, Joseph Schuster, said last week that for him the word “Jew” is neither a swear word nor discriminatory.

“Even if ‘Jew’ is used pejoratively in schoolyards or only hesitantly by some people, and the Duden editors are certainly well-meaning in pointing out this context, everything should be done to avoid solidifying the term as discriminatory,” Schuster said.

German dictionary changes definition of ‘Jew’ after outcry

BY KIRSTEN GRIESHABER
February 16, 2022

“Because of their antisemitic use in history and in the present, especially during the Nazi era, the words Jew/Jewess have been debated ... for decades,” the entry on the dictionary’s website now says. “At the same time, the words are widely used as a matter of course and are not perceived as problematic. The Central Council of Jews in Germany, which has the term itself in its name, is in favor of its use.”

https://apnews.com/article/europe-religion-germany-race-and-ethnicity-racial-injustice-4f3a69824cc198ef7065b2c0e66dc85b

[Dollar Slice]

Actually I did not ignore your post but didn't quite get what you were getting at.

You completely missed my point, yes, thanks. But I'm glad you got to talk a lot? You seem to enjoy it.