It’s easy to throw pejorative labels around. It’s a lot harder to respond to a rational argument. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:
This “anti-Semitic” business is something I’ve thought about going into – so here goes.
Like “racist,” it has become a generic shout-down word – one that works because there are anti-Semitic people, just as there are racist people. The problem is that both words are used to silence people who aren’t either but who have raised legitimate questions/criticisms that the cat-callers do not want to deal with and so they de-legitimize the person to avoid having to deal with the person’s questions/criticisms.
Two parallel examples come immediately to mind:
If a person questions the rightness of formal policies that award jobs to people primarily on the basis of skin color – i.e., what is styled “affirmative action” – he is often cat-called as a “racist” for daring to raise the question.
Similarly, if a person questions the rightness of American taxpayers being made to support the state of Israel, he is is typically accused of “anti-Semitism.” Even when the person objects to American taxpayers being made to support any state.
I consider both of a piece with this business of slandering people who questioned forcing people to wear “masks” as “anti-science.” Note the “anti.” I also think it is not a coincidence that anyone who dares to question “climate change” is characterized as a denier.
As in Holocaust denier.
That latter has been used for decades to shout-down anyone who “denies” the German National Socialists’ (spelled out on purpose, to make an obvious point) systematic campaign of mass murder, which – while focused on people who happened to be Jewish – also included Communists, “asocials” and pretty much anyone who was considered an actual or potential opponent of the regime.