Sure you can. It's usually a matter of not feeding the trolls, for a start. If someone takes a policy criticism of Israel and makes it into an attack on Jews, then so be it. People are allowed to be stupid. Ignore them. When you argue back with, "Oh, we can criticize Muslims as a group but not Jews? What's the word for someone who's antisemitic to Christians?", you are practically confirming in many minds how your criticism was an attack on a group. Don't play that game.
What's the word for someone who's antisemitic to Christians
Wait a minute, would you actually deny that Christianity is currently under attack, and that it's the only major religion that it is currently acceptable to attack? Because that's what that question is meant to point out (but I did not say antisemitic, you said that, forgetting that the word islamophobe also exists?)
I wouldn't deny that, but don't you see how you are trying to stand on the shoulders of bigots? Excusing your position as being as valid as the wholesale attack on Christianity is hardly validation. In spite of what you mean to point out, it comes across as you relating your line of attack to those coming from self-righteous occidentphobes in an attempt to validate it. That's never gonna work, is my point.
Maybe it's the lack of sleep, but I'm... not even sure what you think my position is at this point. lol What is my position that you think I'm trying to validate? Also, what line of attack? Who have I attacked? I don't get what you're saying.
You are 100% right but unfortunately, I think that is why a real, nuanced discussion on the topic is impossible to have.
Sure you can. It's usually a matter of not feeding the trolls, for a start. If someone takes a policy criticism of Israel and makes it into an attack on Jews, then so be it. People are allowed to be stupid. Ignore them. When you argue back with, "Oh, we can criticize Muslims as a group but not Jews? What's the word for someone who's antisemitic to Christians?", you are practically confirming in many minds how your criticism was an attack on a group. Don't play that game.
Wait a minute, would you actually deny that Christianity is currently under attack, and that it's the only major religion that it is currently acceptable to attack? Because that's what that question is meant to point out (but I did not say antisemitic, you said that, forgetting that the word islamophobe also exists?)
I wouldn't deny that, but don't you see how you are trying to stand on the shoulders of bigots? Excusing your position as being as valid as the wholesale attack on Christianity is hardly validation. In spite of what you mean to point out, it comes across as you relating your line of attack to those coming from self-righteous occidentphobes in an attempt to validate it. That's never gonna work, is my point.
Maybe it's the lack of sleep, but I'm... not even sure what you think my position is at this point. lol What is my position that you think I'm trying to validate? Also, what line of attack? Who have I attacked? I don't get what you're saying.