Someone that uses the Internet Wayback Machine to find previous versions of a Wikipedia entry obviously doesn’t understand how Wikipedia works. They lost me before I even finished their rant. Luckily, it seems that some commenters set them straight fairly early on.
It would of helped if they had a screen shot or a linked to a cached version of any changes. At the bottom of the wikipedia page it said, “This page was last modified on 14 April 2008, at 01:05.”
Huh? Who is “they”, and which wikipedia page said “This page was last modified on 14 April 2008, at 01:05.”?
Libel means written defamation. Blood refers to blood on your hands. So blood libel means a written false accusation of murder.
Being offended is a game for the left. Sarah was falsely accused of murder in writing by numerous people before the bodies in the AZ shooting had time to cool. This is blood libel. Then they say she has no right to defend herself from these vile accusations.
Others, notably Jews, have been libeled in the past. The future of libel seems sure. Nothing written in wikipedia about it changes any of the facts.
Wanting to change ‘blood libel’ to something other than it’s meaning and then use it as a club is standard liberal, er…, progressive operating procedure.
“blood libel” has always strictly meant the accusation that Jews killed Christians. And we have always been at war Eurasia.
Ken, “blood on your hands” means you killed someone. But the “blood” in blood libel does not refer to killing someone — it refers very specifically to blood, and specific acts done with blood.
Sure, here it is being used as a metaphor, but if you’re going to insist that liberals go around changing the meaning of words, you’ll probably want to refrain from an inexactmetaphor while doing so.
And it is an inexact metaphor: In the Arizona shooting, people were actually killed. In the traditional blood libel against the Jews of Europe, no one was actually killed – the killings and resulting blood in question were pure fantasy. Furthermore, the consequences of the libel are rather different — I’ll return to that in a bit.
Note that liberals such as Alan Dershowitz have defended Palin’s use of the term, while various conservatives have condemned it. This indicates that the phrase, used this way, is controversial, and manages to upset at least some people — not a good choice if the goal is to unite people, even to unite them behind the goal of urging people to not jupmp to conclusions and mistakenly associating political rhetoric to a murder. If that’s the goal, the term blood libel distracts from it.
What is bothersome to me about the term is not the “blood” and its association with anti-semitism. What bothers me is the use of the term “libel”. By using the term, you are not giving the benefit of the doubt to people who might deserve it. *Some* of the people who heard that Giffords had been shot, and then heard about (or already knew) about the map with crosshairs simply jumped to the wrong conclusion. You can speculate about their motives, but it would be uncharitable. People make mistakes — you *could* just point out that they’ve made a mistake, give them a chance to realize it and allow them to apologize, rather than calling them liars.
But what is most bothersome to me is this: It is bad enough to assume people are liars when you really aren’t sure whether they’ve made a mistake. It is particularly horrible to say that people are the sort of liars who tell the sort of lie which led to an incredible amount of actual suffering, killing, and expulsion and eventually led to the Holocaust. This situation isn’t like that. The killings in Arizona were terrible. The blather on the blogs is just annoying and political – Palin was smeared, not killed. We, and she, can afford to take it down a notch, and compare the smearing to what happened to the Jews in Europe.
last line should read “…and not compare what happened to Palin to what happened to the Jews of Europe.”
OT: Saw this rebuttal about the Zeitgeist movies and Loughner from the producer Peter Joseph.
I don’t think Joseph has any more responsibility than Palin had.
What do you think, Chris G? At least (IMO) there is some tenuous evidence that Loughner’s thinking (such as it is) in the YouTube videos parallels some of Josephs points in the movies, which I think is more than can be said for a link between Loughner and Palin.
Just to be clear, I think neither Joseph nor Palin had any responsibility for Loughner’s actions.
Bob, words have meaning. Some of that meaning is denotation. Some of that meaning is connotation. All meaning comes with a context.
But the “blood” in blood libel does not refer to killing someone
Says you, and you are wrong. The accusation was that babies were murdered for their blood to make bread.
It bothers you that they are calling libel, libel? You think you can’t tell if something is a lie unless you have a focus group to see what everyones feeling are? Bob, that’s too much even for you.
not a good choice if the goal is to unite people
Well, it sure is a good thing that’s not the damned goal. The goal is not to unite with the filthy liars that are making false accusations.
Ken, I saw perfectly nice people come to the wrong conclusion, and eventually they realized it. Calling them “filthy liars” instead of “mistaken” just makes things more unpleasant. Similarly, using the term “blood libel” instead of just saying “unfounded unfair accusation” just makes things more contentious.
And regarding our difference over the definition of “blood libel” (I say it isn’t murder per se – blood has to be involved), one of us may be mistaken about what “blood” in “blood libel” refers to, but we needn’t call each other names or doubt each other’s motivations while figuring it out.
regarding our difference over the definition of “blood libel” (I say it isn’t murder per se – blood has to be involved
I’m pretty sure that when one shoots people, there is invariably blood involved…
If you don’t like “blood libel,” then we’ll just say they waved a bloody shirt. Either way, it doesn’t justify more piling on.
Rand, as you may already realize, “blood involved” was my shorthand for something worse, something not typically associated with even the bloodiest of shootings — any of the versions of the wikipedia article written before last week will explain it,
Another daily objection I have is that “progressives” and “right-wingers” are being unfairly grouped – happens every day on this blog, as if people aren’t individuals with individual failings, biases, and foibles — one might really be a liar, but that doesn’t mean another one is. See this commentary: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/01/palin_blood_libel_and_the_old.html
“They” would be the people in the link that was posted. And the Date on the entry from the way back machine said that page was last edited in 2008.
It has been edited numerous times since then, nearly 500 times.
*Some* of the people who heard that Giffords had been shot, and then heard about (or already knew) about the map with crosshairs simply jumped to the wrong conclusion.
That conclusion was that the gunman was motivated by a web page with a map with crosshairs. And you are implying that that is not disgusting on it’s face.
you *could* just point out that they’ve made a mistake, give them a chance to realize it and allow them to apologize, rather than calling them liars.
So the shortage of people who did that is the reason for the shortage of apologies. “Why should I apologize for being terribly wrong. I was called a liar. I won’t apologize.”
Message: Let’s get beyond the crosshair image. (don’t look there anymore). Don’t call people liars, it impedes their ability to apologize. Which, in turn, leads to incivility.
Clear as mud.
@wodun:
With regards to the link you posted, that was my point, exactly. If someone needs to use the Wayback Machine to look at or show a previous version of a Wikipedia entry, it shows a profundity of ignorance about how Wikipedia works, because Wikipedia has a “previous versions” page for ALL entries.
I didn’t think that I’d have to actually spell that out for people on here, though.
And, for the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the non-contracted version of “would’ve” is “would HAVE”, not “would of”…
“Blood libel” is the new “death panel.”
@John B
Calm down buddy.
Exactly Titus, it’s going to embarrass the left for more than a year I expect.
Bob I call them filthy liars because they are filthy liars. This is not just some misunderstanding. This is literally blood libel. In the case of Dupnick for instance, as sheriff he has access to the facts and should know perfectly well that he’s a filthy liar. To be charitable, he might just be demented.
A mistake is something that happens from time to time. Consistent behavior proves it is not a mistake. It is intentional.
If my language offends it’s because it should. Their consistent behavior is a much greater offense. Libel is punishable by law if you have the resources to pursue it although that isn’t always the best choice. Especially a public figure where libel seems to be fair game.
Exactly Titus, it’s going to embarrass the left for more than a year I expect.
If history repeats itself, Krugman will be on a Sunday morning show telling us that blood libel is a good thing.
Someone that uses the Internet Wayback Machine to find previous versions of a Wikipedia entry obviously doesn’t understand how Wikipedia works. They lost me before I even finished their rant. Luckily, it seems that some commenters set them straight fairly early on.
It would of helped if they had a screen shot or a linked to a cached version of any changes. At the bottom of the wikipedia page it said, “This page was last modified on 14 April 2008, at 01:05.”
Huh? Who is “they”, and which wikipedia page said “This page was last modified on 14 April 2008, at 01:05.”?
Libel means written defamation. Blood refers to blood on your hands. So blood libel means a written false accusation of murder.
Being offended is a game for the left. Sarah was falsely accused of murder in writing by numerous people before the bodies in the AZ shooting had time to cool. This is blood libel. Then they say she has no right to defend herself from these vile accusations.
Others, notably Jews, have been libeled in the past. The future of libel seems sure. Nothing written in wikipedia about it changes any of the facts.
Wanting to change ‘blood libel’ to something other than it’s meaning and then use it as a club is standard liberal, er…, progressive operating procedure.
“blood libel” has always strictly meant the accusation that Jews killed Christians. And we have always been at war Eurasia.
Ken, “blood on your hands” means you killed someone. But the “blood” in blood libel does not refer to killing someone — it refers very specifically to blood, and specific acts done with blood.
Sure, here it is being used as a metaphor, but if you’re going to insist that liberals go around changing the meaning of words, you’ll probably want to refrain from an inexactmetaphor while doing so.
And it is an inexact metaphor: In the Arizona shooting, people were actually killed. In the traditional blood libel against the Jews of Europe, no one was actually killed – the killings and resulting blood in question were pure fantasy. Furthermore, the consequences of the libel are rather different — I’ll return to that in a bit.
Note that liberals such as Alan Dershowitz have defended Palin’s use of the term, while various conservatives have condemned it. This indicates that the phrase, used this way, is controversial, and manages to upset at least some people — not a good choice if the goal is to unite people, even to unite them behind the goal of urging people to not jupmp to conclusions and mistakenly associating political rhetoric to a murder. If that’s the goal, the term blood libel distracts from it.
What is bothersome to me about the term is not the “blood” and its association with anti-semitism. What bothers me is the use of the term “libel”. By using the term, you are not giving the benefit of the doubt to people who might deserve it. *Some* of the people who heard that Giffords had been shot, and then heard about (or already knew) about the map with crosshairs simply jumped to the wrong conclusion. You can speculate about their motives, but it would be uncharitable. People make mistakes — you *could* just point out that they’ve made a mistake, give them a chance to realize it and allow them to apologize, rather than calling them liars.
But what is most bothersome to me is this: It is bad enough to assume people are liars when you really aren’t sure whether they’ve made a mistake. It is particularly horrible to say that people are the sort of liars who tell the sort of lie which led to an incredible amount of actual suffering, killing, and expulsion and eventually led to the Holocaust. This situation isn’t like that. The killings in Arizona were terrible. The blather on the blogs is just annoying and political – Palin was smeared, not killed. We, and she, can afford to take it down a notch, and compare the smearing to what happened to the Jews in Europe.
last line should read “…and not compare what happened to Palin to what happened to the Jews of Europe.”
OT: Saw this rebuttal about the Zeitgeist movies and Loughner from the producer Peter Joseph.
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/tucson.html
I don’t think Joseph has any more responsibility than Palin had.
What do you think, Chris G? At least (IMO) there is some tenuous evidence that Loughner’s thinking (such as it is) in the YouTube videos parallels some of Josephs points in the movies, which I think is more than can be said for a link between Loughner and Palin.
Just to be clear, I think neither Joseph nor Palin had any responsibility for Loughner’s actions.
Bob, words have meaning. Some of that meaning is denotation. Some of that meaning is connotation. All meaning comes with a context.
But the “blood” in blood libel does not refer to killing someone
Says you, and you are wrong. The accusation was that babies were murdered for their blood to make bread.
It bothers you that they are calling libel, libel? You think you can’t tell if something is a lie unless you have a focus group to see what everyones feeling are? Bob, that’s too much even for you.
not a good choice if the goal is to unite people
Well, it sure is a good thing that’s not the damned goal. The goal is not to unite with the filthy liars that are making false accusations.
Ken, I saw perfectly nice people come to the wrong conclusion, and eventually they realized it. Calling them “filthy liars” instead of “mistaken” just makes things more unpleasant. Similarly, using the term “blood libel” instead of just saying “unfounded unfair accusation” just makes things more contentious.
And regarding our difference over the definition of “blood libel” (I say it isn’t murder per se – blood has to be involved), one of us may be mistaken about what “blood” in “blood libel” refers to, but we needn’t call each other names or doubt each other’s motivations while figuring it out.
regarding our difference over the definition of “blood libel” (I say it isn’t murder per se – blood has to be involved
I’m pretty sure that when one shoots people, there is invariably blood involved…
If you don’t like “blood libel,” then we’ll just say they waved a bloody shirt. Either way, it doesn’t justify more piling on.
Rand, as you may already realize, “blood involved” was my shorthand for something worse, something not typically associated with even the bloodiest of shootings — any of the versions of the wikipedia article written before last week will explain it,
Another daily objection I have is that “progressives” and “right-wingers” are being unfairly grouped – happens every day on this blog, as if people aren’t individuals with individual failings, biases, and foibles — one might really be a liar, but that doesn’t mean another one is. See this commentary: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/01/palin_blood_libel_and_the_old.html
“They” would be the people in the link that was posted. And the Date on the entry from the way back machine said that page was last edited in 2008.
It has been edited numerous times since then, nearly 500 times.
A better link would of been http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blood_libel&limit=500&action=history with maybe some cherry picked examples or the various edits. Looks like a hundred or so over the last couple days.
*Some* of the people who heard that Giffords had been shot, and then heard about (or already knew) about the map with crosshairs simply jumped to the wrong conclusion.
That conclusion was that the gunman was motivated by a web page with a map with crosshairs. And you are implying that that is not disgusting on it’s face.
you *could* just point out that they’ve made a mistake, give them a chance to realize it and allow them to apologize, rather than calling them liars.
So the shortage of people who did that is the reason for the shortage of apologies. “Why should I apologize for being terribly wrong. I was called a liar. I won’t apologize.”
Message: Let’s get beyond the crosshair image. (don’t look there anymore). Don’t call people liars, it impedes their ability to apologize. Which, in turn, leads to incivility.
Clear as mud.
@wodun:
With regards to the link you posted, that was my point, exactly. If someone needs to use the Wayback Machine to look at or show a previous version of a Wikipedia entry, it shows a profundity of ignorance about how Wikipedia works, because Wikipedia has a “previous versions” page for ALL entries.
I didn’t think that I’d have to actually spell that out for people on here, though.
And, for the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the non-contracted version of “would’ve” is “would HAVE”, not “would of”…
“Blood libel” is the new “death panel.”
@John B
Calm down buddy.
Exactly Titus, it’s going to embarrass the left for more than a year I expect.
Bob I call them filthy liars because they are filthy liars. This is not just some misunderstanding. This is literally blood libel. In the case of Dupnick for instance, as sheriff he has access to the facts and should know perfectly well that he’s a filthy liar. To be charitable, he might just be demented.
A mistake is something that happens from time to time. Consistent behavior proves it is not a mistake. It is intentional.
If my language offends it’s because it should. Their consistent behavior is a much greater offense. Libel is punishable by law if you have the resources to pursue it although that isn’t always the best choice. Especially a public figure where libel seems to be fair game.
If history repeats itself, Krugman will be on a Sunday morning show telling us that blood libel is a good thing.