I find it sad that people jumped to conclusions about the shooter’s motives. I might be upset about your scenario, which I assume is hypothetical, if it had actually happened.
They didn’t, they’re not that smart. The reaction is visceral, emotional, irrational. For months, people have been dreading such a possibility, as the rightarded “patriots” keep upping the ante on hysteria and inflammatory rhetoric. As it happened, it was simply a garden-variety schizo with no discernible political stance to speak of. But people tend to see what they expect to see, and in this instance, they did.
Are the Malign Sarah, Glen Beck and others of the pond slime confederation responsible for the attack on Gabby? No. Are they responsible for the reaction to that attack? Largely, yes.
Remember the words of Kurt Vonnegut: “You are what you pretend to be, therefore you must be very careful about what you pretend to be.” The howler monkey wing of the right has been pretending to be violent revolutionaries, armed patriots seething with determination to confront and oppose the tyranny of insurance. By any means necessary.
Karma. Learn it, love it, live by it.
I’m no fan of Palin, but if she genuinely thinks she’s been falsely accused of contributing to the shooting, then I don’t see what’s so wrong about her use of the phrase “blood libel”.
An acquaintance of mine asked why the term “blood libel” is considered worse than the use of the phrase “witch hunt” or “lynch mob”.
See post #54.
It would be almost as preposterous, dishonest and cynical for Palin to use “witch hunt” or “lynch mob” in this context.
Not even you believe that. elucidator had nothing to say in post #122 that you did not know.
Not a good example when you’re trying to show “intellectual honesty.”
OK…explain to me how violent rhetoric related to this shooting before the left manufactured his motives.
Is it because her dad let out the contract on the day of the shooting when he blamed it on the Tea Party?
Is it because the Tea Party provided a few raw materials with some signs over the last two year?
Or is it because media outlets that you consider fair are helping to sell it?
Once again, nothing you didn’t know.
The “left” didn’t manufacture anything. Couldn’t have it they had wanted to. The public reaction was visceral, unthinking, immediate, it happened before the first pundit even got to his microphone.
Its like the OK City bombing, everyone immediately assumed it was a Muslim related attack. Turns out, it wasn’t.
Its a case of the round peg of events fitting the round hole of expectations. The constant pumping of hysterical rhetoric created a sense of dread, then someone shot a Dem congresswoman who had just been complaining about that very thing.
It appears that this young man suffers from schizophrenia. His political opinions, even if he has any, are irrelevant. He may have shot Gabby to express solidarity with the proletariat, he may have shot her to impress Tinkerbelle.
If the lefty media had the power you attribute to them, the President for Life Amendment to the Constitution would be sailing through Congress is a frenzy of bi-partisan unity. And to paraphrase The Master, the only thing wrong with that is that it just ain’t so.
I don’t know where you’re from, but people regularly use those terms and you haven’t explained why using the term “blood libel” is such a dramatically more offensive metaphor.
From Wiki (regarding ‘blood libel’):
So…they are talking about sacrificing (Christian) children and using the blood for secret ceremonies. Can you see why that might be offensive? More offensive than those other metaphors?
(If someone is using it in a different context then they are doing it from ignorance…or they are deliberately using it, and counting on the ignorance of others to sneak in a highly offensive religious/racial slur under the radar)
-XT
At least, to those who keep kosher. The Reform might not have a problem with it. 
Are you sure Christian children aren’t on the list?? :eek:
(It’s SUCH a bullshit assertion, and it pisses me off to hear anyone even use the term)
-XT
Well, blood is always trayf, and Christian children are land animals who don’t have cloven hooves . . . that is, I don’t think they do . . .
Why didn’t she just say that comments directed at her were anti-semitic? Maybe because she is not Jewish and it wouldn’t make any sense. Using the term ‘blood libel’ is stupid for the same reason. It has a very specific meaning. Now Palin was probably unaware of this, but all she had to say was “I was not familiar with the history of that term, and was disgusted when I was made aware of it.”. But no, she just has to make up some bullshit story, just like she did about bullseyes being surveyors marks, or death panels, or paling around with terrorists or any of the many other dishonesties. It’s like she has liars Tourrettes syndrome.
Once again, claiming to know what I know…
I think you are trying to provoke me… just this morning I learned that in the proper context (i.e. depending on who’s ox is being gored) that could be considered trolling.
I clicked on your links and you are on notice that I am aware that it has something to do with “eliminationalism” or something like that but didn’t go any further.
I’m getting tired of seeing this stuff in multiple threads, What the … !!!. You’re not allowed to other posters of trolling in this forum, and this insinuation comes close to doing that. If you think someone is trolling, report the post, or if you have a question about the rules, ask a moderator.
:dubious: Once again, watch that shit.
Fighting ignorance is like any other fight . . . sometimes ignorance wins.
Since I’ve asked What the … !!! to refrain from this kind of thing, I’m asking you to do the same. It’s not helpful.
I’m Jewish myself, and I tend to agree. It’s ‘tone deaf’ to use “blood libel” for the simple reason that the phrase isn’t used much as a metaphor, unlike “witch hunt”, but I for one don’t find it horribly offensive or an example of Jew-hatred to use it as such. There is no obvious attempt to defame Jews through its use.