Replies

I know that google can give different people different results.

But in my search for “blood libel” on Google, the first was the wikipedia entry, which describes it as a specific false accusation of killing for religious sacrifice, made “almost always” against Jews.

The second says it is “the accusation that Jews murder Christian Children”.

The third says “The blood libel is something anti-Semites have historically used in Europe as an excuse to murder Jews”

The fourth set are the news stories about Palin, then some twitter responses to Palin.

The next non-Palin reference links to a page titled “Christian myths against Jews”.

And the next non-Palin reference is Answers.com, to a page headed “Encyclopedia of Judaism: Blood Libel” which starts with: “(also “ritual murder”). False allegation that Jews used the blood of slain Christian children for ritual purposes”

So I don’t think the facts at all back up your contention that the word has now become broader use such that it has lost it’s tie to the original meaning, and my google search doesn’t back the claim you made about it.

Now, I’m not particularly bothered by her use, and certainly don’t think she was trying to say anything more than what she said. But it is clear that the term is primarily focused on accusations against Jews, and is tied to the murder of jews in Europe.

As such, I agree that it was a bad term to use. Palin’s message is a good one, and whether it should be or not, it is obscured by what everybody understands or WILL be led to understand about the term “blood libel”. That Giffords was Jewish will only make the use of the term worse.

Plus, in the end, part of being a good communicator is picking words that will enhance your message, not obscure it or take people off message. In that sense, the use of “blood libel” is demonstratably an error, because it HAS taken the discussion off what Palin was trying to say, and in a bad way.

And for that, you don’t have to agree with how others interpret “blood libel”, because it makes no difference — the results of the use of the word are clear, and it makes no difference whether that result is justified or not, because reaction simply “is”, and a good politician has to be able to predict reaction, and choose words that maximize the proper reaction.

what about common sense ?

the word “blood” and the word “libel”

combine them with the definition from each word.

But in my search for “blood libel” on Google, the first was the wikipedia entry, which describes it as a specific false accusation of killing for religious sacrifice, made “almost always” against Jews.

Tell me when "almost always" became the same as 'always' as claimed by wtc911. You made my point for me.

As such, I agree that it was a bad term to use. Palin’s message is a good one, and whether it should be or not, it is obscured by what everybody understands or WILL be led to understand about the term “blood libel”. That Giffords was Jewish will only make the use of the term worse.

I think it's a good political move to refer to the actions of the media as a 'blood libel'. The term will massively inflame the left and their media lapdogs... and they *will* rally against her about her use. Which then gives her a forum to speak in about how their behavior is like a 'blood libel'. After all, the press really can't write much about Palin without having anything from her to write about.

Which then turns the whole media story away from the "TEA party and Palin caused the shooting of a Senator" storyline... to a "Is the media reaction a blood libel? We say No!"

Since so many people only really get their news from headlines or the TV, a story like that will make think a bit (if they are even following it at all). And the media (or libtards, for that matter) can't tolerate people forming their own opinions, you know.

Perhaps the term she was thinking of was "blood feud" instead of "blood libel," that is, a long-running feud between clans, groups, or families, often involving murdering each other.

I've often thought of blood feuds as when the descendents of one side continue fighting the descendents of the other side long after the original people involved in the dispute have passed on.

In this case, the constant left/right sniping (did I say that?) is a blood feud.

-PJ

“And for that, you don’t have to agree with how others interpret “blood libel”, because it makes no difference — the results of the use of the word are clear, and it makes no difference whether that result is justified or not, because reaction simply “is”, and a good politician has to be able to predict reaction, and choose words that maximize the proper reaction.”

So we should choose our words carefully so as not to offend the left? Why? They are perpetually offended anyway. We need to choose words for impact and that’s exactly what Sarah did. What possible percentage is there in making nice with the people who are accusing you of being an accessory before the fact to multiple murder? You’re quite right, there will be a powerful reaction to the words “blood libel” as there was to the words “death panel.” In both cases the powerful reaction will transform the debate to our advantage. Sarah has seized the high ground here and a simple “thank you” would be appropriate.