Is there a reason you’re so salty about this particular fairly old shift in language? Do tell why.
In a pre-WWII European context (where the only relevant Semites were Jews), letting the meaning shift was one thing.
In this Middle Eastern context (with two relevant groups of Semites), it’s entirely different: it’s an attempt to “other” and dehumanize Arabs by denying their shared Semitic heritage and instead claiming it exclusively for Jews. It’s a fundamentally dishonest definition that facilitates DARVO tactics.
I mean, if you generalize it THAT far, I’m sure there are many terms that become malicious. The current bad words weren’t always bad words in some cases (thinking more like the odd slurs like “idiot” than the tried and true cuss words).
In fact, wasn’t f*ggot ONLY a term for bundles of sticks used for tinder until it became fashionable to burn gay people like witches?
In a pre-WWII European context (where the only relevant Semites were Jews), letting the meaning shift was one thing.
In this Middle Eastern context (with two relevant groups of Semites), it’s entirely different: it’s an attempt to “other” and dehumanize Arabs by denying their shared Semitic heritage and instead claiming it exclusively for Jews. It’s a fundamentally dishonest definition that facilitates DARVO tactics.
So using a term the way it’s been used for decades is suddenly malicious if we change contexts.
No, I’m not buying that at all.
I mean, if you generalize it THAT far, I’m sure there are many terms that become malicious. The current bad words weren’t always bad words in some cases (thinking more like the odd slurs like “idiot” than the tried and true cuss words).
In fact, wasn’t f*ggot ONLY a term for bundles of sticks used for tinder until it became fashionable to burn gay people like witches?