Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: MillCreek on January 12, 2011, 08:12:43 PM
-
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70B3W320110112
How very odd of Governor Palin to use the term 'blood libel'. This has been associated with anti-Semitic issues for centuries and refers to the alleged Jewish practice of murdering Christian children to use their blood for religious rituals.
I wonder if she used the term inadvertently, or is trying to send some sort of message. Coming across as anti-Semitic will not benefit her political career.
-
"That word does not mean what you think it means!"
-
I don't know how smart it was, but it was a great use of the phrase. It is exactly what is going on. Her opponents are slandering her by blaming the massacre on her. Now everybody is all upset and feigning great insult when she calls them on it because they know it's true.
It's a little more to-the-point than just telling everybody "F.U.", don't ya think?
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0nnOtLYm_4
-
I've been hearing all day how "blood libel" is some sort of Jewish thing, that it's anti-semitic. This is news to me, because I've also heard the term used to describe attacks on early Christians ("blood" being a reference to Holy Communion).
As I understand it, it's any situation where one group falsely accuses another group of heinous acts, then uses those phony accusations as justification to abuse them in some way. It need not involve religion at all.
"Joe feeds little children to sharks, therefore we should go steal his car."
As I understand the term, it applies perfectly to the Palin situation. The left accuses Palin of being complicit in the murders, then uses that as justification to savage her politically.
-
^^^^ How interesting. Pretty much every context (my reading of historical fiction and European history) in which I have heard of the term was directed against the Jewish people. I think that in many circles, it is considered only as an anti-Semitic concept.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel
-
http://www.thejewishweek.com/blogs/route_17/sarah_palin_right_were_looking_blood_libel
-
^^^^ How interesting. Pretty much every context (my reading of historical fiction and European history) in which I have heard of the term was directed against the Jewish people. I think that in many circles, it is considered only as an anti-Semitic concept.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel
Maybe it's a regional thing.
???
-
Coming across as anti-Semitic will not benefit her political career.
How is it anti-Semitic to compare something horrible done to innocent Jews, to something horrible being done to innocent non-Democrats/Leftists ???
When one says for instance that somebody would be "crucified" for some action, is that anti-Christian...?
Or maybe it's anti-Italian :P
-
Here is the context
Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.
I'm not seeing any thing anti-Semitic here, what am I missing?
It looks to me like she is drawing a direct comparison to the slandering of the right wing, especially her, with the historical unwarranted slander against the Jewish people.
-
"Blood libel" works in this case...even Krauthammer agrees....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/11/AR2011011106068.html?hpid=opinionsbox1 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/11/AR2011011106068.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)
-
I'm not seeing any thing anti-Semitic here, what am I missing?
The way I see it, it's not anti-Semitic, it's something done by anti-Semites.
"Refers to a false accusation or claim[3][4][5] that religious minorities, in European contexts almost always Jews, murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays."
She should've used 'horse****' instead.
-
Yes, but some people who are certain that they are more equal that other people are also certain that any inappropriate appropriation of another group's culture or history is all about hate.
-
Interesting to see the new direction the public debate is taking since Palin's comment.
I wonder if that was by design.
I wonder how many other people have that much ability to influence the public discussion.
-
I wonder how many other people have that much ability to influence the public discussion.
I don't know, as I didn't see Obama's "performance" at the Arizona ceremony. Did he manage to call for healing while simultaneously stabbing Palin, Limbaugh, the Tea Party, and anyone else who disagrees with him? That's his MO.
-
I don't know, as I didn't see Obama's "performance" at the Arizona ceremony. Did he manage to call for healing while simultaneously stabbing Palin, Limbaugh, the Tea Party, and anyone else who disagrees with him? That's his MO.
Very Presidential
http://m.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/12/remarks-president-barack-obama-memorial-service-victims-shooting-tucson
For the truth is none of us can know exactly what triggered this vicious attack. None of us can know with any certainty what might have stopped these shots from being fired, or what thoughts lurked in the inner recesses of a violent man’s mind. Yes, we have to examine all the facts behind this tragedy. We cannot and will not be passive in the face of such violence. We should be willing to challenge old assumptions in order to lessen the prospects of such violence in the future. (Applause.) But what we cannot do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on each other. (Applause.) That we cannot do. (Applause.) That we cannot do.
As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let’s use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy and remind ourselves of all the ways that our hopes and dreams are bound together. (Applause.)
-
The irony of this is that while conservatives are now upset at being blamed for the acts of an individual extremists, if this had been a guy with a Muslim name, the conservative pundits would've been first in line to bash Islam & Muslims as responsible.
-
Very Presidential
http://m.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/12/remarks-president-barack-obama-memorial-service-victims-shooting-tucson
We should be willing to challenge old assumptions in order to lessen the prospects of such violence in the future.
Old assumptions, like a right to free speech or self-defense?
-
The irony of this is that while conservatives are now upset at being blamed for the acts of an individual extremists, if this had been a guy with a Muslim name, the conservative pundits would've been first in line to bash Islam & Muslims as responsible.
While there is a definite tendency to exaggerate the non-threat of Islamic extremism, this does not draw from the validity of the statements made in this thread.
-
The irony of this is that while conservatives are now upset at being blamed for the acts of an individual extremists, if this had been a guy with a Muslim name, the conservative pundits would've been first in line to bash Islam & Muslims as responsible.
Well, when they holler out allahu akbar and then commence to slaughter, one might get the impression Islam might have something to do about it.
Those squawking about the use of the term "blood libel" I expect to stop using the term "quisling" for anything other than a Norwegian betraying his countrymen to fascists. To do anything else would be anti-Norwegian. We must be sensitive to their long history of oppression by Danes, Swedes, and Germans.
-
I think some terms are so associated with certain political beliefs as to be irrevocably so associated. "Blood libel', despite any protests to the contrary, is associated with anti-Semitism, due to a centuries-long history of being so used in that specific context. If Governor Palin had been giving a speech about immigration and used the term 'lebensraum', would we we claim that she inadvertently used a term so associated with Nazi ideology, or was she sending a coded message? I would lean towards the latter, and I would say that about anyone on the political spectrum.
-
Palinn is right, Blood Libel is apt. If the leftwing media and elected critters don't like is, they can pound sand
-
I think some terms are so associated with certain political beliefs as to be irrevocably so associated. "Blood libel', despite any protests to the contrary, is associated with anti-Semitism, due to a centuries-long history of being so used in that specific context. If Governor Palin had been giving a speech about immigration and used the term 'lebensraum', would we we claim that she inadvertently used a term so associated with Nazi ideology, or was she sending a coded message? I would lean towards the latter, and I would say that about anyone on the political spectrum.
Plus it's a chance for lefties to scream: "SHE'S SENDING SECRET NAZI MESSAGES!!!1111!!"
Seriously? You can't step back and see that libellously accusing someone of murder, i.e. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' blood is on Sarah Palin's hands after putting cross hair over district (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/01/09/2011-01-09_palin_put_a_target_on_her_she_should_have_known_the_dangers.html#ixzz1AvIJKCSP), isn't a type blood libel?
Of course you know it is. You and the leftist media just want to find SOMETHING to attack her, and by association, conservatives.
-
The irony of this is that while conservatives are now upset at being blamed for the acts of an individual extremists, if this had been a guy with a Muslim name, the conservative pundits would've been first in line to bash Islam & Muslims as responsible.
Apples to oranges.
There is no proof that he was at all encouraged by right wing talk radio, and some proof to the contrary.
But in all the attacks by "muslim named" individuals, there is proof that they were influenced by the fiery rhetoric of certain imams.
Your right wing bash, is fail.
-
Plus it's a chance for lefties to scream: "SHE'S SENDING SECRET NAZI MESSAGES!!!1111!!"
Seriously? You can't step back and see that libellously accusing someone of murder, i.e. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' blood is on Sarah Palin's hands after putting cross hair over district (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/01/09/2011-01-09_palin_put_a_target_on_her_she_should_have_known_the_dangers.html#ixzz1AvIJKCSP), isn't a type blood libel?
Of course you know it is. You and the leftist media just want to find SOMETHING to attack her, and by association, conservatives.
I myself would not use the term 'blood libel' because of my opinion as to the anti-Semitic association, and I do not propound, espouse or support anti-Semitism. I suspect that many people had never heard of the term before the current controversy; I have known it for 35 years based on my reading, and I think it is so associated with anti-Semitic issues to have an irrevocable taint.
-
One of the oldest uses of the term relates to a vilification of the Jew from before Christ. It is still used today in several areas of the ME. The blooding of none Jewish children for making the unlevin bread for Passover recognition. Caustic and vile kind of act attributed to the Jewish people that may have added to the antisemitism in Europe.
More modern uses of the word relate to the false charges by groups and governments.
Palin's use of the term in this is correct. This takes nothing away from anyone.
We are tired of being demonized and libeled by the left.
Of course some f us want to be divided by this and anything else.
-
Having never heard of the term "blood liable" before reading this thread, I must say she hit the nail on the head very squarely.
Touché Gov. Palin.
-
Plus it's a chance for lefties to scream: "SHE'S SENDING SECRET NAZI MESSAGES!!!1111!!"
Seriously? You can't step back and see that libellously accusing someone of murder, i.e. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' blood is on Sarah Palin's hands after putting cross hair over district (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/01/09/2011-01-09_palin_put_a_target_on_her_she_should_have_known_the_dangers.html#ixzz1AvIJKCSP), isn't a type blood libel?
Of course you know it is. You and the leftist media just want to find SOMETHING to attack her, and by association, conservatives.
Here are some of the headlines from leftwing editorialist's. Blood libel while not the term I would have used, as I wasn't that familiar with the nuances of it, still seems to be spot on.
Natural Result of a Climate of Hate - Paul Krugman The New York Times
Giffords' Blood is on Palin's Hands - Michael Daly The New York Daily News
"Palin Needs to Look at Her Own Behavior" - John Nichols The Nation
Why the Tea Party Movement is Culpable - Jacob Weisberg Slate
Hate & Rage Is Encoded in Rightwing's DNA - Michael Tomasky The Guardian
-
I think some terms are so associated with certain political beliefs as to be irrevocably so associated. "Blood libel', despite any protests to the contrary, is associated with anti-Semitism, due to a centuries-long history of being so used in that specific context. If Governor Palin had been giving a speech about immigration and used the term 'lebensraum', would we we claim that she inadvertently used a term so associated with Nazi ideology, or was she sending a coded message? I would lean towards the latter, and I would say that about anyone on the political spectrum.
I myself would not use the term 'blood libel' because of my opinion as to the anti-Semitic association, and I do not propound, espouse or support anti-Semitism. I suspect that many people had never heard of the term before the current controversy; I have known it for 35 years based on my reading, and I think it is so associated with anti-Semitic issues to have an irrevocable taint.
"Taint" my taint. The term "blood libel" is English, whereas "Lebensraum" and "shoah" are foreign words.
"Blood libel" has been used before to describe similar situations and the actual English turn of phrase, "blood libel," is a description of what was done, not a given name.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/libel
1.
a. A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.
b. The act of presenting such material to the public.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/blood
1.
a. The fluid consisting of plasma, blood cells, and platelets that is circulated by the heart through the vertebrate vascular system, carrying oxygen and nutrients to and waste materials away from all body tissues.
b. A functionally similar fluid in animals other than vertebrates.
c. The juice or sap of certain plants.
2. A vital or animating force; lifeblood.
3. One of the four humors of ancient and medieval physiology, identified with the blood found in blood vessels, and thought to cause cheerfulness.
4. Bloodshed; murder.
5. Temperament or disposition
In the recent Tucson case, "blood libel," is quite apt. It's use is similar how the term, "genocide" (which is another English construction) used to refer to the shoah, the Armenian genocide perpetrated by the Turks, and many others. No one ethnic group has a monopoly on it.
The Jews are not so special as to have a monopoly on the English language. They have Hebrew and Yiddish if they want to get all grabby.
Palin isn't even the first out the door in this particular instance. Several journalists saw what was happening and reported it as "blood libel:"
The Arizona Tragedy and the Politics of Blood Libel
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703667904576071913818696964.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
So as the usual talking heads begin their "have you no decency?" routine aimed at talk radio and Republican politicians, perhaps we should turn the question around. Where is the decency in blood libel?
To paraphrase Justice Cardozo ("proof of negligence in the air, so to speak, will not do"), there is no such thing as responsibility in the air. Those who try to connect Sarah Palin and other political figures with whom they disagree to the shootings in Arizona use attacks on "rhetoric" and a "climate of hate" to obscure their own dishonesty in trying to imply responsibility where none exists. But the dishonesty remains.
To be clear, if you're using this event to criticize the "rhetoric" of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you're either: (a) asserting a connection between the "rhetoric" and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you're not, in which case you're just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?
I understand the desperation that Democrats must feel after taking a historic beating in the midterm elections and seeing the popularity of ObamaCare plummet while voters flee the party in droves. But those who purport to care about the health of our political community demonstrate precious little actual concern for America's political well-being when they seize on any pretext, however flimsy, to call their political opponents accomplices to murder.
In recent history, it was used to describe the Democrats' and journalists' actions WRT the Marines at Haditha:
Media dance macabre
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/jun/6/20060606-090947-7470r/
But what further cuts is to listen to media people casually perpetrate blood libel against not just the still-presumed-innocent Marines but against our services more generally. To see the gleam in the eyes of reporters happily cackling on about "other possible incidents" -- about which they know not whether they even exist -- is to be filled with a fury that we have a system of journalism that permits people with such mentalities to poison the minds of the world with their malice.
It was even used by Jews to describe things much more recent than medieval Jews killing Christian children for use in matzo:
Jenin massacre syndrome
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3280038,00.html
The fairytale about the "Jenin massacre" may have died, but were lessons learned? Some were. The European media, especially the electronic media, has given some expression to the suffering of Israeli civilians under attack. It has not (usually) supported Hizbullah.
But in other cases, no lessons were learned from the blood libel of the Jenin massacre.
BBC's "Jenin–massacre" that never was
http://www.takeapen.org/Takeapen/Templates/showpage.asp?DBID=1&TMID=84&LNGID=1&FID=577&PID=869
"There was not a massacre in Jenin"? Thus, the BBC actually conveyed the blood libel of the 'massacre' to many readers even with that very article which should have cleansed the previous misinformation! We found the BBC quoting this title - libellous in itself - as late as in November 2002!
This is manufactured outrage by the malignant in order to sway the ignorant.
-
How interesting that the term 'blood libel' is now being used in a wider variety of contexts these days.
-
I note that most of the people harping on the antisemitism thing seem to be doing it in order to distract from the accuracy and veracity of Palin's remarks.
-
How interesting that the term 'blood libel' is now being used in a wider variety of contexts these days.
"Now"?
This is not a recent development.
-
I note that most of the people harping on the antisemitism thing seem to be doing it in order to distract from the accuracy and veracity of Palin's remarks.
They generally don't attack the substance of a person's statement if the statement is true. They can't call her a "racist", so they'll have to settle for anti-semite. (Which is ironic coming from a bunch of Israel-haters).
-
How interesting that the term 'blood libel' is now being used in a wider variety of contexts these days.
Ghetto, too. The trouble is how frequently people get offended when I refer to the Jewish ghetto in metro Detroit, which fits the historical use of the word at least well as its most common use today.
Not all Jewish ghettos have historically been walled or enforced by civil authorities, but are limited to a tight geographical area and have significant elements of self-governance. Most Orthodox Jewish communities in the US outside the New York metro area (and some within it) can be described quite accurately as ghettos.
My most outspokenly liberal friend, who some of you on fb may have had the pleasure of "meeting," and her buddies are busy focusing much more on the purported racism, xenophobia, and fascism of the Tea Party. Because duh, the Tea Party is JUST LIKE the Nazis. After all there's the appeal to founding myths and it has arisen during a particularly bad recession. I wish these people would realize that conservatives and mainstream Americans outside the coastal cities/liberal university towns/few other liberal-dominated areas have always talked about American history, and that it's a bit foolish to characterize well-recorded events and arguments of <250 years ago as "founding myths" on par with the invention of "Aryan" culture.
And no one but me seems to the see the irony in screaming about vitriol and fascism in a conversation where someone has stated "I don't know why [Gov. Palin] is even allowed to live." Wtf?
Sorry, had to get that off my chest. Thread drift...
-
...anything else would be anti-Norwegian. We must be sensitive to their long history of oppression by Danes, Swedes, and Germans.
Sven is passing by Ole's barn one day when through a gap in the door he sees Ole doing a slow and sensual striptease in front of an old green John Deere.
Buttocks clenched he performs a slow pirouette and gently slides off first the right strap of his overalls, followed by the left. He then hunches his shoulders forward and in a classic striptease move and lets his overalls fall down to his hips revealing a torn and frayed plaid shirt. Grabbing both sides of his shirt he rips it apart to reveal his stained tee shirt underneath. With a final flourish he tears the tee shirt from his body and hurls his baseball cap onto a pile of hay.
Having seen enough Sven rushes in and says "what in the heck are you doing Ole?"
"Yumpin Yimminy, Sven! Ya scared da livin bejeevas out of me!" exclaimed an obviously embarrassed Ole; "But, me and Lena, vell, ve ben havin some troubles lately in da bedroom department and da terapist said I got to do something sexy to a tractor."
:facepalm:
-
Ghetto, too.
Yeah, thanks to that infamous anti-semite:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n3ebuL1cPA
-
Having never heard of the term "blood liable" before reading this thread, I must say she hit the nail on the head very squarely.
Touché Gov. Palin.
I have heard of the term, but I would never have thought it had anything to do with Jews. I guess I don't know enough Jewish people or any antisemitic people.
-
Ghetto, too. The trouble is how frequently people get offended when I refer to the Jewish ghetto in metro Detroit, which fits the historical use of the word at least well as its most common use today.
Not all Jewish ghettos have historically been walled or enforced by civil authorities, but are limited to a tight geographical area and have significant elements of self-governance. Most Orthodox Jewish communities in the US outside the New York metro area (and some within it) can be described quite accurately as ghettos.
And when I hear the word 'ghetto' in the Jewish context, the first thing I think of is my reading about the Warsaw ghetto uprising in WWII, and tales of the pogroms in Central and Eastern Europe. Another interesting example of how words change meaning over time and context. I never would have thought about contemporary Jewish enclaves in this sense.
-
It was even used by Jews to describe things much more recent than medieval Jews killing Christian children for use in matzo:
And is used by Israeli politicians on a near-weekly basis.
MicroJewBalrog.
-
And when I hear the word 'ghetto' in the Jewish context, the first thing I think of is my reading about the Warsaw ghetto uprising in WWII, and tales of the pogroms in Central and Eastern Europe. Another interesting example of how words change meaning over time and context. I never would have thought about contemporary Jewish enclaves in this sense.
Right, but those pogroms happened in the pre-existing ghettos. The ghettos weren't about the pogroms, they were merely the location of the pogroms.
-
What I find so interesting is Palin is forcing the media to dance to her tune. Whereas the media is usually the initiator of a flap.
The lady is far more powerful than we imagine. How many political figures would sell their kids to be able to make the media tap dance.
-
I hadn't thought of it in those terms, Waitone. I suppose it's very possible that the constant attacks on her by Krugman et al will eventually bring more moderates over to her side.
She's either very cunning or not as bright as some of us would like.
-
The Left has raised hypocrisy to an art form. [popcorn]
-
http://m.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/12/remarks-president-barack-obama-memorial-service-victims-shooting-tucson
His speech was meh. It wasn't the propaganda piece I expected, but it was a bit vague and... directionless. It wasn't too distasteful, which I appreciate. I was disappointed, though, that he did not quiet the audience's applause(as I was disappointed that the audience applauded at all).
The irony of this is that while conservatives are now upset at being blamed for the acts of an individual extremists, if this had been a guy with a Muslim name, the conservative pundits would've been first in line to bash Islam & Muslims as responsible.
Muslim name, eh? Is Loughner a "conservative name"? Was he spouting rightist propaganda or quoting the founders as he massacred innocents? Nope. Lil' different from the cases to which you refer.
I'll go ahead and say that, whenever a person(Arab name or not) starts shooting people while screaming 'allahu akbar', the "pundits"(and most otherwise clear-minded people) can pretty safely start assuming religious motives. Or were you on the lets-not-be-too-hasty bus with Hassan?
Loughner wasn't conservative, or liberal, or anything other than *broken*. At first, after reading about his grammar and currency conspiracies, if I had been asked to guess what his favorite radio show might be I'd have said Alex Jones... but we now know he didn't follow news, radio, or much of anything. He must have gone nuts all by himself, with no help from Rush.
I think some terms are so associated with certain political beliefs as to be irrevocably so associated. "Blood libel', despite any protests to the contrary, is associated with anti-Semitism, due to a centuries-long history of being so used in that specific context. If Governor Palin had been giving a speech about immigration and used the term 'lebensraum', would we we claim that she inadvertently used a term so associated with Nazi ideology, or was she sending a coded message? I would lean towards the latter, and I would say that about anyone on the political spectrum.
Coded message? You mean, dog-whistle politics? ;) What coded message might Palin be sending with "blood libel"(or did you even mean to imply that?)?
I don't take issue with her use of the term, and I don't think Jews should either. Indeed, one might think a Jew would have a strong understanding of politically-motivated fabrications, and perhaps empathize with an individual suffering them. I think she could maybe have chosen a better term, but let's be honest - something else would've been chosen to pick on. Or, as ABC put it, she would've found another way to insert herself into the story :rolleyes:
MillCreek, do you think Palin was correct in her statements?
-
Oh, I thought the concepts she articulated in the speech and much of the content was great, and I agree with it. I still, myself, would not have chosen, or had my speechwriter use, a term that I myself consider anti-Semitic.
-
I hadn't thought of it in those terms, Waitone. I suppose it's very possible that the constant attacks on her by Krugman et al will eventually bring more moderates over to her side.
She's either very cunning or not as bright as some of us would like.
I am leaning towards not that bright. In my non-media opinion, she would have been better off not saying anything or just issuing some kind of 'pray for the victims' sympathy statement. The Andrew Sullivans are going to blast her and hate her no matter what she does. By the time she made her statement, most media outlets seemed to drop the rhetoric of hate angle and were focusing on disturbed this nutjob is. I just don't see a benefit to her in saying what she said.
-
I just don't see a benefit to her in saying what she said.
Using what I believe to be Waitone's position, she's dragging the media back into her arena.
Hers is not the only recent use of the phrase "blood libel" by a politician, and the term isn't familiar to most, so she can rely on columnists to print the names of Democrats who've used the phrase, and rely on most people to not care about the origins of the phrase.
If they continue to follow past patterns, Jewish voters will go by a large margin for Democrat candidates, so there isn't really an electoral downside to using the term. There is, however, the upside of continuing to show the media to be petty. Richard Nixon was able to play the public against the media for the better part of his political career.
-
a term that I myself consider anti-Semitic.
I just don't see how the term is anti-semitic, unless of course one is currently engaged in blood libel against the Jews ???
Is the word slave anti-Black ...?
Is the word sausage anti-Polish =|
-
I think she has turned being a lightning rod into an art form.
The media reflexively jumps on things that public figures say if it can be misconstrued. But Palin stymies them every time by refusing to do the "perp walk" though the media outlets to apologize.
-
I think she has turned being a lightning rod into an art form.
The media reflexively jumps on things that public figures say if it can be misconstrued. But Palin stymies them every time by refusing to do the "perp walk" though the media outlets to apologize.
It's because she doesn't rely on the media in order to get her message out.
All the other politicians will only speak to a few people if the media doesn't cover what they say.
Palin has circumvented the media. This angers them so they lash out. Unfortunately for them, it only helps her when they do.
If it weren't so sick, their flailing would be amusing to watch.
-
Oh, I thought the concepts she articulated in the speech and much of the content was great, and I agree with it. I still, myself, would not have chosen, or had my speechwriter use, a term that I myself consider anti-Semitic.
??? But the phrase "blood libel" isn't anti-Semitic. ???
-
Palin has Reagan's gift for playing the media...and the advantage of having the Internet to circumvent the MSM's spin...powerful combo...
-
??? But the phrase "blood libel" isn't anti-Semitic. ???
Based on my reading of history, my opinion is that it has been used in that context for centuries and there is quite a body of work supporting that interpretation. I see it as not very much different than if a politician, speaking about crime, was to use the phrase 'blood atonement', which has historically often been used in an anti-Mormon context. I suspect that most Mormons would see it that way.
-
Based on my reading of history, my opinion is that it has been used in that context for centuries and there is quite a body of work supporting that interpretation. I see it as not very much different than if a politician, speaking about crime, was to use the phrase 'blood atonement', which has historically often been used in an anti-Mormon context. I suspect that most Mormons would see it that way.
As has been noted:
And is used by Israeli politicians on a near-weekly basis.
MicroJewBalrog.
I don't know how many ways people can tell you that you're wrong, but here's another:
Blood libel: A false belief which has endured since the 1st century BCE. It states that members of a religious group kidnap, abuse, ritually murder and sometimes eat the body of a member of another religion. Groups creating this groundless fable include ancient Greek and Roman Pagans, Christians, Nazis, and Muslims. Innocent religious groups victimized by the fable include Jews, Christians, Wiccans, Druids and other Neopagans, and Roma (Gypsies). The hoax exists today mostly among some Muslims (against Jews) and some Fundamentalist Christians (against Wiccans, Satanists and other religious minorities).
http://www.translationdirectory.com/glossaries/glossary007_b.htm
My first exposure to the word was the history of the early Christians and claims that the Lord's supper used children's blood.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel
http://jcrelations.tripod.com/blood.html
http://www.booksandideas.net/spip.php?page=print&id_article=1054&lang=fr
http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_blib2.htm
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/blood-libel-in-the-pages-of-history/
http://www.aish.com/jl/h/48951151.html
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2042176,00.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=Tdn6FFZklkcC&pg=PA160&lpg=PA160&dq=blood+libel+dissertation&source=bl&ots=qJ2rqaDIVG&sig=4HXZ9hd9CkIDAdQ-sQSp5LKuCpk&hl=en&ei=SgoxTdChEZH0tgOqxJ3XBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CDAQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=blood%20libel%20dissertation&f=false
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/rinn.html
Be sure to read the footnotes for the sources. Reading is fundamental, after all. But feel free to continue your struggle against history.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel
http://jcrelations.tripod.com/blood.html
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/blood-libel-in-the-pages-of-history/
http://www.aish.com/jl/h/48951151.html
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2042176,00.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=Tdn6FFZklkcC&pg=PA160&lpg=PA160&dq=blood+libel+dissertation&source=bl&ots=qJ2rqaDIVG&sig=4HXZ9hd9CkIDAdQ-sQSp5LKuCpk&hl=en&ei=SgoxTdChEZH0tgOqxJ3XBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CDAQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=blood%20libel%20dissertation&f=false
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/rinn.html
Be sure to read the footnotes for the sources. Reading is fundamental, after all. But feel free to continue your struggle against history.
First of all, your almighty wiki link agrees with me:
Blood libel refers to a false accusation or claim that religious minorities, usually Jews, murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays
I have emphasized the part you seem to still need to understand. USUALLY means not always.
Here's the second:
Blood Libel is the accusation by "religious group A" that "religious group B" is committing unbelievably despicable acts of ritual murder. Typically, the story contains a number of riveting details:
* a victim is kidnapped by members of "religious group B."
* the victim is usually an innocent person. An infant, young child or a blond teenage virgin girl are typical.
* the victim may be abused or tortured. They are ritually killed in order to meet the requirements of the perpetrator's religion.
* in an act of cannibalism, the victim's body is eaten and/or the blood is consumed.
* obscene sexual orgies (sometimes involving incest) are held during or after the ritual.
Note, again, it doesn't say "Jews", it says "religious group A" and "religious group B"
Third, the New York times is hardly an unbiased source in this debate.
The rest seem to be discussing blood libel in the context of antisemitism. None of those claim it to be an exclusive term for blood libel against Jews.
-
Based on my reading of history, my opinion is that it has been used in that context for centuries and there is quite a body of work supporting that interpretation.
But it's not Antisemitic. It is (or may be) a reference to Antisemitism.
-
So your argument boils down to unless this issue relates to Jewish people 100% of the time, it doesn't count as being anti-Semitic. And if a source disagrees with your thesis, it must be biased.
OK. I am convinced. You are absolutely right and I am absolutely wrong. Governor Palin was no doubt expressing her support for the heroic struggles of the Jewish people and we must not question her. Clearly, I was led astray by the mainstream media.
-
So your argument boils down to unless this issue relates to Jewish people 100% of the time, it doesn't count as being anti-Semitic. And if a source disagrees with your thesis, it must be biased.
OK. I am convinced. You are absolutely right and I am absolutely wrong. Governor Palin was no doubt expressing her support for the heroic struggles of the Jewish people and we must not question her. Clearly, I was led astray by the mainstream media.
No, my argument is that it is a term that has a broader meaning than SIMPLY anti-semitism and that your association solely with anti-semitism is wrong.
AGAIN, as many people have noted for you, it is and has for some time been used to characterize more than hatred for Jews, sometimes legitimately and sometimes as hyperbole.
You are being purposely obstructive, obtuse, and obstinate.
-
You're missing the point (I think intentionally.) If "blood libel" is Antisemitism, that's not the same thing as just using the phrase blood libel. If anything, she is accusing her critics of something equivalent to Antisemitism.
I don't know if it was a smart thing to do or not, but it was apt.
-
The term "Blood Libel" is anti-Semitic, as much as "Niggardly" is racist.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fknowyourmeme.com%2Fsystem%2Ficons%2F2135%2Foriginal%2Fsw50sw8sw578.gif&hash=1a1247d1782cfc38f2bf8806cc7ff36e9d1a4919)
-
So your argument boils down to unless this issue relates to Jewish people 100% of the time, it doesn't count as being anti-Semitic. And if a source disagrees with your thesis, it must be biased.
OK. I am convinced. You are absolutely right and I am absolutely wrong. Governor Palin was no doubt expressing her support for the heroic struggles of the Jewish people and we must not question her. Clearly, I was led astray by the mainstream media.
Okay. Let us ASSUME for a moment that blood libel has, hitherto, only been used in a Jewish context.
The term 'blood libel' isn't a description of something JEWS do. It's a description of something people do TO Jews.
-
Either way, this is more proof of my theory that Palin supporters will find any way to argue that what she's doing is clever.
Using the term "blood libel" was clearly a bad move.
-
Why was the use of the term by Palin worse than the uses of the term by everybody else in dozens of contexts?
-
Why was the use of the term by Palin worse than the uses of the term by everybody else in dozens of contexts?
Because it was sure to attract negative attention in this climate. Also, where it has been used by non-Jews in the past, it's generally been related to groups that get killed as a result. I can't think of any conservative figures in America who've been beaten to death or lynched as a result of their rhetoric.
-
DeSelby, please see the thread I started with citations from everyone from Andrew Sullivan to Michael Barrone using the term. If it didn't attract attention in the 2004 presidential election when the subject was a presidential campaign, why should it now when it's about a nothing like Sarah Palin?
-
Hmm, maybe Millcreek has a point, since Alan Dershowitz came out on the "it's antisemitism all the time" side of the debate.
OK, well maybe not:
http://biggovernment.com/publius/2011/01/12/exclusive-alan-dershowitz-defends-sarah-palins-use-of-term-blood-libel/
The term “blood libel” has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People,its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term.
So your argument boils down to unless this issue relates to Jewish people 100% of the time, it doesn't count as being anti-Semitic. And if a source disagrees with your thesis, it must be biased.
OK. I am convinced. You are absolutely right and I am absolutely wrong. Governor Palin was no doubt expressing her support for the heroic struggles of the Jewish people and we must not question her. Clearly, I was led astray by the mainstream media.
I know the the simpering crapweasels in the media spin like crazy and keeping their story straight as they change it to suit current necessity can be a challenge, but your statement is pretty high-larious given one of the anti-Palin narratives picked up and discarded in late 2008.
See, one of the earlier interviews Sarah Palin gave in the Alaska Governor's office showed an Israeli flag in the background. In addition to speculation as to her uterus, some of the Palin-haters started to speculate if she had "dual loyalties" some Jews in America get accused of.
Here's one of the posts:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2008/09/dual_loyalties.html
So, which is it? Is she an antisemite, or a crypto-Jew her own self, a sorta wanna-be "Frozen Chosen?"
Or, is the truth of the question something we need to determine by its utility --right now--as a club to beat her with?
I think Gelnn Reynolds is onto something with his "credentialed-but-not-educated" meme.
-
And The Award For Most Hypocritical "Blood Libel" Critic Goes To ...
http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2011/01/and-award-for-most-hypocritical-blood.html
Culling through the hyperbole and hypocrisy, the Official Award for most hypocritical criticism of Palin's use of the term "blood libel" goes to Andrew Cohen...
Writing recently in The Atlantic, Cohen took Palin to task for using the term...
Cohen, though, recognizes that many people, including Cohen himself, have used the term other than in the historical context...
In May 2008, Cohen accused then presidential nominee John McCain of engaging in a "blood libel" not because McCain accused someone of complicity in murder, but because McCain criticized "activist judges"...
Cohen wrote: "So-called “judicial activism” occurs, in other words, when it’s your side that lost the case and it is nothing short of a blood libel against judges to accuse them of operating by fiat."
If Cohen so casually threw around the term "blood libel" in the heat of a presidential election, who is Cohen now to attack Sarah Palin for using the term as to false accusations that she caused the murder of several people in Tucson?
For such rank hypocrisy, Andrew Cohen is the Official Award winner.
-
Use of "Blood Libel" beyond the Pale
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/113200/:
...As I’ve said before, her great gift — or is it a curse? — is her ability to bring out the ignorance, the dishonesty, and the sheer meanness of the credentialed-but-not-educated gentry class in full Technicolor glory.
UPDATE: A reader emails:
I was amused to hear on one of the NPR talking head shows this morning the indignant comment that the right’s political rhetoric was “beyond the pale”, when terms like “blood libel” were used. Not amused enough to pay any attention to who was beclowning himself, but amused enough to mention to a few folks that NPR was obviously anti Semitic, because it was not sensitive to the Jewish ghetto meaning of ”the Pale”.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.smiteahippie.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F07%2Fsimpsons_nelson_haha2.jpg&hash=59f2ee6e4d78d0055cba85e74dc4d81288b5eb77)
They're so damned ignorant.
Links to used of the term in question by folks on left and right going back to 1998:
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/256955/term-blood-libel-more-common-you-might-think
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/257057/team-sarah-points-even-more-recent-uses-blood-libel
Yet, Palin is the only one the media and lefties went completely apey over when she used it. Perhaps it hit too close to the mark?
Oh, well, Millcreek would likely have a hard time convincing me out of the basic tenets of my faith. It ought to come as no surprise that his faith is impervious to evidence to the contrary.
Finally, an image this thread topic may, someday, be worthy of:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.thefrisky.com%2Fimages%2Fuploads%2FHairy_Dude_Ad_main.jpg&hash=efc62a6eaff452b833efa4f9008854808a9dbf08)
-
This is why these people arre imploding.
Their arrogance. They gennuinely think we are so stupid as not to notice their attempts at sleight of hand.
We should really be offended by that.
-
The term "Blood Libel" is anti-Semitic, as much as "Niggardly" is racist.
Possibly more apropos would be comparing it to "gay". I guess the question is, does the modern use of a word or phrase negate its original meaning?
-
Oh, well, Millcreek would likely have a hard time convincing me out of the basic tenets of my faith. It ought to come as no surprise that his faith is impervious to evidence to the contrary.
If by that you mean my opinion that the historical use of this term for many centuries has primarily been in an anti-Semite context, you are correct. I do not deny or rewrite history.
If by that you mean my faith, most of us in the Methodist church don't feel a pressing need to convert people or convince them out of their faith. We are pretty mellow in that regard.
-
Either way, this is more proof of my theory that Palin supporters will find any way to argue that what she's doing is clever.
Using the term "blood libel" was clearly a bad move.
Based on what I've seen here and elsewhere, it's much more of the opposite. Palin critics will find any way to argue that she's being foolish/racist/ignorant/hateful/whatever.
Question for the audience: Does anyone honestly believe that Palin is antisemitic, and if so, are those beliefs based on substance?
-
If by that you mean my opinion that the historical use of this term for many centuries has primarily been in an anti-Semite context, you are correct. I do not deny or rewrite history.
You can say that with a straight face?
=|
-
You can say that with a straight face?
=|
Absolutely. Here is a cut and paste of the Time article above showing the historical usage of the term:
The term Palin invoked to defend herself has deep roots in the demonization of the Jewish community throughout history. Apion, a 1st century B.C. Greek grammarian in the city of Alexandria, wrote that his Jewish neighbors "contrive each year at a certain time to capture a Greek foreigner, fatten him up, and then bring him to a certain forest, where they slay him with religious rites." Incendiary rumors like this one — Apion goes on to describe how the Jews eat the man's entrails — precipitated years of sectarian violence in ancient Alexandria, then one of the world's great cosmopolitan centers.
The advent of Christianity forever twinned Jews with blood. In the Gospels, Pontius Pilate publicly washes his hands of the guilt of committing Jesus to death, letting the assembled Jews take on the burden. "His blood be on us and on our children," they declare in Matthew 27: 25. These were words that stuck. Christendom grew rich by encouraging pilgrimages to venerate the purported remains of saints — bones, fingers, ears — but the Jews living in its midst were often openly faulted for bloody, occult practices, all of which were false.
Medieval lore abounds with tales of Jews in towns across Europe, from England to modern-day Slovakia and lands farther east, stealing young Gentile children for blood sacrifices. Invariably, such sensational stories were told to justify mass executions and pogroms of Jewish communities. According to some histories, a 2-year-old named Simon in the Italian town of Trento disappeared in 1475 and was found in the basement of a Jewish family, his body drained of blood so that the Jews could make matzah bread for Passover. Records show that at least eight Jews in the town were subsequently executed; Simon would be canonized as a saint a century later. Fears of Jewish baby snatching were raised by the Spanish Inquisition, leading in part to the expulsion of the entire Jewish community from Spain in 1492.
These tales lingered well into the 19th century and even the 20th century, with anti-Semitism still particularly strong in stretches of Eastern Europe. But some of the first instances of occasions when governments publicly defended Jews from these "blood libels" took place in the Muslim world, with firmans, or edicts, issued as early as the 1400s by a series of Ottoman Sultans, preventing the trial of Jews on such unfounded, outlandish accusations. (Of course, the Middle East wasn't free of anti-Jewish violence. In 1910 the Jewish quarter in the Iranian city of Shiraz was sacked by rioters who were inflamed by fabricated reports that Jews had ritually killed a young Muslim girl.)
So yes, there is a historical record showing the use of this term in an anti-Semitic context for centuries. Do you deny that?
-
Possibly more apropos would be comparing it to "gay". I guess the question is, does the modern use of a word or phrase negate its original meaning?
Another example would be the use of the phrase "that sucks." It used to be a very rude term that referred to oral sex, now it is a more general phrase for displeasure about something.
-
I see Millcreek is still impervious to evidence.
It's amazing to me how much people cling to their talking points despite scores of illustrations to the contrary, like we see with the gun control advocates falling back to the same, old, failed (thankfully) talking points after this tragedy.
-
So yes, there is a historical record showing the use of this term in an anti-Semitic context for centuries. Do you deny that?
[taking the floor] I don't deny that there's a historical record of the use of this term in an anti-Semitic context for centuries. I also don't deny that there's a historical record of the use of "sucks" to refer to oral sex, but I don't construe a person's saying "X sucks" to mean that the object of his statement gives oral sex.
It's bad enough that the Democrat sycophants in the media are twisting this like a pretzel to try to nail Palin. It's worse when the otherwise logical members of this forum inadvertently (or not) become the MSM's allies in this witch hunt. *
*Note that there is a historical and religious reference to the term "witch hunt", but that I am using it metaphorically. ;/
-
I see Millcreek is still impervious to evidence.
It's amazing to me how much people cling to their talking points despite scores of illustrations to the contrary, like we see with the gun control advocates falling back to the same, old, failed (thankfully) talking points after this tragedy.
Makattack, do you feel that there is a historical record showing the use of this term in an anti-Semitic context for centuries? Yes or no?
-
The irony of this is that while conservatives are now upset at being blamed for the acts of an individual extremists, if this had been a guy with a Muslim name, the conservative pundits would've been first in line to bash Islam & Muslims as responsible.
When the Ft. Hood news broke, these same MSM pundits who came out of the gate against the "rhetoric" were advising caution, telling us to make sure we had the facts, before assuming this was terrorism. Only necessary when it fits their narrative, i guess..
-
Makattack, do you feel that there is a historical record showing the use of this term in an anti-Semitic context for centuries? Yes or no?
There is a significant historical record for using the term "bless you" when someone sneezes so that one can aid them in getting their soul back in their body.
Does someone who says "bless you" when you sneeze think that your soul has escaped your body??
-
Makattack, do you feel that there is a historical record showing the use of this term in an anti-Semitic context for centuries? Yes or no?
Historical use as it applies to a libel against Jews, yes.
Exclusive historical use for the lies against Jews, no.
Your argument seems to be it only applies to Jews. (And then you walked it back to "generally.") It has had a use beyond simply applying to lies against a Jewish minority for some time, enough so that multiple sources will explicitly include blood libels against Christians, druids, neo-pagans, Roman Catholics, Protestants, etc...
-
If by that you mean my opinion that the historical use of this term for many centuries has primarily been in an anti-Semite context, you are correct.
Are you saying that "blood libel" refers to libelous accusations against Jews, or are you saying that the phrase "blood libel" is only used by anti-Semites?
That's where you have me confused.
-
Historical use as it applies to a libel against Jews, yes.
Exclusive historical use for the lies against Jews, no.
Your argument seems to be it only applies to Jews. (And then you walked it back to "generally.") It has had a use beyond simply applying to lies against a Jewish minority for some time, enough so that multiple sources will explicitly include blood libels against Christians, druids, neo-pagans, Roman Catholics, Protestants, etc...
I am back from the show, where unfortunately, there was not a single stainless New Blackhawk to be had.
Although this may seem shocking, we are in complete agreement when the issue is parsed this way. What I have found interesting is reading the citations and sources showing how the term is now being more generally used in other than an exclusive Jewish context. I was unaware of that previously.
-
Are you saying that "blood libel" refers to libelous accusations against Jews, or are you saying that the phrase "blood libel" is only used by anti-Semites?
That's where you have me confused.
You know, I have not made a sufficient study of analyzing the context of how the term is generally used to be able to give a definitive answer. I lean towards your first statement, though, with the codicil that I am interested to see how the contemporary use of the term is expanding outside of the strictly Jewish context.
-
From the WSJ:
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach: Sarah Palin Is Right About 'Blood Libel' (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703583404576079823067585318.html?mod=WSJ_article_related)
Despite the strong association of the term with collective Jewish guilt and concomitant slaughter, Sarah Palin has every right to use it. The expression may be used whenever an amorphous mass is collectively accused of being murderers or accessories to murder.
Rabbi Boteach is the author of "Honoring the Child Spirit: Inspiration and Learning from Our Children" (Vanguard, 2011). He will shortly publish a book on the Jewishness of Jesus and his murder at Roman hands.
-
Rabbi Boteach is the author of "Honoring the Child Spirit: Inspiration and Learning from Our Children" a loon.
Sorry, but I had to point that out.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6685898/ns/msnbc_tv-about_msnbc_tv/
-
Because he doesn't like Passion of the Christ?
-
;/ I linked to a panel discussion transcript. If you read it, you'll see why he's a loon.
-
To state a blood libel against Jews is anti-semitic.
To state a blood libel against blacks is racist.
Palin points out that saying that conservative pundits words cause murders is to state a blood libel against conservative pundits.
There's no reasonable context in standard English comprehension through which her statement can be taken as anti-semitic.
As for your recent discovery of multiple uses of the term, that merely shows your lack of general knowledge of the term, not any recency in such use. Since the term has existed it has been used in a variety of non-Jewish associations.
Read more history.
-
^^^ Hey, are you in law school yet? How is that going? Do the 1-Ls talk about the job market? I do some guest lecturing at my local law school, and it seems to be quite the topic of discussion, especially amongst the 3-Ls.
-
^^^ Hey, are you in law school yet? How is that going? Do the 1-Ls talk about the job market? I do some guest lecturing at my local law school, and it seems to be quite the topic of discussion, especially amongst the 3-Ls.
Not yet. Money is the issue. Talking to the Army Guard recruiter about an OCS prior service enlistment to help pay for it. I keep reading about Bar passers taking paralegal jobs so school debt is NOT on my agenda. =)
OCS would be this summer in South Dakota if I get in. I hear the climate is... pleasant. ;)
-
^^^^
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=27685.0
In case you did not see it, the NYT article that I found at the top of the thread is pretty enlightening in terms of law school debt and current job prospects. From what I read on some of the legal blogs, it is pretty darn tough these days.
-
OCS would be this summer in South Dakota if I get in. I hear the climate is... pleasant.
APS is taking over the military-industrial complex. [tinfoil] And in case you run across a Marine unit in about 2-years time with a patch reading "The Gun is Good, the Penis is Evil," stop by to say hi to another APSer. :laugh:
-
The irony of this is that while conservatives are now upset at being blamed for the acts of an individual extremists, if this had been a guy with a Muslim name, the conservative pundits would've been first in line to bash Islam & Muslims as responsible.
I suppose the irony would be more apparent if there were anything that identified Loughner as a conservative, and if there were also a history of Palin, Limbaugh, et al, preaching and practicing violence against members of Congress.
That dog does not participate in outdoor sports.
-
Either way, this is more proof of my theory that Palin supporters will find any way to argue that what she's doing is clever.
It's not your theory, it's every Palin-hater's theory. The woman can't blink an eye in public without somebody calling her a name for it. The term is loaded, but it is accurate. The entire American left accused Palin of being everything from an irresponsible imbecile all the way to a terrorist mastermind who remotely activates vulnerable crazies with "incendiary rhetoric". Google "stochastic terrorism" for a shining example of that one.
Anyway, I don't remember anyone saying she's clever. Everyone here arguing in her favor is doing so because she's been the VICTIM of an inexcusable blindside by people who can't see a tragedy without looking for someone to blame(or some way to blame someone they don't like). You people are worse than ambulance-chasing lawyers.
Because it was sure to attract negative attention in this climate.
See above. Anything she said would attract negative attention in this "climate of [Palin] hate".
To state a blood libel against Jews is anti-semitic.
To state a blood libel against blacks is racist.
Palin points out that saying that conservative pundits words cause murders is to state a blood libel against conservative pundits.
There's no reasonable context in standard English comprehension through which her statement can be taken as anti-semitic.
*ding* Well said.
-
It being thoroughly established that Palin said nothing odd or unprecedented, is the thread title going to be changed any time soon?
-
OK, I guess not.
-
OK, I guess not.
One benefit of being on the left or afflicted with Palin Derangement Syndrome is never having to say you're sorry.
It is crap like this that makes me think Palin running would be a good idea. Oh, the GOP has better candidates and I'd really prefer she didn't, but nobody brings out folks' inner asshat like Palin does.
-
It is crap like this that makes me think Palin running would be a good idea. Oh, the GOP has better candidates and I'd really prefer she didn't, but nobody brings out folks' inner asshat like Palin does.
Quote from "Wait Wait Don't Tell Me" NPR news quiz show, speaking about Palin being involved in everything: "...we can't blame her really...she's America's collective ex-girlfriend."
-
Can someone please explain this to those of us who've never had an ex-girlfriend? ???
-
Can someone please explain this to those of us who've never had an ex-girlfriend? ???
If it has ended badly, there is hatred and vitriol; if it ended well, there is ambivalence; if it ended unwillingly, there is obsessive devotion.
-
The irony of this is that while conservatives are now upset at being blamed for the acts of an individual extremists, if this had been a guy with a Muslim name, the conservative pundits would've been first in line to bash Islam & Muslims as responsible.
Is thiws an apt comparison - or not?
Lets examine, class - in the case of a guy with a Muslim name, there is no shortage of clerics, web sites, political leaders exhorting the Faithful to go kill the infidel - in fact, it can be, and is, supported by entries in the Koran itself.
On the other hand, I am unaware of any text, twitter, or email where Palin or Rush exhorted anyone to shoot somebody....
-
Oh, I thought the concepts she articulated in the speech and much of the content was great, and I agree with it. I still, myself, would not have chosen, or had my speechwriter use, a term that I myself consider anti-Semitic.
The term is not anti-semitic. See the word 'libel" in the term "blood libel"? That labels the blood libels...libelous. Its a factual description of an antisemitic act, but is in itself not anti-semitic, any more than "Holocaust" is....
-
The term is not anti-semitic. See the word 'libel" in the term "blood libel"? That labels the blood libels...libelous. Its a factual description of an antisemitic act, but is in itself not anti-semitic, any more than "Holocaust" is....
Exactly. There seems to be some confusion out there regarding just what exactly the term is referring to.
The blood libel itself is the lie being told, it is not the act which you are lying about.
To use the historical example: If person A claims that the Jews drink the blood of christian children, then person A is committing a blood libel. Person A is not accusing Jews of blood libel.
Likewise, lefties blaming Sarah Palin for inciting violence are themselves committing an act which could be described as a blood libel.