(Added April 26, 2025)
After making this post I did some searches on which group of people are considered semitic but answers I got from google's AI kept citing the bible. Had I done that earlier I would not have questioned the application of that here which I did under the impression that I am dealing with science or pure history thing, not religion. That is because at least when it comes to the issue of not applying "antisemitic" to discriminations against which other groups sharing that origin may complain, there is an answer in, unlike the jewish-christian old testament text connection, not knowing how the believe in this ancestry is shared by their faith. As indicated above, this is not the result of the for/against balance on this issue. I am just mentioning what would have been good enough to stop me from going into it at such insufficient level of preparation.
(Added April 10, 2025)
The last sentence below should have been: "Very often, rather than the other way around, words generate perceptions" (The main change is the order of the parts).
(First Posting)
I wonder if whoever started the use of this term the way it has been used had congratulated himself thinking "I am going to stand against discrimination targeting one group, and I am going to use for that a term that itself also horribly discriminates against all other groups sharing the same ancestry by denying that origin of them"?
By the way, considering how a person can be, for example, arab but not muslim, I think that the absence of separate, clear and ready designations like that for the subgroup at focus here is big force toward unhealthy existence. Rather than the other way around, very often words control perceptions.
