Anti-Semitism is a term that, in the western culture, is used to mean anti-jewish. When you treat it literally, you are ignoring a long and established history associated with it. See this for much more articulate explanation than mine:

http://www.ibishblog.com/blog/hibish/2010/12/16/arabs_and_an...

<quote> anti-Semitism is not the optimal term for anti-Jewish sentiment, among other things because there are other Semites than Jews, but it is the one we have, and comes with a long history and a well-established meaning. Rather than critiquing the term or coining a neologism to substitute for it, speakers of English should simply understand the term's history and commonly accepted definition and use it accordingly. </quote>

edit: corrected typos

It's more like "black," which comes from a PIE root meaning "to burn," and is thus closely related to the word "bleach."

You can't look at the roots of a word and declare it "wrong" because it doesn't precisely match the original usage. That would wipe out a lot of everyday language.

This is -- pardon my french -- either the most dishonest or the most uninformed argument that has been made on this topic so far.

I don't think it's either, just a rant about how natural languages need to MAKE SENSE DAMMIT!

It's a common failure among the half-educated.

Heh! I had so far restrained myself from adding to the thread. But it tickles me a great deal to see how just an observation can fuel nay-saying and name calling. I never made a moral judgment and neither am I ignorant of the typical use of the word. But was not aware that such usage ruled out making observations that the well used and common rule of "anti-blah" does not apply in this case. Then I added another example were words sometimes do not mean what they are supposed to mean. Oh the outrage, I wonder were it comes from :).

<tongue in cheek> If usage trumps correctness then English with an Indian accent is the canonical accent. After all there are more who use it. </tongue in cheek>

* If usage trumps correctness then English with an Indian accent is the canonical accent. After all there are more who use it.*

I know it's tongue in cheek and all, but I've heard this repeated a few too many times recently, so for the record: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_languages_by_num...

Summary: 226 million "native" speakers of English, plus 90 million with English as a second language. I'd suggest that the canonical English accent is actually American. And whilst it is true that India will probably overtake the US in this regard in the not too distant future, they too will probably be eclipsed by the Chinese (http://www.economist.com/node/6803197?story_id=6803197) before that happens.

Regardless, the traditional anglo-saxon countries will hold sway as the main proponents of English for a long time, as aside from the US there is also the UK (60-odd million), Canada(35 million), Australia(20-odd million), New Zealand (5 million), and South Africa (50 million) to throw into the mix, giving a total of somewhere around 500 million native speakers.

Whoa! No way India has 226 million "native" speakers of English. It still would be under a quarter million. But upvoted for checking. Tongue was very much in my cheek in my previous comment, so all can rest easy :)

  but I've heard this repeated a few too many times recently

I havent heard it before and that is indeed strange given that I am Indian.

:D Yup, I read it wrong... 226 000, not 226 million. Which means that India has a looooong way to go before getting to number one!

Antisemitism has never meant racism directed at Semitic peoples in general. It has a very specific meaning. Not only that, but 'hacker' doesn't have a literal etymological meaning ('hacker' is derived from...?).

This whole comment thread has me extremely disappointed with HN.