Israel vs Hamas

[bacchi]

In this insane hypothetical, would Hamas give advanced notification of the music festival they're targeting? Would IDF encourage Israeli civilians to continue attending and stand with them? How is that the same logic?

I know what you meant by saying dead is dead. That's why I described manslaughter and murder. You're saying there's no difference between manslaughter and murder. Which is clearly false in most state and international law. It's not about comfort relatives of victims. It's about intent under law which matters in local and international crimes. I believe Canadian law also makes the distinction.

Isreal offered the first week to turn utilities back on if Hamas would return the hundreds of hostages of Israeli and/or international citizenship. Hamas refused. They are still holding hundreds of hostages to no good end in sight.

There is no "Good Guy" in war and I never said that. But there is a bad guy under international law in this conflict and that is the terrorist organization named Hamas.

This is wild. You are straight up endorsing collective punishment. Unless Hamas surrenders, Israel will continue to kill innocent Palestinian civilians. And you are excusing and defending this war crime.

Ok. Again, not what I said. I stated a fact.

If we accept that Hamas doesn't truly care about Palestinians under its control, and/or doesn't represent them, then we can't blame Palestinian civilians for what Hamas does or doesn't do.

[lemonlyman]

In this insane hypothetical, would Hamas give advanced notification of the music festival they're targeting? Would IDF encourage Israeli civilians to continue attending and stand with them? How is that the same logic?

I know what you meant by saying dead is dead. That's why I described manslaughter and murder. You're saying there's no difference between manslaughter and murder. Which is clearly false in most state and international law. It's not about comfort relatives of victims. It's about intent under law which matters in local and international crimes. I believe Canadian law also makes the distinction.

Isreal offered the first week to turn utilities back on if Hamas would return the hundreds of hostages of Israeli and/or international citizenship. Hamas refused. They are still holding hundreds of hostages to no good end in sight.

There is no "Good Guy" in war and I never said that. But there is a bad guy under international law in this conflict and that is the terrorist organization named Hamas.

This is wild. You are straight up endorsing collective punishment. Unless Hamas surrenders, Israel will continue to kill innocent Palestinian civilians. And you are excusing and defending this war crime.

Ok. Again, not what I said. I stated a fact.

If we accept that Hamas doesn't truly care about Palestinians under its control, and/or doesn't represent them, then we can't blame Palestinian civilians for what Hamas does or doesn't do.

That's fair. People are taking what I'm saying as being super pro Israel. I'm not. I'm very anti-Hamas. Unfortunately, Hamas is the government and military of Gaza not of all Palestinians. I don't have any good answers of how this ends or should end. Anyone who things they do is deluded.

[GuitarStv]

Looks like someone just bombed a busy Gaza city hospital in Palestine . . . killing at least 500 doctors and patients.

Looking at satellite photos and video, no nearby buildings were destroyed - actually the windows are intact, which is inconsistent with an Israeli air strike.  The parking lot has dozens of cars, with only 3 of them destroyed.  Most cars are intact - also not what happens with an air strike.  An air strike hitting a parking lot would leave a large crater.  Hitting a building, it would blow off one side of the building, potentially collapsing it.  But instead we have intact buildings without even their windows shattered, a few cars destroyed yet most are intact.  From what I've seen, it was not an air strike - Hamas (the terrorist organization) was lying.

What's disappointing is watching news stations trail by many hours behind what I've already seen.  It's almost like they want to milk the outrage (hospital explosion) and conflict (Israel said this ... Hamas said this ...) for as long as possible.  I still haven't seen any satellite images analyzed on a TV news station yet - but on Twitter I'm seeing it multiple times and several hours old.  Considering how fast "breaking news" appears on CNN, France24 and DW, I'm surprised at how slowly they're incorporating publicly available information.

The same hospital was confirmed hit by Israeli rocket fire a couple days before and the surrounding buildings/parking lot were fine as well.  I don't think there's enough information to clearly say who is responsible.

Maybe we can share / compare sources.  You said that exact hospital was hit a few days ago by Israeli rocket fire, and I'd like to see the source for that (couldn't find it searching briefly).

So that I avoid posting random Twitter users, I'll stick with what the IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) posted 9h and 13h ago :

https://twitter.com/IDF/status/1714513625598021868
https://twitter.com/IDF/status/1714464412671557774

Well, the archbishop and director of the hospital said so on facebook and provided pictures three days ago:

Our Arab Ahli Hospital in Gaza was hit this evening by the Israeli strikes…two floors were partially damaged and 4 people were injured. The Ultrasound and Mammography room was damaged!

- https://www.facebook.com/bishopnaoum/

It's also listed here among the other hospitals that have been attacked by Israel during this conflict - https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/attacks-health-care-israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories-12-15-october-2023

NOTE to others: GuitarStv and I are discussing an earlier event from 4 days ago, which was claimed to happen at the same hospital.

I see 3 photos on that Facebook page.  One is a generic photo of the Arab Ahli Hospital that also appears on Google Maps.  The other two show a hole which is roughly 3-4 feet in diameter.  It looks like a cabinet or desk was broken apart, with a few intact pieces of wood on the floor.  Everything is covered in dust.

Why are so many objects intact?  The lack of destruction leads me to question if an air strike caused the damage.

You pointed to the Archbishop's Facebook page (4 days ago), where he claims "Our Arab Ahli Hospital in Gaza was hit this evening by the Israeli strikes…two floors were partially damaged and 4 people were injured. The Ultrasound and Mammography room was damaged!"

And yet when asked about the more recent strike, and who is to blame:

“What we know is what we saw on the TV. We are people of the cloth, we are people of the Church . . . we are not military experts,” he said. “Who did this is not for us to determine, or to give judgement, but let people see what is happening on the ground, and we hope that people will come to the conclusion: enough with this war.”

https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2023/20-october/news/world/archbishop-in-jerusalem-strike-on-anglican-hospital-in-gaza-is-crime-against-humanity

This doesn't look like an air strike to me.  I don't see any signs of an explosion, just a hole in the wall.  I think the Archbishop was speculating, and showing the lack of military expertise he admits to more recently.

Sure, that's a possibility.

I think that it's at least equally possible that debris thrown up by or small ordinance fired by the Israeli army is responsible for the damage.

FWIW, I don't think that Israel is directly targeting hospitals for attack, but would be very surprised if they're not regularly hitting these hospitals while firing all around them.  I mean, of the 19 journalists that they've killed so far in the conflict, there's even video of them shelling clearly marked journalists: (https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2023/10/15/reuters-journalist-killed-lebanon-israel-cprog-orig-bu.cnn).  Israel is very clearly not showing concern for what people they hurt.

As far as the more recent attack that completely blew up al-Ahli, most of the reasoning I've seen that it was from Hamas is just Israel saying 'we would have blown bigger holes so it wasn't us'.  That's not very convincing evidence given the massive amount of collateral damage that their attack has done so far.

You claim the "more recent attack" "completely blew up al-Ahli".  Do you have a source for that?

The following France24 article begins with a recent image of the intact hospital - the same one you claim has been completely blown up.  This looks like the same hospital shown on the Archbishop's Facebook page, and shown in Google Maps.

https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20231018-what-we-know-about-the-deadly-blast-at-gaza-city-s-al-ahli-hospital

I have no idea what the extent of the damage to the actual structure of the hospital is.  From the numbers of casualties I had assumed that it must have been pretty bad.  Looks like the main building is relatively undamaged?

[waltworks]

It looks like something blew up and set the parking lot/cars on fire. No impact craters, no structural damage. Hospital itself appears pretty much ok. Hard to believe an IDF bomb would just scorch some cars, I've seen plenty of impact crater photos in the last week and this sure doesn't look like any of those.

So either there's some evidence out there we haven't seen, or the casualty figures/headlines from yesterday evening are completely inaccurate. There are some media outlets who really, really blew it.

At this point the IDF-strikes-the-hospital story is an accepted truth in a large part of the world, though.

-W

[Michael in ABQ]

I have no idea what the extent of the damage to the actual structure of the hospital is.  From the numbers of casualties I had assumed that it must have been pretty bad.  Looks like the main building is relatively undamaged?

Bombs dropped from airplanes leave large craters in the ground (10+ feet deep). The largest crater that is shown in any videos or photos from the hospital is maybe 1 foot deep - more consistent with the kind of rocket Hamas routinely fires.

This guy is an Open Source Intel expert and has been posting stuff about Ukraine and other conflicts for years. He provided detailed analysis with photos, videos, satellite imagery, etc.
https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical

Video of the hospital and parking lot (buildings are all basically intact, mostly burned cars in the small parking lot/courtyard)
https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1714535687070916987

Video of a chapel and other buildings nearby showing broken windows and some fallen ceiling tiles but no evidence hundreds died.
https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1714571497820307470

[ATtiny85]

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 by not personally knowing any Jews in your youth - or you run in circles where "Jew" is considered an insult. But whatever.
 

Just heard President Biden say “Jewish people”. I’ll defer to him. But whatever.

[dang1]

seems like this whole thing- hummus FAFO

[maizefolk]

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 by not personally knowing any Jews in your youth - or you run in circles where "Jew" is considered an insult. But whatever.
 

Just heard President Biden say “Jewish people”. I’ll defer to him. But whatever.

As a general rule I've been taught that religious, ethnic, cultural and national descriptors are better phrased as adjectives than nouns (e.g. "the swedish person" is  preferred to "the swede"). 

Obviously this is more sensitive in some cases than others. I don't think anyone would blink twice if one accidentally said "the australian" instead of "the australian person". But I'd definitely say "the black person" over the alternative construction. Same for most countries ("the chinese person"), religious affiliations ("the hindu person"), or ethnic groups ("the inuit person"). Phrasing each of those as a noun rather than an adjective sounds varying degrees of offensive to my ear.

Is that just me/some weird quirk of english in the region I grew up in?

[PeteD01]

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 by not personally knowing any Jews in your youth - or you run in circles where "Jew" is considered an insult. But whatever.
 

Just heard President Biden say “Jewish people”. I’ll defer to him. But whatever.

As a general rule I've been taught that religious, ethnic, cultural and national descriptors are better phrased as adjectives than nouns (e.g. "the swedish person" is  preferred to "the swede"). 

Obviously this is more sensitive in some cases than others. I don't think anyone would blink twice if one accidentally said "the australian" instead of "the australian person". But I'd definitely say "the black person" over the alternative construction. Same for most countries ("the chinese person"), religious affiliations ("the hindu person"), or ethnic groups ("the inuit person"). Phrasing each of those as a noun rather than an adjective sounds varying degrees of offensive to my ear.

Is that just me/some weird quirk of english in the region I grew up in?

No, it's not just you or where you grew up - it is much more subtle because it depends on context and intention.

Here is the actual quote of Biden and it speaks for itself:

This attack was a campaign of pure cruelty — not just hate, but pure cruelty — against the Jewish people.  And I would argue it’s the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust — the deadliest day since the Holocaust, one of the worst chapters in human history that reminded us all that — that expression I learned from my dad early on: “Silence is complicity.”




 

[maizefolk]

PeteD01, just to clarify, are you only pointing out that the noun construction can sometimes be used in an inoffensive way (depending on context and the speaker's intent) while in other contexts the same construction will be offensive?

Or are you saying that the adjective-person construction that is the typical non-offensive default in many other cases is actively offensive in this one?

[PeteD01]

PeteD01, just to clarify, are you only pointing out that the noun construction can sometimes be used in an inoffensive way (depending on context and the speaker's intent) while in other contexts the same construction will be offensive?

Or are you saying that the adjective-person construction that is the typical non-offensive default in many other cases is actively offensive in this one?

It is the self-conscious avoidance of using the term "Jew/Jews" antisemites exhibit when unsure about their audience.
It's difficult to get your head around unless you know that "Jew" is an insult when the scum is talking to each other.
So, it's not so much how they use language when out in the open, but how their language is distorted by what they want to hide.

[maizefolk]

So if I understand you correctly even in, you're not saying adjective-person is offensive this case. You are instead saying that to you, hearing a person being really careful to avoid giving offense creates the impression that they have something to hide? If so, it is certainly your right to draw that conclusion.

All I can say is that I -- and I'm guessing many people, at least those who grew up in the American midwest in the 1990s -- absolutely do self consciously avoid noun constructions (e.g. "the italian") in favor of adjective-noun constructions  (e.g. "the italian person") to refer to people's ethnic, national, or religious affiliations in general.

Our behavior and self consciousness is not unique to referring any one group and it is not driven from us using those terms as insults when we are in private. It is driven from being educated as children that using noun constructions to refer to people will sometimes give offense to the person or people being referred to and, as a result, it is both politer and safer to just always avoid that kind of phrasing in favor of adjective-person constructions.

[Michael in ABQ]

Now there's a time stamped video showing multiple rockets firing from Gaza and then seconds later you see the explosion at the hospital - consistent with a misfired rocket falling short and hitting the hospital.

https://twitter.com/naftalibennett/status/1714604821683065145

This was posted 13 hours ago yet one hour ago here's the CNN headline: The devastating Gaza hospital blast is shrouded in uncertainty. Here’s what we know, and what we don’t

The article goes on to treat all the evidence provided by Israel and the US with skepticism (explosion analysis, videos, photos, intercepted communications, etc.) but treats all the Palestinian sources with far more credibility - such as the claim that 400 died.

"While it is difficult to independently confirm how many people died in the blast, the bloodshed could be seen in images from the aftermath shared on social media. In photos and videos, young children covered in dust are rushed to be treated for their wounds. Other bodies lay lifeless on the ground.

The Ministry of Health in Gaza has said the death toll is over 400."

"The United Nations has called for a careful investigation. Until independent investigators are able to assess the incident in detail, it is unlikely that the world will know with certainty what led to the blast."
 
Nope, it's pretty certain right now what led to the blast, rockets fired from Gaza at Israel. But so many media outlets jumped the gun and parroted the line from Hamas and now they're too embarrassed to walk it back.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Who are you going to believe, a terrorist organization or your lying eyes?

I think:
(1) Hamas fighters launched rockets, one of which went off course (per video shared by IDF, I didn't check the timestamp).
(2) Photographs of the hospital parking lot show some destroyed cars, with other cars intact.  I don't see a crater.  An Israeli air strike can level a building, and is certainly powerful enough to destroy every car in a walled parking lot.
(3) Photographs of the side of the hospital facing the parking lot show no visible damage - no broken windows.  That's evidence of a smaller explosion, not an air strike.

GuitarStv brought up another "air strike" on the same hospital a few days prior.  We both now think this was debris hitting the hospital and creating a hole.  Not an air strike - the Archbishop's post was not accurate.  Consider this: without that photograph, we'd have to trust a respected religious figure's version of events - never knowing he wasn't being accurate.

I'm disappointed that news stations aren't trying to separate the truth of statements made by Hamas and Israel.  There's video, satellite images and photographs corroborating Israel's side.  The weakest but most damning evidence is the audio between Hamas fighters, but audio is harder to verify.

The news stations can keep the story going longer by saying "Israel said this ... Hamas said this ...".  They get more air time - and ad dollars - to stoke the conflict.  Have you seen how fast they can display breaking news?  Yet the evidence hasn't been breaking news.  It's an interesting choice, revealing what news stations prioritize.

[PeteD01]

So if I understand you correctly even in, you're not saying adjective-person is offensive this case. You are instead saying that to you, hearing a person being really careful to avoid giving offense creates the impression that they have something to hide? If so, it is certainly your right to draw that conclusion.

All I can say is that I -- and I'm guessing many people, at least those who grew up in the American midwest in the 1990s -- absolutely do self consciously avoid noun constructions (e.g. "the italian") in favor of adjective-noun constructions  (e.g. "the italian person") to refer to people's ethnic, national, or religious affiliations in general.

Our behavior and self consciousness is not unique to referring any one group and it is not driven from us using those terms as insults when we are in private. It is driven from being educated as children that using noun constructions to refer to people will sometimes give offense to the person or people being referred to and, as a result, it is both politer and safer to just always avoid that kind of phrasing in favor of adjective-person constructions.

Antisemites use the terms "Jew" or "Jews" as pejoratives and when they step out of the antisemitic language game, they tend to have trouble using the terms with neutral or positive connotations.

In the right context, avoidance of the terms can be telling but might just indicate insecurity or simply ignorance.

Let's see what a Jew has to say about this:

The Word ‘Jew’ Isn’t a Slur
I am a Jew, not a Jewish person.
By Joanna Mann
November 9, 2021

But when well-meaning people use it respectfully, it’s not offensive in the slightest. In fact, it feels more awkward to dance around the word than it does to just say it. Most Jews refer to each other as Jews, and others I’ve talked to with similar experiences said that the avoidance of the word makes them uncomfortable.

Yet, gentiles aren’t the only ones who worry that Jew is an outdated term better left in the past. Even some Jews have come to believe that the moniker is a derogatory word because of the contempt antisemites have attached to it. It’s upsetting to know that others have ruined a special and beautiful word for those whom it describes.

https://www.heyalma.com/the-word-jew-isnt-a-slur/

[MustacheAndaHalf]

I'm disappointed that news stations aren't trying to separate the truth of statements made by Hamas and Israel.  There's video, satellite images and photographs corroborating Israel's side.  The weakest but most damning evidence is the audio between Hamas fighters, but audio is harder to verify.

The news stations can keep the story going longer by saying "Israel said this ... Hamas said this ...".  They get more air time - and ad dollars - to stoke the conflict.  Have you seen how fast they can display breaking news?  Yet the evidence hasn't been breaking news.  It's an interesting choice, revealing what news stations prioritize.

I'm replying to myself here, but I found an explanation that I find more believable than what I said earlier.  Another explanation: news organizations lack people on staff who can perform the needed analysis.

"With the proliferation of photos/footage, satellite imagery and map data, forensic video/image analysis and geolocation (~OSINT) has clearly been a key news gathering technique for several years now. A key news gathering technique *completely absent from most newsrooms*."

https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1714648538746118265

[GilesMM]

PeteD01, just to clarify, are you only pointing out that the noun construction can sometimes be used in an inoffensive way (depending on context and the speaker's intent) while in other contexts the same construction will be offensive?

Or are you saying that the adjective-person construction that is the typical non-offensive default in many other cases is actively offensive in this one?

It is the self-conscious avoidance of using the term "Jew/Jews" antisemites exhibit when unsure about their audience.
It's difficult to get your head around unless you know that "Jew" is an insult when the scum is talking to each other.
So, it's not so much how they use language when out in the open, but how their language is distorted by what they want to hide.

I grew up goy in a state less than 1% Jewish, then attended a midwestern university that was about 20% Jewish, so I learned some new things and made a lot of interesting friends at university.   My second year noted Holocaust author Eli Wiesel was slated to give a lecture and the student newspaper trumpeted the news with a masthead headline that read "Jew To Speak".  We laughed at that, my Jewish friends and I.

[GuitarStv]

Who are you going to believe, a terrorist organization or your lying eyes?

I think:
(1) Hamas fighters launched rockets, one of which went off course (per video shared by IDF, I didn't check the timestamp).
(2) Photographs of the hospital parking lot show some destroyed cars, with other cars intact.  I don't see a crater.  An Israeli air strike can level a building, and is certainly powerful enough to destroy every car in a walled parking lot.
(3) Photographs of the side of the hospital facing the parking lot show no visible damage - no broken windows.  That's evidence of a smaller explosion, not an air strike.

This does seem a likely explanation.

GuitarStv brought up another "air strike" on the same hospital a few days prior.  We both now think this was debris hitting the hospital and creating a hole.  Not an air strike - the Archbishop's post was not accurate.  Consider this: without that photograph, we'd have to trust a respected religious figure's version of events - never knowing he wasn't being accurate.

I was wondering last night if it might have been a 'roof knocking' gone wrong actually - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roof_knocking.  That would fit with the holes in the picture, the dust thrown up everywhere but no explosion, and the accounts that it was dropped from an Israeli plane.

[dignam]

Our behavior and self consciousness is not unique to referring any one group and it is not driven from us using those terms as insults when we are in private. It is driven from being educated as children that using noun constructions to refer to people will sometimes give offense to the person or people being referred to and, as a result, it is both politer and safer to just always avoid that kind of phrasing in favor of adjective-person constructions.

So much this.  We almost never use the noun construct to refer to anyone (except referring to Americans).  It's basically always "that English person" and not "that Englishman".  The latter just sounds weird, if not a bit offensive.  The only time I tend to hear noun only is in some jokes...like some Sven and Ole jokes or similar.

I do feel, however, some individuals will split hairs and look for ways to take offense especially when we have a charged environment due to what we're seeing in the Middle East.

[Metalcat]

Our behavior and self consciousness is not unique to referring any one group and it is not driven from us using those terms as insults when we are in private. It is driven from being educated as children that using noun constructions to refer to people will sometimes give offense to the person or people being referred to and, as a result, it is both politer and safer to just always avoid that kind of phrasing in favor of adjective-person constructions.

So much this.  We almost never use the noun construct to refer to anyone (except referring to Americans).  It's basically always "that English person" and not "that Englishman".  The latter just sounds weird, if not a bit offensive.  The only time I tend to hear noun only is in some jokes...like some Sven and Ole jokes or similar.

I do feel, however, some individuals will split hairs and look for ways to take offense especially when we have a charged environment due to what we're seeing in the Middle East.

We may not call people "Englishmen" but we readily call them Brits.

I live in a pretty multicultural area and many, many more cultures use nouns than just "she's an American" like "she's a(n) Canadian/Mexican/Dane/Swede/Finn/Italian/Russian/Persian/Arab/Australian/Algerian/South African/Nigerian/Puerto Rican/Cuban/Brazilian/Venezuelan/Colombian/Panamanian/Latvian/Croatian/Hungarian/Indonesian/Malaysian/Syrian/Kenyan/Ethiopian/Indian/Pakistani/ and oh....Palestinian and Israeli"

That's just off the top of my head, but obviously the last two are the most relevant.

Let's not forget that Judaism is a religion, and we have no problem calling someone "A Christian/Muslim/Buddhist/Hindu"

So I don't think it's mostly Americans that we use this kind of linguistic noun construct for.

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.

[EvenSteven]

Our behavior and self consciousness is not unique to referring any one group and it is not driven from us using those terms as insults when we are in private. It is driven from being educated as children that using noun constructions to refer to people will sometimes give offense to the person or people being referred to and, as a result, it is both politer and safer to just always avoid that kind of phrasing in favor of adjective-person constructions.

So much this.  We almost never use the noun construct to refer to anyone (except referring to Americans).  It's basically always "that English person" and not "that Englishman".  The latter just sounds weird, if not a bit offensive.  The only time I tend to hear noun only is in some jokes...like some Sven and Ole jokes or similar.

I do feel, however, some individuals will split hairs and look for ways to take offense especially when we have a charged environment due to what we're seeing in the Middle East.

We may not call people "Englishmen" but we readily call them Brits.

I live in a pretty multicultural area and many, many more cultures use nouns than just "she's an American" like "she's a(n) Canadian/Mexican/Dane/Swede/Finn/Italian/Russian/Persian/Arab/Australian/Algerian/South African/Nigerian/Puerto Rican/Cuban/Brazilian/Venezuelan/Colombian/Panamanian/Latvian/Croatian/Hungarian/Indonesian/Malaysian/Syrian/Kenyan/Ethiopian/Indian/Pakistani/ and oh....Palestinian and Israeli"

That's just off the top of my head, but obviously the last two are the most relevant.

Let's not forget that Judaism is a religion, and we have no problem calling someone "A Christian/Muslim/Buddhist/Hindu"

So I don't think it's mostly Americans that we use this kind of linguistic noun construct for.

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 can see the point as a generality, but do you also agree with Pete on this specific case? We have a poster with a single 43 word sentence where they mention "Jewish people" once and "Jewish person" once. Does that count as assiduous avoidance of the term "Jew"? Is this enough to conclude their post to be anti-Semitic? Or is there more background from other posts I'm missing?

[PeteD01]

Our behavior and self consciousness is not unique to referring any one group and it is not driven from us using those terms as insults when we are in private. It is driven from being educated as children that using noun constructions to refer to people will sometimes give offense to the person or people being referred to and, as a result, it is both politer and safer to just always avoid that kind of phrasing in favor of adjective-person constructions.

So much this.  We almost never use the noun construct to refer to anyone (except referring to Americans).  It's basically always "that English person" and not "that Englishman".  The latter just sounds weird, if not a bit offensive.  The only time I tend to hear noun only is in some jokes...like some Sven and Ole jokes or similar.

I do feel, however, some individuals will split hairs and look for ways to take offense especially when we have a charged environment due to what we're seeing in the Middle East.

We may not call people "Englishmen" but we readily call them Brits.

I live in a pretty multicultural area and many, many more cultures use nouns than just "she's an American" like "she's a(n) Canadian/Mexican/Dane/Swede/Finn/Italian/Russian/Persian/Arab/Australian/Algerian/South African/Nigerian/Puerto Rican/Cuban/Brazilian/Venezuelan/Colombian/Panamanian/Latvian/Croatian/Hungarian/Indonesian/Malaysian/Syrian/Kenyan/Ethiopian/Indian/Pakistani/ and oh....Palestinian and Israeli"

That's just off the top of my head, but obviously the last two are the most relevant.

Let's not forget that Judaism is a religion, and we have no problem calling someone "A Christian/Muslim/Buddhist/Hindu"

So I don't think it's mostly Americans that we use this kind of linguistic noun construct for.

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 can see the point as a generality, but do you also agree with Pete on this specific case? We have a poster with a single 43 word sentence where they mention "Jewish people" once and "Jewish person" once. Does that count as assiduous avoidance of the term "Jew"? Is this enough to conclude their post to be anti-Semitic? Or is there more background from other posts I'm missing?

You got to look at the context.

The poster walked in here as a supposed victim of a black against white racist attack, proclaiming that he grew up in a southern town in which there supposedly was reciprocal hatred between whites and blacks, making it appear that the violence we have here is coming equally from both sides.

I have lived in the deep south for a long time and I can assure you that this is a big fat lie.

We do have racist violence but that is almost exclusively white racism against black and brown people.

Racist violence against whites is a rare exception.

Traveling while white in the deep south is generally no problem at all and the traveler can expect to be treated very well indeed.

Now, I´m sorry to say, traveling while black or brown is an entirely different story and some advice from locals when straying from the well-trodden path should be sought.

When you read the entire post, it is pretty clear that the poster advances the thesis that conflict and violence between groups is inevitable and the natural state of affairs - that is of course bullshit but this thinking is routinely used to justify racist violence/repression and to defend the project of turning countries into reactionary ethnostates with internal repression of minorities.

Bigotry comes as a bundle of attitudes and beliefs and I suspect that there is an antisemitic component in this particular case.

Here is a partial quote (it even includes a reference/projection to violence at sunset that historically was exclusively white on black violence: sundown towns):

...
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). 
...

And more stirring of the anti-migrant pot:

...
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.
...

[Metalcat]

Our behavior and self consciousness is not unique to referring any one group and it is not driven from us using those terms as insults when we are in private. It is driven from being educated as children that using noun constructions to refer to people will sometimes give offense to the person or people being referred to and, as a result, it is both politer and safer to just always avoid that kind of phrasing in favor of adjective-person constructions.

So much this.  We almost never use the noun construct to refer to anyone (except referring to Americans).  It's basically always "that English person" and not "that Englishman".  The latter just sounds weird, if not a bit offensive.  The only time I tend to hear noun only is in some jokes...like some Sven and Ole jokes or similar.

I do feel, however, some individuals will split hairs and look for ways to take offense especially when we have a charged environment due to what we're seeing in the Middle East.

We may not call people "Englishmen" but we readily call them Brits.

I live in a pretty multicultural area and many, many more cultures use nouns than just "she's an American" like "she's a(n) Canadian/Mexican/Dane/Swede/Finn/Italian/Russian/Persian/Arab/Australian/Algerian/South African/Nigerian/Puerto Rican/Cuban/Brazilian/Venezuelan/Colombian/Panamanian/Latvian/Croatian/Hungarian/Indonesian/Malaysian/Syrian/Kenyan/Ethiopian/Indian/Pakistani/ and oh....Palestinian and Israeli"

That's just off the top of my head, but obviously the last two are the most relevant.

Let's not forget that Judaism is a religion, and we have no problem calling someone "A Christian/Muslim/Buddhist/Hindu"

So I don't think it's mostly Americans that we use this kind of linguistic noun construct for.

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 can see the point as a generality, but do you also agree with Pete on this specific case? We have a poster with a single 43 word sentence where they mention "Jewish people" once and "Jewish person" once. Does that count as assiduous avoidance of the term "Jew"? Is this enough to conclude their post to be anti-Semitic? Or is there more background from other posts I'm missing?

I didn't weigh in on that, I added to the conversation and argued the specific point that it's mostly Americans who are referred to in noun form, which is absurd for someone to say when they border two countries where people are referred to by nouns.

I also added why someone might comment on the absence of the term "Jew" and how it is often noticeable.

I did not state an opinion on the post on question and will continue not to, because as a Jew, I'm conditioned to keep my fucking mouth shut when people are getting heated about my culture.

[GuitarStv]

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.

[Metalcat]

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.

Take a serious look at the labels you are comfortable saying and the ones you aren't and try to figure out why that is, because it looks like you're only comfortable saying white/dominant culture labels.

No one should feel anxious saying "Mexican," that's what people from Mexico are, they're Mexicans, often very proud Mexicans. It's only people who have been exposed to negativity against Mexicans who think that's a sensitive label.

ETA: Just like it's only people who have been exposed to negativity towards Jews and probably haven't spent much time with Jews, who don't feel comfortable saying "Jew"

Edited to add and for clarity.

ETA 2: I've spent a lot of time with all of the populations you mention and have zero discomfort using any of those labels. It would never even cross my mind to hesitate to call someone an Arab or and African or Gay. These are totally normal things to be.

[maizefolk]

We may not call people "Englishmen" but we readily call them Brits.

I live in a pretty multicultural area and many, many more cultures use nouns than just "she's an American" like "she's a(n) Canadian/Mexican/Dane/Swede/Finn/Italian/Russian/Persian/Arab/Australian/Algerian/South African/Nigerian/Puerto Rican/Cuban/Brazilian/Venezuelan/Colombian/Panamanian/Latvian/Croatian/Hungarian/Indonesian/Malaysian/Syrian/Kenyan/Ethiopian/Indian/Pakistani/ and oh....Palestinian and Israeli"

I hear what you are saying and believe you that your experience is representative of the region in which you live.

From my personal worldview and regional experience, "She's Canadian" sounds politer (and is what I would say by default) than "She's a Canadian" and is what I find myself naturally saying and hear folks in my region (the american midwest). Same for most of those others. That's a one word (really a one letter) difference, but it changes the statement from a noun to an adjective.

The change is very modest in some cases, and much larger in others. If I hear someone say "She's a Mexican" instead of "She's Mexican" the former comes across as a reasonably strong signal the person I'm talking to is prejudiced against Mexican people. Choosing to say "that guy is a Hindu" vs "that guy is Hindu" has a similarly strong connotation about the worldview of the speaker (whether that signal is accurate or not).

Again, I'm not arguing this pattern is universally true of english speakers, just that it is representative of I've observed at least in my little corner of the USA.

Addendum: While I'm writing this I saw you posted again, and it would make sense part of this may be explained by being exposed to people who really are prejudiced against groups and wanting to develop ways of distinguishing our use of language from the negative language we've heard in our lives.

[Metalcat]

We may not call people "Englishmen" but we readily call them Brits.

I live in a pretty multicultural area and many, many more cultures use nouns than just "she's an American" like "she's a(n) Canadian/Mexican/Dane/Swede/Finn/Italian/Russian/Persian/Arab/Australian/Algerian/South African/Nigerian/Puerto Rican/Cuban/Brazilian/Venezuelan/Colombian/Panamanian/Latvian/Croatian/Hungarian/Indonesian/Malaysian/Syrian/Kenyan/Ethiopian/Indian/Pakistani/ and oh....Palestinian and Israeli"

I hear what you are saying and believe you that your experience is representative of the region in which you live.

From my personal worldview and regional experience, "She's Canadian" sounds politer (and is what I would say by default) than "She's a Canadian" and is what I find myself naturally saying and hear folks in my region (the american midwest). Same for most of those others. That's a one word (really a one letter) difference, but it changes the statement from a noun to an adjective.

The change is very modest in some cases, and much larger in others. If I hear someone say "She's a Mexican" instead of "She's Mexican" the former comes across as a reasonably strong signal the person I'm talking to is prejudiced against Mexican people. Choosing to say "that guy is a Hindu" vs "that guy is Hindu" has a similarly strong connotation about the worldview of the speaker (whether that signal is accurate or not).

Again, I'm not arguing this pattern is universally true of english speakers, just that it is representative of I've observed at least in my little corner of the USA.

[i]Addendum: While I'm writing this I saw you posted again, and it would make sense part of this may be explained by being exposed to people who really are prejudiced against groups and wanting to develop ways of distinguishing our use of language from the negative language we've heard in our lives.[/i]

Here, let's change it a bit, but keep the same structure, just pluralized.

What about "We are Mexicans" or "We are Arabs" or "They are Hindus" or "They are Canadians"??

But yeah, I think the bolded part is the biggest factor.

People who are raised with negative connotations of these labels are much more antsy about saying them.

ETA: literally no one close to me is ever uncomfortable saying "Jew," not after knowing me for long enough, lol.

[ChpBstrd]

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.

Take a serious look at the labels you are comfortable saying and the ones you aren't and try to figure out why that is, because it looks like you're only comfortable saying white/dominant culture labels.

No one should feel anxious saying "Mexican," that's what people from Mexico are, they're Mexicans, often very proud Mexicans. It's only people who have been exposed to hatred against Mexicans who think that's a sensitive label.

IDK. I have yet to meet anyone who says "the blacks" or "the gays" etc. who isn't speaking pejoratively of them. In particular, this linguistic tactic seems to use wording to lump millions of diverse individuals into a single block with a convenient handle, implying they are all alike in more ways than the adjective or that they are all in cahoots. Motives for doing that are rarely benevolent.

It is interesting how hateful people's use of language forces others to "sidestep" the association by avoiding "the" prior to a label. @GuitarStv 's feeling that using "the" before a majority/high status group label is probably not as bad reflects the source of the issue. Hateful people don't use "the" prior to their own labels. You only have to sidestep the haters to avoid being associated with them.

It seems like a tough issue to explain to people learning English, when the language is technically correct but the use of a worthless word like "the" implies something big.

[GuitarStv]

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.

Take a serious look at the labels you are comfortable saying and the ones you aren't and try to figure out why that is, because it looks like you're only comfortable saying white/dominant culture labels.

No one should feel anxious saying "Mexican," that's what people from Mexico are, they're Mexicans, often very proud Mexicans. It's only people who have been exposed to negativity against Mexicans who think that's a sensitive label.

ETA: Just like it's only people who have been exposed to negativity towards Jews and probably haven't spent much time with Jews, who don't feel comfortable saying "Jew"

Edited to add and for clarity.

ETA 2: I've spent a lot of time with all of the populations you mention and have zero discomfort using any of those labels. It would never even cross my mind to hesitate to call someone an Arab or and African or Gay. These are totally normal things to be.

I don't think the assumption that it's a cultural exposure thing makes sense to me.  My best friend who I roomed with all through college and then lived with for six years afterwards was a Black man from Trinidad.  And even just typing that, it would feel kinda weird saying instead that he was a Black from Trinidad.  That's all sorts of icky!

I'm not alone on this either.  This style guideline from the National Association of Black Journalists agrees:

In news copy, aim to use Black as an adjective, not a noun. Also, when describing a group, use Black people instead of just “Blacks.”

- https://nabjonline.org/news-media-center/styleguide/

As does the national archive:

Blacks and the Blacks are both considered offensive and should not be used. Black people is the preferred plural form of Black.

- https://www.archives.gov/research/catalog/lcdrg/appendix/black-person

Hamilton College in New York:

Don’t use adjectives as nouns.  Using adjectives as nouns is not only grammatically incorrect, it is often demeaning to the people you are describing. For example, use “Black people,” not “Blacks.”

- https://www.hamilton.edu/academics/centers/writing/writing-resources/writing-about-race-ethnicity-social-class-and-disability

University of Iowa:

In the body of a piece, use Black people, not Blacks, to refer to a group. Do not use Black as a singular noun, such as a Black.

- https://diversity.uiowa.edu/resources/dei-style-guide/style-guide-race-and-ethnicity

A company that solely focuses on diversity and inclusion:

As a default or if you’re unsure, use Black and if you’re corrected, switch to African American or whatever term the person asks you to use. For example, some people may identify as African, Afro-Caribbean, Afro-Latino and many other races and ethnicities.

Do not say “the blacks.” And never, ever, ever “negro” the “n-word” or “colored.”

- https://themoxieexchange.com/blog/african-american-or-black-which-term-should-you-use/

It seems to be the norm to use "Black people" rather than "Blacks".  Maybe use of "Jews" rather than "Jewish people" is the exception rather than rule?

[dividendman]

They should all be used as adjectives.

A black haired person is not a "black hair". Imagine saying "the black hairs don't use much dye". These are just attributes of a person. A Jewish person is not a "Jew", it's simply one attribute of that human being. Making a human being equal to one of their attributes seems dumb, demeaning and a great way to separate people.

I am not merely a Canadian, a fat, a bald, an atheist, etc. Those are all part of who I am, but I'm not entirely one of those.

[Metalcat]

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.

Take a serious look at the labels you are comfortable saying and the ones you aren't and try to figure out why that is, because it looks like you're only comfortable saying white/dominant culture labels.

No one should feel anxious saying "Mexican," that's what people from Mexico are, they're Mexicans, often very proud Mexicans. It's only people who have been exposed to negativity against Mexicans who think that's a sensitive label.

ETA: Just like it's only people who have been exposed to negativity towards Jews and probably haven't spent much time with Jews, who don't feel comfortable saying "Jew"

Edited to add and for clarity.

ETA 2: I've spent a lot of time with all of the populations you mention and have zero discomfort using any of those labels. It would never even cross my mind to hesitate to call someone an Arab or and African or Gay. These are totally normal things to be.

I don't think the assumption that it's a cultural exposure thing makes sense to me.  My best friend who I roomed with all through college and then lived with for six years afterwards was a Black man from Trinidad.  And even just typing that, it would feel kinda weird saying instead that he was a Black from Trinidad.  That's all sorts of icky!

I'm not alone on this either.  This style guideline from the National Association of Black Journalists agrees:

In news copy, aim to use Black as an adjective, not a noun. Also, when describing a group, use Black people instead of just “Blacks.”

- https://nabjonline.org/news-media-center/styleguide/

As does the national archive:

Blacks and the Blacks are both considered offensive and should not be used. Black people is the preferred plural form of Black.

- https://www.archives.gov/research/catalog/lcdrg/appendix/black-person

Hamilton College in New York:

Don’t use adjectives as nouns.  Using adjectives as nouns is not only grammatically incorrect, it is often demeaning to the people you are describing. For example, use “Black people,” not “Blacks.”

- https://www.hamilton.edu/academics/centers/writing/writing-resources/writing-about-race-ethnicity-social-class-and-disability

University of Iowa:

In the body of a piece, use Black people, not Blacks, to refer to a group. Do not use Black as a singular noun, such as a Black.

- https://diversity.uiowa.edu/resources/dei-style-guide/style-guide-race-and-ethnicity

A company that solely focuses on diversity and inclusion:

As a default or if you’re unsure, use Black and if you’re corrected, switch to African American or whatever term the person asks you to use. For example, some people may identify as African, Afro-Caribbean, Afro-Latino and many other races and ethnicities.

Do not say “the blacks.” And never, ever, ever “negro” the “n-word” or “colored.”

- https://themoxieexchange.com/blog/african-american-or-black-which-term-should-you-use/

It seems to be the norm to use "Black people" rather than "Blacks".  Maybe use of "Jews" rather than "Jewish people" is the exception rather than rule?

Yeah, fair, I wouldn't say "a Black" or "Blacks" either, that's not used normally within that community. My point was more for terms that are totally normal to use, like "a Jew" vs "Jewish person" or "a Mexican" vs "Mexican person" or " an Arab" vs "Arab person."

[PeteD01]

It's English, so good luck finding a reliable and useful universal rule that doesn't fall apart upon closer examination.

[iris lily]

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….

Yes, I can see that and this discussion about the noun “Jew” is interesting.

I grew up in small town middle America not knowing any Jews, or openly practicing ones anyway, although I was very slightly Jew adjacent, because…

…My mother eventually became Jewish (emphasis on
the “ish”) when she formally converted to Judaism.

Before getting a Jewish mother, it is true I was slightly uncomfortable with the word “Jew” because it seemed…harsh? Slightly rude? I dunno.

But after getting a Jewish mother, and being around the temple and those in it, “Jew” came to be more normal if not entirely normal to me.

I think “Jew” vs “Jewish” is referenced in the TV show “Black-ish” word play, a sometimes clever network sitcom

[LateStarter]

Some groups have been subject to persecution and some haven't.
An outsider referring to someone in a persecuted group by the group label can have an unpleasant ring/echo of the persecutor about it.

If I call someone a Canadian, everyone knows I'm simply referring to their nationality - there's no baggage.
If I call someone a Jew, it conjures up different stories to different people regardless of my intention - it just does - history is what it is.

Noun labels seem to be tricky with persecuted groups.
'He is a Jew' seems to have an element of characterisation or pigeon-holing about it.
'He is Jewish / a Jewish person' just describes one of his characteristics - it feels much lighter somehow.
Similar with other persecuted groups. 'He is a homosexual/ a black/ etc. . . ' doesn't feel right. 'He is homosexual/black/etc. . . ' feels ok.
Yet, for the unpersecuted, 'He is a Canadian' seems just as acceptable as 'He is Canadian'.

I think the issue is mainly the desire of innocent outsiders to avoid the risk of misunderstandings about their views on current or past persecutions. Where noun labels have extensively been used as insults it can take a long time for that association to evaporate. Maybe, hopefully, in time, such words will lose their baggage and only mean what they truly mean. In the meantime, it's probably wise to expect people to use such words with care - without implying that, by doing so, they are prejudiced.

[iris lily]

Our behavior and self consciousness is not unique to referring any one group and it is not driven from us using those terms as insults when we are in private. It is driven from being educated as children that using noun constructions to refer to people will sometimes give offense to the person or people being referred to and, as a result, it is both politer and safer to just always avoid that kind of phrasing in favor of adjective-person constructions.

So much this.  We almost never use the noun construct to refer to anyone (except referring to Americans).  It's basically always "that English person" and not "that Englishman".  The latter just sounds weird, if not a bit offensive.  The only time I tend to hear noun only is in some jokes...like some Sven and Ole jokes or similar.

I do feel, however, some individuals will split hairs and look for ways to take offense especially when we have a charged environment due to what we're seeing in the Middle East.

We may not call people "Englishmen" but we readily call them Brits…

I don’t know about that. I was once taken to task by a Scotsman for using the term Brit, and not about anyone specifically Scottish.

Yet, I do not mind if the Brits call me a Yank. I think it is rather endearing, Yank.

[Michael in ABQ]

This whole discussion is exhausting. Stop finding ways to be offended and get on with your life.

[GuitarStv]

Some groups have been subject to persecution and some haven't.
An outsider referring to someone in a persecuted group by the group label can have an unpleasant ring/echo of the persecutor about it.

If I call someone a Canadian, everyone knows I'm simply referring to their nationality - there's no baggage.
If I call someone a Jew, it conjures up different stories to different people regardless of my intention - it just does - history is what it is.

Noun labels seem to be tricky with persecuted groups.
'He is a Jew' seems to have an element of characterisation or pigeon-holing about it.
'He is Jewish / a Jewish person' just describes one of his characteristics - it feels much lighter somehow.
Similar with other persecuted groups. 'He is a homosexual/ a black/ etc. . . ' doesn't feel right. 'He is homosexual/black/etc. . . ' feels ok.
Yet, for the unpersecuted, 'He is a Canadian' seems just as acceptable as 'He is Canadian'.

I think the issue is mainly the desire of innocent outsiders to avoid the risk of misunderstandings about their views on current or past persecutions. Where noun labels have extensively been used as insults it can take a long time for that association to evaporate. Maybe, hopefully, in time, such words will lose their baggage and only mean what they truly mean. In the meantime, it's probably wise to expect people to use such words with care - without implying that, by doing so, they are prejudiced.

Agreed.  These language rules are sometimes contradictory and tricky to parse, and when in doubt erring on the side of caution seems to me the most sensible way to approach things.

Using "Jewish person" or "Mexican person" or whatever emphasizes the opposite of what bigots want.  It's explicitly spelling out the fact that you're referring to a person, not a dehumanized othered member of an out group.  If a suspected bigot is using the most polite language possible and forced to emphasize that the nature that the group they hate is human in conversation . . . to me, that kinda feels like a giant win.  And if they're not bigoted, then they're just trying the best they can to be polite and reminding themselves and everyone else that we're all just people . . . which also feels like a giant win.

At least that was always my read.

[GilesMM]

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.

I agree. My mother, who was rather racist, used to mention "the Jews".  She would say stuff like "well, I will say this for them - they are smart and hard working, the Jews".   She occasionally mentioned Blacks as well and about had a heart attack when my sister had a date with a "a Black Boy" in high school.


I've recently started working with a wonderful and diverse group of people from all over.  One terrific work mate is a young guy from Poland.  When I talk about him to friend who don't know him, I sometimes call him The Polish Boy as opposed to, say, The Pole. Pole sound weird to me.

[Metalcat]

This whole discussion is exhausting. Stop finding ways to be offended and get on with your life.

I'm literally not offended, just weighed in to clarify, y'know, as a Jew

I just said I notice when someone persistently refuses to say the word "Jew." It doesn't offend me, but it certainly signals to me that they haven't spent much time around Jews, and have probably mostly heard the word with negative connotation and therefore don't feel super comfortable saying it.

But if my input as one of the only Jews that I know of in this community isn't welcome and no one is curious how their choice of words might make them sound, then I'll just fuck off.

[maizefolk]

I've recently started working with a wonderful and diverse group of people from all over.  One terrific work mate is a young guy from Poland.  When I talk about him to friend who don't know him, I sometimes call him The Polish Boy as opposed to, say, The Pole. Pole sound weird to me.

Polish is an interesting one. I work with a couple of great Polish scientists. I'd never refer to them as "Poles." I feel uncomfortable just typing it out. In fact I went back and forth twice trying to make the statement in the proceeding sentence equally clearly without stating the word anonymously on a message board.

I don't know that I've ever met anyone who used that particular term derogatorily so maybe that argues against the model that avoiding nouns for ethnic/religious/national groups is primarily a marker for people who have been exposed to negative uses of that particular word model?

[EvenSteven]

I've recently started working with a wonderful and diverse group of people from all over.  One terrific work mate is a young guy from Poland.  When I talk about him to friend who don't know him, I sometimes call him The Polish Boy as opposed to, say, The Pole. Pole sound weird to me.

Polish is an interesting one. I work with a couple of great Polish scientists. I'd never refer to them as "Poles." I feel uncomfortable just typing it out. In fact I went back and forth twice trying to make the statement in the proceeding sentence equally clearly without stating the word anonymously on a message board.

I don't know that I've ever met anyone who used that particular term derogatorily so maybe that argues against the model that avoiding nouns for ethnic/religious/national groups is primarily a marker for people who have been exposed to negative uses of that particular word model?

"Poles" doesn't hit my ear wrong, but that might be because there is already a more common slur for Polish people.

[Metalcat]

I've recently started working with a wonderful and diverse group of people from all over.  One terrific work mate is a young guy from Poland.  When I talk about him to friend who don't know him, I sometimes call him The Polish Boy as opposed to, say, The Pole. Pole sound weird to me.

Polish is an interesting one. I work with a couple of great Polish scientists. I'd never refer to them as "Poles." I feel uncomfortable just typing it out. In fact I went back and forth twice trying to make the statement in the proceeding sentence equally clearly without stating the word anonymously on a message board.

I don't know that I've ever met anyone who used that particular term derogatorily so maybe that argues against the model that avoiding nouns for ethnic/religious/national groups is primarily a marker for people who have been exposed to negative uses of that particular word model?

Ooh, really interesting example for linguistic reasons.

AFAIK from the folks I know, Pole is as benign as Dane or Swede, I think the offensive term you're looking for is "Pollack/Polack," which is a very interesting slur because in Polish the neutral term "Pole" actually translates to "Polak." So "Pole" said by a non Polish speaker is fine, "Polak" said by a Polish speaker is fine, but "Pollack/Polack" spoken by a non-Polish speaker is often considered a slur, and the Polish translation of "Pollack/Polack" is "Polaczek."

Go figure.

[Log]

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.

[maizefolk]

I've recently started working with a wonderful and diverse group of people from all over.  One terrific work mate is a young guy from Poland.  When I talk about him to friend who don't know him, I sometimes call him The Polish Boy as opposed to, say, The Pole. Pole sound weird to me.

Polish is an interesting one. I work with a couple of great Polish scientists. I'd never refer to them as "Poles." I feel uncomfortable just typing it out. In fact I went back and forth twice trying to make the statement in the proceeding sentence equally clearly without stating the word anonymously on a message board.

I don't know that I've ever met anyone who used that particular term derogatorily so maybe that argues against the model that avoiding nouns for ethnic/religious/national groups is primarily a marker for people who have been exposed to negative uses of that particular word model?

Ooh, really interesting example for linguistic reasons.

AFAIK from the folks I know, Pole is as benign as Dane or Swede, I think the offensive term you're looking for is "Pollack/Polack," which is a very interesting slur because in Polish the neutral term "Pole" actually translates to "Polak." So "Pole" said by a non Polish speaker is fine, "Polak" said by a Polish speaker is fine, but "Pollack/Polack" spoken by a non-Polish speaker is often considered a slur, and the Polish translation of "Pollack/Polack" is "Polaczek."

Go figure.

@Metalcat I'm not looking for offensive terms. I'm trying to explain a part of my use/perception of language that (it sounds like) is quite different from how the same language is perceived in your parts of the world.

I'm also listening to and understanding that the very same instincts my part of the world have baked into my head about how to show respect to other human beings in how I speak to (and about) them are going to be perceived by at least some of those human beings as indicating I either don't respect them or at least as a signal I grew up around people who didn't respect them.

[Metalcat]

I've recently started working with a wonderful and diverse group of people from all over.  One terrific work mate is a young guy from Poland.  When I talk about him to friend who don't know him, I sometimes call him The Polish Boy as opposed to, say, The Pole. Pole sound weird to me.

Polish is an interesting one. I work with a couple of great Polish scientists. I'd never refer to them as "Poles." I feel uncomfortable just typing it out. In fact I went back and forth twice trying to make the statement in the proceeding sentence equally clearly without stating the word anonymously on a message board.

I don't know that I've ever met anyone who used that particular term derogatorily so maybe that argues against the model that avoiding nouns for ethnic/religious/national groups is primarily a marker for people who have been exposed to negative uses of that particular word model?

Ooh, really interesting example for linguistic reasons.

AFAIK from the folks I know, Pole is as benign as Dane or Swede, I think the offensive term you're looking for is "Pollack/Polack," which is a very interesting slur because in Polish the neutral term "Pole" actually translates to "Polak." So "Pole" said by a non Polish speaker is fine, "Polak" said by a Polish speaker is fine, but "Pollack/Polack" spoken by a non-Polish speaker is often considered a slur, and the Polish translation of "Pollack/Polack" is "Polaczek."

Go figure.

@Metalcat I'm not looking for offensive terms. I'm trying to explain a part of my use/perception of language that (it sounds like) is quite different from how the same language is perceived in your parts of the world.

I'm also listening to and understanding that the very same instincts my part of the world have baked into my head about how to show respect to other human beings in how I speak to (and about) them are going to be perceived by at least some of those human beings as indicating I either don't respect them or at least as a signal I grew up around people who didn't respect them.

FTR, I have no idea if it's my part of the world, I've picked these things up more from spending time with people from those communities.

I have no idea how an average white person from my area who has never socialized with Mexicans, Arabs, Poles, Jews, or Gays (or any other label that has been postulated as sensitive so far) would refer to them.

[Metalcat]

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.

[maizefolk]

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.

...

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

I don't think you're being unclear but I do think you're making a strong assertion that the reason people who grew up in parts of the english speaking world where using noun constructions to refer to a person's religion, ethnicity or nationality is perceived as rude are doing that must be because they were raised around people who used noun constructions for specific groups negatively and not because because polite forms speech vary in different parts of the english speaking world (or different subcultures within the same parts of the english speaking world).

I don't agree with the assertion you are making. And that's okay. The fact that I was raised with a different set of social rules doesn't invalidate your experience, perceptions or social rules. It only invalidates a potential assertion that your social rules for the use of language are universal (just as the social rules you describe would invalidate a potential assertion by me that the social rules for the use of language I was taught were universal).

You even have every right to imply that my social rules are reflective of a person whose life experience hasn't included extensive interaction to people from other cultures and other nations. That isn't consistent with the life I've actually experienced to date. But I'm an anonymous person on the internet. There is no particular reason anyone needs to take my word who I am or am not, or how I have or haven't lived my life.

[Metalcat]

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.

...

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

I don't think you're being unclear but I do think you're making a strong assertion that the reason people who grew up in parts of the english speaking world where using noun constructions to refer to a person's religion, ethnicity or nationality is perceived as rude are doing that must be because they were raised around people who used noun constructions for specific groups negatively and not because because polite forms speech vary in different parts of the english speaking world (or different subcultures within the same parts of the english speaking world).

I don't agree with the assertion you are making. And that's okay. The fact that I was raised with a different set of social rules doesn't invalidate your experience, perceptions or social rules. It only invalidates a potential assertion that your social rules for the use of language are universal (just as the social rules you describe would invalidate a potential assertion by me that the social rules for the use of language I was taught were universal).

You even have every right to imply that my social rules are reflective of a person whose life experience hasn't included extensive interaction to people from other cultures and other nations. That isn't consistent with the life I've actually experienced to date. But I'm an anonymous person on the internet. There is no particular reason anyone needs to take my word who I am or am not, or how I have or haven't lived my life.

I mean, you're not an anonymous person on the internet, I know you quite well and I'm listening to what you are saying and taking it in.

[ATtiny85]

This whole discussion is exhausting. Stop finding ways to be offended and get on with your life.

It is exhausting. These folks searching through every syllable of what someone says to see if there is an angle. I really like it when someone hears someone and then tries to convince others to be offended at what was said, even though they were standing right there. Exhausting. As are the predictable replies to your post and my post. I miss the days of learning and practicing “sticks and stones…” that I learned in kindergarten or maybe even earlier.

[snic]

Yeah, while y'all figure out which nouns and adjectives to use, people are dying.

There are fraught issues about how we talk about the current conflict that I think are much more important than whether we say "the Jews and the Palestinians" or "the Jewish people and the Palestinian people." The issue I find disturbing is that there seems to be a double standard regarding what people are allowed to say. Students and faculty on campuses like Harvard and Penn are being angrily denounced for expressing pro-Palestinian points of view without also condemning the Hamas attack, whereas those same denouncers say nothing when certain commentators in the media advocate extreme collective punishment of Palestinians in Gaza. Why the double standard?

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/palestinian-muslim-arab-islamophobia-media_n_65319009e4b03b213b094cce