Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

The usage of "anti" and "phobia"


Recommended Posts

Why being against Semitic people is called "anti" while being against Islam is called "phobia" ? 

What is the difference of these two usage, so what does "anti" mean and what does "phobia" mean ?

I dont think that these words are chosen randomly but chosen on some purposes. 

If you ask me, this is done on purpose because the word "anti" evokes something offensive and Jewish racists use it often to play the innocent crocodile. So using the word "anti" helps them to back up their fake claims of being under attack. 

When it comes to the word "phobia", it does not evoke something offensive but it evokes of the innocence of the phobic person. So phobic person is not actually an attacker but he/she is a defenseless fearful poor kitty and which he/she does not like is the evil. 




What do you think ?


 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I suppose when you talk from your a$$ and accuse me of being pro islamist then you get what you deserve. Muppet!

So which one are you? Come out of that cave where you are. I know you are the one giving me negative ratings.    

For your sake, I hope you haven't blocked me, because you need an English lesson, here.

Anti means against.  Phobia means "fear of".  Islamophobia does, in fact, have a negative connotation against people who are afraid of Muslims, just as much as anti does.  There's little difference in their usage.  You could call an Islamophobe an anti-muslim, and it will mean precisely the same thing.  It's up to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The meaning would hardly be different.  

On that same token, people do not fear homosexuals. Why is dislike of homosexuals called Homophobia, instead of anti-gay?  It's a form of labelling. 

 

There is info floating out there that the term Islamophobia came from the Muslim Brotherhood - it's a term used by "soft jihadists" and Islam apologists to intimidate or label anyone who criticize Islam.

 

 

Quote

 

French Prime Minister: 'I Refuse to Use This Term Islamophobia'

The prime minister of France, Manuel Valls, has emerged over the past tumultuous week as one of the West’s most vocal foes of Islamism, though he’s actually been talking about the threat it poses for a long while. During the course of an interview conducted before the Charlie Hebdo attacks, he told me—he went out of his way to tell me, in fact—that he refuses to use the term 'Islamophobia' to describe the phenomenon of anti-Muslim prejudice, because, he says, the accusation of Islamophobia is often used as a weapon by Islamism's apologists to silence their critics.

 

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/01/french-prime-minister-manuel-valls-on-islamophobia/384592/

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said:

You could call an Islamophobe an anti-muslim

Wouldn't that be anti-muslimist, and they practice anti-muslimism? No, I'm not into making up new words, and that is why I have stuck with Islamophobe which is also a made up word. As betsy points out there might be other connotations to Islamophobe than the generally understood ones so there might be a valid reason to stay away from the term.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, betsy said:

he says, the accusation of Islamophobia is often used as a weapon by Islamism's apologists to silence their critics.

Why do people claim this?  If someone believes in what they're saying, why should characterizing it as "Islamaphobia" silence them?   This argument, though used frequently, makes no sense to me.  Either you believe in what you say regardless of what someone else calls it or you do not.

Also, if we began using other words in place of Islamaphobia, how long until people starting saying "I can't say what I want because someone will call me anti-Muslim and use that to try to shut me down".

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Why do people claim this?  If someone believes in what they're saying, why should characterizing it as "Islamaphobia" silence them?   This argument, though used frequently, makes no sense to me.  Either you believe in what you say regardless of what someone else calls it or you do not.

 

 

Remember the time when they were pushing for gay marriage?  People who opposed it were labelled "homophobes."  It's another way of calling someone a bigot, except that it's specific. 

It goes well with political correctness.  When the people have been "programmed" to be politically correct.....they tend to be concerned about being called such names.

Labels are used to shame, and in the process, to quell.

Edited by betsy
Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with the term Islamophobe is that, unlike Homophobe, there are good reasons for it.  Who would not fear a religion that subjugates women, kills apostates, blasphemers, gays and adulterers, and regularly blows up those with only slight differences in belief?

The trick is to get the word to apply to those who do or support those things, and not to those who don't.  Not so easy when it's just one word.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

The problem with the term Islamophobe is that, unlike Homophobe, there are good reasons for it.  Who would not fear a religion that subjugates women, kills apostates, blasphemers, gays and adulterers, and regularly blows up those with only slight differences in belief?

The trick is to get the word to apply to those who do or support those things, and not to those who don't.  Not so easy when it's just one word.

 

Good point.  And we see these in all parts of the world.

Most importantly, don't forget terrorism that's happening everywhere - that's done in the name of Islam - so yes, there's reason to call it Islamophobia.

Edited by betsy
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, betsy said:

 

Remember the time when they were pushing for gay marriage?  People who opposed it were labelled "homophobes."  It's another way of calling someone a bigot, except that it's specific. 

It goes well with political correctness.  When the people have been "programmed" to be politically correct.....they tend to be concerned about being called such names.

Labels are used to shame, and in the process, to quell.

 

Why are people concerned about being called names?    And why are so many people convinced that 'free speech' or valid criticism includes referring to Muslims as terrorists, savages, backward, ignorant and then are upset when that kind of name calling is labeled Islamaphobic?    Does the name calling or labeling only go one way?  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Altai raises a good point about the sloppiness of English. Anti-Islamism would be more accurate because the prime emotion is hostility, not fear. Anti-Semitism is also imprecise because the hostility is directed against one Semitic group. 

As I suggested earlier, anti-Muslimism would be against the people. Anti-Islamism would be comparable to anti-Judaism, and that is not the term that is used. Antisemitism is against the people, and yes I understand the imprecision in the term.

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Why are people concerned about being called names?    And why are so many people convinced that 'free speech' or valid criticism includes referring to Muslims as terrorists, savages, backward, ignorant and then are upset when that kind of name calling is labeled Islamaphobic?    Does the name calling or labeling only go one way?  

 

 

You seem to contradict yourself here. There's a difference between being concerned and/or upset and imposing censorship. The whole point of supporting freedom of speech is to support the right for people to say the stuff that upsets you.

I'm not going to the barricades to support your right to say you like puppies. 

If I express valid outrage at the actions of someone who does not look like me, and the response is to call me a racist, I'll argue the point, of course, but I won't advocate the person be censored. You won't find me reporting such things on here. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

You seem to contradict yourself here. There's a difference between being concerned and/or upset and imposing censorship. The whole point of supporting freedom of speech is to support the right for people to say the stuff that upsets you.

I'm not going to the barricades to support your right to say you like puppies. 

If I express valid outrage at the actions of someone who does not look like me, and the response is to call me a racist, I'll argue the point, of course, but I won't advocate the person be censored. You won't find me reporting such things on here. 

 

Does "valid outrage' mean calling "women from the Muslim world are too mentally handicapped to be able to use birth control"   or "Muslims are unable to embrace progressive values" or "Muslims are terrorists; if they aren't terrorists then they aren't Muslims" or "Muslim are inherently violent"?      Comments like that don't sound like 'valid outrage' or 'valid criticism'; they sound Islamaphobic to me, and I have every right to say so.   

Valid criticism of Islam and Muslim-majority countries and outrage at the actions of some of those countries or some Islamic groups is certainly justified.   Criticizing and holding to account the Montreal Imam and the Mosque at which he preached for inciting hatred of Jews is valid in my opinion.     Saying Muslims want to kill Jews is not valid and falls under the umbrella of islamphobic rhetoric.   Condemning the Islamic practice whereby a man can divorce his wife verbally while she cannot is valid criticism and reason for outrage, in my opinion.   But assuming Muslim men are universally misogynistic and beat their wives becomes islamaphobia.

Do you see the difference between valid criticism and islamphobic comments?    Valid criticism focuses on the thing that is unacceptable, but does not make the people unacceptable.   Islamaphobia condemns the group and ignores the fact that there are many individuals within that group who do not subscribe to the 'unacceptable' thing and even reject it.  

 

 

i

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Does "valid outrage' mean calling "women from the Muslim world are too mentally handicapped to be able to use birth control"   or "Muslims are unable to embrace progressive values" or "Muslims are terrorists; if they aren't terrorists then they aren't Muslims" or "Muslim are inherently violent"?      Comments like that don't sound like 'valid outrage' or 'valid criticism'; they sound Islamaphobic to me, and I have every right to say so.   

Valid criticism of Islam and Muslim-majority countries and outrage at the actions of some of those countries or some Islamic groups is certainly justified.   Criticizing and holding to account the Montreal Imam and the Mosque at which he preached for inciting hatred of Jews is valid in my opinion.     Saying Muslims want to kill Jews is not valid and falls under the umbrella of islamphobic rhetoric.   Condemning the Islamic practice whereby a man can divorce his wife verbally while she cannot is valid criticism and reason for outrage, in my opinion.   But assuming Muslim men are universally misogynistic and beat their wives becomes islamaphobia.

Do you see the difference between valid criticism and islamphobic comments?    Valid criticism focuses on the thing that is unacceptable, but does not make the people unacceptable.   Islamaphobia condemns the group and ignores the fact that there are many individuals within that group who do not subscribe to the 'unacceptable' thing and even reject it.  

 

 

i

 

I'm not sure what you're asking here. The question of the validity of a comment has no bearing on whether or not it should be allowed to be made. 

If that were the case, the world would be a very quiet place. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bcsapper said:

I'm not sure what you're asking here. The question of the validity of a comment has no bearing on whether or not it should be allowed to be made. 

If that were the case, the world would be a very quiet place. 

 

The claim is made over and over that using the word "islamophobia' is an attempt to shut down valid criticism, which I think is bunk.   The people who think they're being shut down because they're being called Islamaphobes a: aren't being shut down and b: tend to be the ones who are making statements that insult, demean and condemn Muslims as a whole, rather than criticizing practices that may come with the culture or religion.   And I gave some examples of what I would consider statements of valid criticism and statements that I would consider Islamaphobic.  

Sorry it wasn't clear, but thanks for reading.   :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dialamah said:

The claim is made over and over that using the word "islamophobia' is an attempt to shut down valid criticism, which I think is bunk.   The people who think they're being shut down because they're being called Islamaphobes a: aren't being shut down and b: tend to be the ones who are making statements that insult, demean and condemn Muslims as a whole, rather than criticizing practices that may come with the culture or religion.   And I gave some examples of what I would consider statements of valid criticism and statements that I would consider Islamaphobic.  

Sorry it wasn't clear, but thanks for reading.   :)

People are called all sorts of things by others who disagree with them.  Sometimes it's valid, sometimes it isn't. That too falls under the freedom to give offence.  It gets wrong when such an accusation is actually used to shut down criticism, as we see on university campuses sometime, for example.  But when that happens, the action is the problem, not the speech. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

As I suggested earlier, anti-Muslimism would be against the people. Anti-Islamism would be comparable to anti-Judaism, and that is not the term that is used. Antisemitism is against the people, and yes I understand the imprecision in the term.

Anti-Muslimism is better, although there is quite a bit of hostility to the religion of Islam as well on the Internet these days. If we want to go down that track, anti-Jewism might be the most accurate neologism to replace anti-Semitism, encompassing 'Jew hatred' and lesser hostility to Jews. 

Fear and hatred do often do-exist which complicates matters. 

Edited by SpankyMcFarland
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

If we want to go down that track, anti-Jewism might be the most accurate neologism to replace anti-Semitism, encompassing 'Jew hatred' and lesser hostility to Jews. 

We do have anti-zionism which is more political than religious or people oriented. I guess in some ways there is a similarity with Islamophobia, because there are fears about the expansion of Islam. One of the reasons I don't call myself an Atheist is because I am not militant about the destruction of religion, which it does seem there are some prominent individuals who label themselves Atheists are. Labels are such confusing stuff, perhaps I am a Tolerantist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
On 2017-02-19 at 7:17 AM, betsy said:

The meaning would hardly be different.  

On that same token, people do not fear homosexuals. Why is dislike of homosexuals called Homophobia, instead of anti-gay?  It's a form of labelling. 

 

There is info floating out there that the term Islamophobia came from the Muslim Brotherhood - it's a term used by "soft jihadists" and Islam apologists to intimidate or label anyone who criticize Islam.

 

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/01/french-prime-minister-manuel-valls-on-islamophobia/384592/

 

Some people posting here do not understand the difference between Islamophobia and anti-Semitism and are just confusing the meaning. 

Anti mean against.   Therefore the word anti-semitism means against Jews.

Phobia means a fear of.  The word Islamophobia means a fear of Islam.  

So anti-semitism is against a people;   Islamophobia is a fear of a religion.  It is not an opposition to a people.  Some try to equate it with anti-semitism but this is not correct.  There is a difference between opposing a race or group of people and opposing a religion or ideology because you disagree with it's teachings.

Anti-semitism has existed in Europe for about 2000 years.  There is a book called "God's First Love" by Friedrich Heer (Christians and Jews over two thousand years)  This is an extremely detailed book of what has been happening in Europe during the past 2000 years culminating in the Haulocaust.

 

Edited by blackbird
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Boges said:

Jewaphobia doesn't have a nice ring to it. 


"Eggplant mousakka" does not have a nice ring to it too but this does not mean we should call it "chocolate cake".  Its eggplant mousakka and we call it eggplant mousakka. Terms should be used within their meaning. Also here "Anti-semitic" usage is the correct one. The wrong one is the usage of "islam phobia", it should be "anti-Islamic". 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...