In the Israel news discussion thread, I got the following moderator note:
This is very specifically not attacking the poster. This is attacking the claim that a poster made. I did not opine about the poster’s motivation in making said claim (and especially since the poster didn’t invent this claim, but is echoing other people who have made that claim, it wouldn’t even make sense to do so). I simply pointed out, hey, the claim you are making is blood libel.
I’m not disputing the moderation. If pointing out that a claim is blood libel is too heated for MPSIMS, fine, censure me. I disagree, but I won’t argue the point. But there was absolutely no personal attack there.
FWIW, attacking the poster is exactly what I thought of when reading “blood libel” in that post. It’s definitely not addressing the substance of the post and its inclusion serves no purpose other than to impugn the character of the addressed poster.
The same points could easily have been made without the spurious blood libel claim.
Can we say that a post or a claim is racist? Or that it ties in with antisemitic stereotypes or white supremacist ideas?
Those are all things that might trigger a response of feeling attacked, but they are not attacking the poster.
I think there’s a big difference between saying, “that thing you said was racist” and saying,“you’re a racist.”
I think calling out a claim as being a blood libel is attacking the post. And being able to talk about deep culturally assimilated antisemitism requires being able to make a claim that a post involves blood libel.
There can be an argument about whether a claim is or is not a blood libel, or is influenced by that cultural antecedent without needing to insist that the poster is an antisemite.
If it has obvious merit, sure. Or if you reasonably try to support it, sure. But blood libel has a defined meaning and it’s not just anytime someone asserted Jewish people killed non-Jewish people intentionally. Same as someone shouldn’t just claim “racism” because someone notes that a white person killed a black person intentionally without further context. It needs to be obvious or you need to establish the context that makes it a reasonable claim.
And I say all this as someone that’s generally on the Israeli side of this clusterfuck.
If those terms were used informationally, then I would not see a problem with them. But using them to attack would seem pretty personal to me. Even you admit that it would “feel like an attack.”
If you know that something you say might come off as an attack, and you don’t do anything to mitigate that, then you can’t complain when someone does in fact read it as an attack.
And, well, your claim should be at least arguably accurate. I agree with @duality72 that it is not clear how this would be blood libel. It’s just arguing something about the Israeli government’s intent, not accusing all Jews of guilt for what happened to a single individual. The connection is very tenuous, and seems far more like the words “blood libel” were chosen out of a desire to lash out at the poster.
That said, unless this was a recurring problem with Babale, I would be reluctant to offer a thread ban over it. That would only be necessary if they keep on doing things like this. The topic that was getting them so angry is no longer allowed in the thread, so it is possible it the thread would be okay.
I just want to say that a permanent thread ban would be a loss for the thread. @Babale have given much good information since the Hamas attack.
The mod note was in its place, even a temporary ban, but not a perma ban.
I agree - if @Babale is perma-banned from the thread then the thread is lost. Given the circumstances it is entirely understandable that he gets very emotional. Not that my vote counts for anything around here, but the most I’d want to see is a day or two to cool off, not removing him entirely from the conversation.
If “blood libel” is unacceptable outside the Pit, and that’s @Babale’s only violation, then a thread ban seems way too harsh. I’d recommend direction that the phrase is unacceptable, perhaps a short cooling off, and that’s it. I think @Babale would stick to the rules after that, and if not, then a thread ban would be warranted.
I’ll add my voice to those hoping it’s not a permanent thread-ban. There’s another poster who’s called IDF critics “fools” and “starry-eyed pacifists.” I think they’ve avoided censure because they’re not explicitly labeling specific posters with these insults, but it’s the thinnest of veils. Those are the sorts of posts I’d prefer to see moderated.
AFAICT, @Babale’s assertion that the claim @Banquet_Bear cited is blood libel is tenuous. The claim about IDF’s motives isn’t one I agree with–but it’s not “Jews eat Christian babies” level nonsense, it’s discussion of a particular military project. But @Babale’s assertion stands or falls on its merits, as does the one @Banquet_Bear cited.
I read that section of the thread, and there was obviously a lot of animosity and it got pretty personal. Your argument doesn’t stand the test of inspection.
…I just want to make it clear that in that thread, the OP accused me on three different occasions of propagating Hamas propaganda. Those were deeply hurtful accusations. Then they accused me of making a blood libel claim.
I don’t want Babale banned from the thread. I respect Babale, and I think their voice is essential for that thread. I just want them to stop attacking me. And for the record, I will no longer be responding to Babale in that thread or any other.
You don’t need to anonymize it, I recognize my own words, and I’ll own them. And I said it about people who (implied by a Gandhi paraphrase at the beginning of the post I had replied to) equate deaths caused by aggressors, to deaths caused by those defending themselves from those aggressors’ continued aggression. The quote might have been directed at the IDF in context (@Broomstick has since said he was talking about post-war revenge, and I have responded accordingly in that thread) but I will maintain that in general it’s an insipid statement, as it implies that the best way out of a situation of violence is to not take action that will deter the perpetrators of the initial violence from future such acts.
It is. But it’s a temporary thread ban until some other moderators have time to weigh in. I got home from an evening event a saw that a huge fight had broken out, including some pretty vicious language. I expect some moderation follow-up later today.
The meaning of “blood libel” has broadened over the centuries, since Jews unfortunately need a catch-all term for gentiles accusing us of horrific shit. It doesn’t have to be about literal baby eating any more than taking a gift for granted must involve a literal inspection of horse teeth.
A claim that the IDF is murdering civilians for the express purpose of ethnic cleansing* would absolutely be a blood libel.
*I don’t know if that claim was actually made in that thread, as I’ve been avoiding it.
I understand that position. But calling people “starry-eyed pacifist” and especially “fool” is the kind of direct attack that’s not okay outside of the Pit. The fact that you didn’t specify whom you were referring to is what seems like a thin veil to me.
Part of me is like, this is an existential war on both sides, are we really gonna insist on raising our pinkies when we drink tea? But I also see that the forums have rules, and as long as we’re gonna have those rules, they oughtta be enforced.
Precisely. Blood libel doesn’t just mean baking Matzoh with Christian baby blood. In the modern day, the term can refer to other allegations that the Jews have a sinister murderous plot in mind for non-Jews.
For example, there was a decent amount of use of the term to describe false allegations that Israel killed 500 civilians in an airstrike on a hospital, which is what brought it to mind here.
I was responding to a very specific claim, and only after confirming that A, this is indeed the claim being made and B, this is the poster’s own belief.
The claim was that the IDF is hitting targets where it knows there is no Hamas presence specifically to kill or drive away Palestinians in order to steal Gaza from them. Specifically, the poster claimed that Israel has had Al Shifa hospital sorrounded and therefore knows for a fact that there are no Hamas fighters inside or underneath; but the IDF continues attacking the hospital in order to drive the Palestinians away.
I most certainly did not attack the poster by pointing out that this claim is quite literally modern blood libel. I am offering no opinion on why the poster holds these beliefs, which could cross the line. For example, if I specualted on negative traits that might make them hold these views, then yes, that would be a personal attack.
But simply pointing out that accusing Jews of mass murder done in the name of their faith is blood libel is not an attack on the poster. It is an attack on the argument.