11:20:06 From <participant 1> to Everyone:
	A mental or public connection between Jews and incorrect awful characteristics.
11:21:28 From <participant 2> to Everyone:
	1 minimal amount, hostility or prejudice against jews
11:21:38 From <participant 3> to Everyone:
	Anti-Semite. But as used, anti-Jew. (Not ‘anti-State of Israel’; that would be anti-Zionism.
11:21:38 From <participant 4> to Everyone:
	1. b  2. Prejudice against Jewish people.  3. c.  4. Historical persecution of Jews, with its gravest expression in the Holocaust.
11:22:03 From <participant 5> to Everyone:
	1. A minimal amount.
	2. Antipathy toward Jewish people.,
	3. A large amount.
	4. I would want to define "Jewish" and go into the history of antisemitism.
11:22:14 From <participant 6> to Everyone:
	1 a, 2: unjustified views against the existence of the state of Israel; 3a (until reaction from audience) 4?
11:22:50 From <participant 2> to Everyone:
	encyclopedia would have to have holocaust
11:23:50 From <parrticipant 7> to Everyone:
	False  or questionable statement describing the jewish population, with the intention of insulting or disvaluing that group of culture. A minimum amount. How this affects the treatment of jews throughout history.
11:24:00 From <participant 8> to Everyone:
	1:a; 2: hostile acts against Jewish people; 3c; 4: History and origins of Jewish persecution and description of the Jewish religion
11:40:38 From <participant 8> to Everyone:
	„ ‚Hatred‘ towards Jews“ sounds fuzzy
11:40:40 From <participant 4> to Everyone:
	"hatred" seems too strong; one can be prejudiced without feeling it. Systems can be prejudiced without feeling anything.
11:40:46 From <participant 7> to Everyone:
	The attitude behind antisemitism need not reach the level of hatred.
11:41:37 From <participant 5> to Everyone:
	I wonder how this definition would accommodate institutionalize antisemitism that isn't reducible to individual attitudes.
11:41:55 From <participant 8> to Everyone:
	Subpoint 1 would not include antisemitic slurs
11:42:09 From <participant 1> to Everyone:
	The context-dependent provision seems evasive to me.  I think the “context” has to be focused on whether or not the statement is true on historical or other grounds.  I am assuming that a true statement should not be classified as antisemitic, but that doesn’t seem explicit in the material on the screen, and the authors might object to it.
11:42:54 From <participant 9> to Everyone:
	The definiens is obscure. Involving terms like “certain”, “may be”