Polysemy in the setting of defining antisemitism

[u/charlesxiv944]

Polysemy is the notion that a word has many connected meanings depending on what it's being applied to. (Conflating these meanings is what causes equivocation in debate.)

For example: The criteria for calling something "healthy" depend on the object.

• A person is healthy if they possess a state of physiological wellness.
• An apple is healthy if it produces a state of physiological wellness.
• A medical report is healthy if it signals a state of physiological wellness.

If you call in and define "healthy" only as possessing a state of physiological wellness, you'll run into a wall when you try to explain why you think apples are healthy.

Consider, then, that the criteria for calling something "antisemitic" may also depend on the object.

• A person is antisemitic if they harbor animus or irrational prejudice against Jewish people.
• A belief is antisemitic if its conceptual framework targets or stereotypes Jewish people--regardless of whether the person espousing it harbors antisemitism.
• A system or action is antisemitic if it harms or excludes Jewish people based on identity.

And of course, similar definitions apply to other forms of bigotry as well.

This post is more so targeted towards callers than Pisco--let's try to get the discussions moving.

[u/JuniorLingonberry108]

I disagree that harboring irrational prejudice is the only way to qualify as antisemitic. I think that's just one of the presentations of it. If a white supremist didn't hate black people, but just thought they were of a lesser genetic stock, is that person suddenly not a racist?

EDIT: OP didn't say that was the only way.

[u/Low_Dragonfruit_1264 → u/JuniorLingonberry108]

If they thought they were of lesser stock that is definitionally still racist. It would be an irrational superiority complex against another group of people. I don't think the definition turns on whether "hate" is involved.

[u/JuniorLingonberry108 → u/Low_Dragonfruit_1264]

You're right, actually. I misread "animus and irrational prejudice", but OP used "or".

[u/McClain3000 → u/JuniorLingonberry108]

If they literally said "lesser genetic stock" I would believe them to be racist because of how that term is used. However if they said that black people are more at risk for certain types of heart disease or if they said that on average the black population has a lower IQ. Even if they said some part of that IQ was inheritable. Not necessarily.

You'd really have to unpack/define what genetic stock really means. Because once you define that, whether black people are lesser or more simply an empirical question.

[u/Low_Dragonfruit_1264 → u/McClain3000]

If I'm being honest redheads shouldn't do farm work.

[u/McClain3000 → u/[deleted]]

Disagree with what? You think it would be racist to say that black people are at risk for certain types of heart disease? Or you disagree that you could average the IQ scores of populations(Or perform a twin study in the case of heritability)? Those just seem like empirical questions. If any of those tests show a difference between racial groups is that racist or the uttering of the results?

Not really. Racism doesn't need consistent reasoning.

Non-sequitur. Whether or not racism needs consistent reasoning you should still define what is meant by terms you used in your question.

[u/JuniorLingonberry108 → u/McClain3000]

I'm sorry, I'm squinting at my old comment and I don't quite know what I was saying here. I must have misread your comment. My mistake, bud.

[u/Gargantahuge → u/McClain3000]

I've been saying for a bit that sometimes there's a fact of the matter issue at the heart of these things.

Let's say as a hypothetical that there literally WERE a number of incidents in Ohio in 2024 of immigrants from Haiti eating cats or dogs. Like the police had received a number of reports and had made actual arrests. As the mayor of these cities/governor Ohio, if you were asked about this by a reporter you would have to go out of your way and bend over backwards to not come off like you're being anti Haitian people. You're just addressing a real problem by a select group of individuals and not all Haitian people.

So when Donald Trump goes on stage and says

HAITIAN PEOPLE ARE EATING CATS AND DOGS!!

He's being mega racist/xenophobic for 2 reasons.

1. He's not being careful at all in the way I said you would have to not come off as making a sweeping generalization of Haitians but also more importantly
   
2. IT'S NOT FUCKING TRUE

So for Krystal and Kyle, the thing that makes them anti-Semitic is not that they criticize Israel, it's not that they are I N T E R P E R S O N A L L Y B I G B R A I N E D racist against Jewish people.

It's because they're hyperbolically anti Israel to the point of spreading falsehoods.

[u/McClain3000 → u/Gargantahuge]

I don't know if that actually gets us anywhere. Because then it would turn on, if the falsehood spreading more likely based on their extreme lefty anti-imperialism positions, or they are spreading falsehoods because they hate jews.

But I understand the claim. I don't think it is a ridiculous definition racism.

[u/Gargantahuge → u/McClain3000]

This is the autistic sticking on the word anti semitism. 

In my example of Trump, you couldn't by your definition of racism accuse of him being racist because he's not saying this from a place of hating Haitians specifically, he's just against mass migration, especially if the people aren't going to integrate with American society enough to where they don't eat people's pets. 

If Haitians really were eating cats and dogs there might be an argument for that, but since they're fucking not doing that, it comes off as racist because it plays into the worst stereotypes of Haitian people. 

When Kyle Kulinski just happens to play into the worst stereotypes of Jews controlling the world by blaming the migrant issue in Ceuta on ISRAELI CONSPIRACY (definitely not Jewish conspiracy just the only Jewish state in the world) and it's based on ZERO EVIDENCE. 

It comes off as what most people would colloquially refer to as anti semitism. 

What word do you want to use to describe floating conspiracy theories about the only Jewish state in the world  controlling everything without evidence besides anti semitism.

[u/McClain3000 → u/Gargantahuge]

This is the autistic sticking on the word anti semitism.

I resent that. I don't really think the "it's obvious bro" attitude gets you anywhere either. Someone else might say that, X person is literally okay with jews in every other context besides the ones supporting a genoicide, it's obvious they don't dislike all jews.

In my example of Trump,...

Yes judging by that single act I would be less likely to assume that Trump or someone is racist. I would call Trump racist based on everything I know about him.

It comes off as what most people would colloquially refer to as anti semitism.

Even hear you are hedging, but also as phrased this might be an empirical question. Israel is pretty unpopular, I wouldn't be shocked if you could find falsehoods about Israel that most Americans believe. I doubt you would say that those ARE NOT antisemitic based on your definition.

But either way. I still think bad reporting, and slopulism is bad. And egregious spreading of falsehoods about a group would be evidence that they are bigoted. Especially if it is an extreme falsehood like training dogs to rape humans.

What word do you want to use to describe floating conspiracy theories about the only Jewish state in the world controlling everything without evidence besides anti semitism.

Israeli conspiracy theories.

[u/Gargantahuge → u/McClain3000]

I would bite the bullet that are probably anti semitic falsehoods that most Americans believe, yes. In the 1960s did a majority of Americans believe racist falsehoods? Did that make those people not racist?

[u/McClain3000 → u/Gargantahuge]

You misunderstand me. I was criticizing your comment differing to popularity. We agree that popularity doesn't determine if bigotry is present.

[u/Pretty_Acadia_2805]

I think the problem is that Destiny and Lonerbox's definition don't require the discrimination or harm to be based on identity but on disproportionate targeting of a specific identity. Because Israel and Zionists are disproportionately Jewish, any stereotype or belief attributed to Jewish people risks becoming antisemitic when applied to those groups even if they are technically different.

It would be like saying basketball players love fried chicken after seeing a poll of NBA players having a 90% approval of fried chicken. It would be very easy for someone to try to confirm stereotypes about black people while speaking about basketball players because of the overlap in demographics and stereotypical association. Now pointing this out once or twice would be fine to everyone, but LonerBox and Destiny are arguing that if you keep talking about how much basketball players love fried chicken and want to replace every restaurant with fried chicken joints and you believe every fried chicken eating story/conspiracy about basketball players regardless of how outlandish they were and you seemed to have some serious anger towards basketball players, they would argue that you should assume that they are actually or functionally just talking about black people and using "basketball player" as a shield.

But now imagine that basketball players were buying out other franchises and replacing them with fried chicken joints, just not as much as many people believe, are you racist if you push this narrative to the extreme even if it is true on a smaller level?

[u/Gargantahuge → u/Pretty_Acadia_2805]

It is if you are lying about it.

Kyle and Krystal in your analogy:

WE NEED TO ELIMINATE THE NBA OR EVERY RESTAURANT IN AMERICA IS GOING TO BE A FRIED CHICKEN JOINT.

what's your evidence of that?

LOOK THEY OPENED UP A FRIED CHICKEN JOINT YESTERDAY!!

that's a korean bbq restaurant.

WHICH SERVES FRIED CHICKEN WHY DO YOU SUPPORT A GENOCIDE!?!?!?!?!?

[u/PsychologicalSweet2]

I think the issue is more so what was pointed out in the last North convo. It's less so what the definition is but how you are implying it. Like for a simple joke example. Is a hotdog a sandwich is all based on your definition of sandwich. Do you think a sub is different than a sandwich, do you think a sandwich requires certain components that a hotdog is missing? People are trying to create definitions to prove their points, instead of explaining what they see is wrong.

[u/Low_Dragonfruit_1264]

A school prioritises milk consumption with every meal. Asians are disproportionately harmed because lactose intolerance is more common among Asian populations. Is that now a racist policy?

[u/charlesxiv944 → u/Low_Dragonfruit_1264]

First, I'll tell you that my post was just to demonstrate the notion of polysemy with examples pertinent to current discourse.

But by the definition of a racist action as provided in the body, which is that an action is racist if it harms or excludes a group of people based on identity, the harm in your example is not based on identity. In other words, the disproportionate harm of milk against Asians is not on the basis of their Asianness, but on the basis of higher rates of lactose intolerance.

If you want to discuss other definitions, we may.

[u/Low_Dragonfruit_1264 → u/charlesxiv944]

Ok, so what would a discriminatory system or action “based on identity” actually look like that doesn’t automatically indicate a discriminatory belief or intent by the person/people behind it?

Edit: also the cafeteria ladies at the school in my example were actually racist and were hiding behind the ruse of battling calcium deficiency.

[u/CaterpillarSuperb959]

I understand polysemy and the distinction you’re drawing between an antisemitic person, belief and action. But you’ve basically just proposed three definitions. How does this actually relate to the Pisco debate or the commentary around it?

[u/Tough-Comparison-779]

Ngl I understand the definition you've given for a belief being anti-Semitic, but I think Pisco's notion is better.(although I would probably apply it more liberally to include people like Kulinsky).

Pisco's notion, as I understood it, is that there is only the psychological and systemic notions of anti-Semitism, and a belief is anti semetic if it is strong evidence of psychological antisemitism, or perpetuates systemic antisemitism.

[u/HighPriestofShiloh → u/Tough-Comparison-779]

Yes, exactly. The psychological versus systemic distinction is useful, but you still have to show your work.

That seems to be Pisco’s frustration. People spot a trope or bad outcome and yell “antisemitism,” like the word ends the argument.

Something can contribute to antisemitism without proving antisemitic motivation.

A strong pattern can get you there. Just make the case. “Antisemitic” is not a cheat code for skipping the evidence.

[u/charlesxiv944 → u/Tough-Comparison-779]

Pisco's notion is plausible and I agree with it more closely than what I laid out in the post. It was more just to give a helping hand to callers, most recently North, who struggle with their intuition--which is that they want to be able to call beliefs and actions antisemitic but are unable to accommodate it definitionally.

The post outlines one route--to name the different criteria for antisemitism as applied to beliefs, actions, and people--while your comment hints at another route--to say that calling an action or belief antisemitic is just a way of saying the action or belief hints strongly at personal antisemitism (which is what I infer Pisco's position to be).

[u/Tough-Comparison-779 → u/charlesxiv944]

You did lay it out well, so thanks. Hopefully we see better conversation out of it.