Neutrosemitism/neutrosemitic is the neutral point between prosemitism and antisemiticm, and: not having or endeavouring to manifest a position of prosemitism or antisemitism, or any spelling variant inferring those; rather, it is having and endeavouring to manifest a NEUTRAL position in respect of those things and being able to engage in discourse from an empirical ‘humanity’ perspective
The distinction is needed in response to dubious casting of people and organisations as antisemitic, and the threat to ‘pick a side’, even to the mere spectre of the topic.
Previously, English language has polarised the topic by only having words in the vernacular for the pro- and anti- extremes. Empirically, that has manifested in many people, organisations and Gov’ts being dubiously accused as antisemitic unless they apologetically and obsequiously back effectively Zionistic doctrine. Such even implied accusation of antisemitism doesn’t merely imply affront felt or feigned by the accuser, NO, it infers that the accused has broadly affronted all Jews, and Jewish culture, and all Jewish power/position/money/business/political and societal interests - the whole Hive, the centre of which is Zionistic doctrine, irrespective of moderates
English left little-to-no room for the neutrosemitic to engage in civil discourse on the topic without being compelled to take a position at one of the hard-line extremes, and empirically, anything other than prosemitic got dubiously labelled antisemitic
The distinction is needed in response to dubious casting of people and organisations as antisemitic, and the threat to ‘pick a side’, even to the mere spectre of the topic.
Previously, English language has polarised the topic by only having words in the vernacular for the pro- and anti- extremes. Empirically, that has manifested in many people, organisations and Gov’ts being dubiously accused as antisemitic unless they apologetically and obsequiously back effectively Zionistic doctrine. Such even implied accusation of antisemitism doesn’t merely imply affront felt or feigned by the accuser, NO, it infers that the accused has broadly affronted all Jews, and Jewish culture, and all Jewish power/position/money/business/political and societal interests - the whole Hive, the centre of which is Zionistic doctrine, irrespective of moderates
English left little-to-no room for the neutrosemitic to engage in civil discourse on the topic without being compelled to take a position at one of the hard-line extremes, and empirically, anything other than prosemitic got dubiously labelled antisemitic
“Please, dude… STOP jewping me, I’m neutrosemitic.”
“If only everyone was neutrosemitic.”
“Advocate for neutrosemitism.”
“If only everyone was neutrosemitic.”
“Advocate for neutrosemitism.”
by BeReasonable May 22, 2024
Neutrosemitism, neutrosemitic is the neutral point between prosemitism and antisemiticm, and: not having or endeavouring to manifest a position of prosemitism or antisemitism, or any spelling variant inferring those; rather, it is having and endeavouring to manifest a NEUTRAL position in respect of those things and being able to engage in discourse from an empirical ‘humanity’ perspective.
The distinction is needed in response to dubious casting of people and organisations as antisemitic, and the threat to ‘pick a side’, even to the mere spectre of the topic.
Previously, English language has polarised the topic, only having words in the vernacular for the pro- and anti- extremes. Empirically, that has manifested in many people, organisations and Gov’ts being dubiously accused as antisemitic unless they apologetically and obsequiously back effectively Zionistic doctrine. Such even implied accusation of antisemitism doesn’t merely imply affront felt or feigned by the accuser, NO, it infers that the accused has broadly affronted all Jews, and Jewish culture, and all Jewish power/position/money/business/political and societal interests - the whole Hive, the centre of which is Zionistic doctrine, irrespective of moderates
English left little-to-no room for the neutrosemitic to engage in civil discourse on the topic without being compelled to take a position at one of the hard-line extremes, and empirically, anything other than prosemitic got dubiously labelled antisemitic
The distinction is needed in response to dubious casting of people and organisations as antisemitic, and the threat to ‘pick a side’, even to the mere spectre of the topic.
Previously, English language has polarised the topic, only having words in the vernacular for the pro- and anti- extremes. Empirically, that has manifested in many people, organisations and Gov’ts being dubiously accused as antisemitic unless they apologetically and obsequiously back effectively Zionistic doctrine. Such even implied accusation of antisemitism doesn’t merely imply affront felt or feigned by the accuser, NO, it infers that the accused has broadly affronted all Jews, and Jewish culture, and all Jewish power/position/money/business/political and societal interests - the whole Hive, the centre of which is Zionistic doctrine, irrespective of moderates
English left little-to-no room for the neutrosemitic to engage in civil discourse on the topic without being compelled to take a position at one of the hard-line extremes, and empirically, anything other than prosemitic got dubiously labelled antisemitic
"If only everyone was neutrosemitic."
"Advocate neutrosemitism."
"Please dude, STOP jewping me, I'm neutrosemitic."
"Calm down and appreciate that the word neutrosemitic is needed."
"Advocate neutrosemitism."
"Please dude, STOP jewping me, I'm neutrosemitic."
"Calm down and appreciate that the word neutrosemitic is needed."
by BeReasonable May 24, 2024