• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sarah Palin accuses critics of "blood libel"

Now I am confused, I though you said Palin deserves whatever she gets, whether fair or not.

Since Palin is now receiving unfair blame for a huge tragedy that she had nothing to do with, maybe she could ask Muslims for advice about how they cope with the same problem.
 
Semantic bleaching encyclopedia topics | Reference.com



Semantic bleaching seems to be another term Palin and you are making up definitions for.

The best part is that in the other link you gave EVERY SINGLE EXAMPLE FOR BLOOD LIBEL INVOLVES JEWS:



Did you read your own link? Or are you trying to prove me correctly?

You didn't read the rest of the link, did you?

Contemporary blood libels
Accusations of ritual murder are being advanced by different groups to this day. One stated that physicians in the People's Republic of China who perform abortions consider the fetus a delicacy and eat it. The story, reported from Hong Kong by Bruce Gilley, was investigated by Senator Jesse Helms, and gruesome artwork reminiscent of traditional depictions of blood libel was featured in several anti-abortion campaigns. Eventually the story was proven to be false.[12]

Another contemporary blood libel in the United States alleged, falsely, that both neopagans and Satanists used human blood, sexual abuse, or ritual murder, especially of children, in their rituals. Often Satanism, all of the diverse neopagan religions, the role playing game Dungeons & Dragons, and sometimes Roman Catholicism and liberal or non-fundamentalist Christian denominations, are portrayed as expressions of one monolithic and ancient global conspiracy of Satan-worshipers.[13]

Blood libel stories have appeared a number of times in the state-sponsored media of a number of Arab and Muslim nations, their television shows and websites. Books alleging occurrences of Jewish blood libel are not uncommon. The Matzah Of Zion was written by the Syrian Defense Minister, Mustafa Tlass in 1986. The book concentrates on two issues: renewed ritual murder accusations against the Jews in the Damascus affair of 1840, and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.[14] Multiple branches of the Syrian government, including the Damascus Police Command and the Department of Antiquities and Museums, the security ministry, the culture ministry, created an anti-Semitic television TV series called Ash-Shatat ("The Diaspora".) This series originally aired in Syria and in Lebanon late 2003, and was broadcast by Al-Manar, a satellite television network owned by Hezbollah. This television series is based on the anti-Semitic forgery The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, showing the Jewish people as engaging in a conspiracy to rule the world, and presents Jews as people who murder Christian children, drain their blood, and use this blood to bake matzah.[15]

King Faisal of Saudi Arabia made accusations against Parisian Jews which took the nature of a blood libel.[16] In a twist on the libel of Jews using blood in matzah, a Passover food, in 2002, a Saudi newspaper [17] claimed that Jews use blood in homentashn, triangular cookies eaten on the Jewish holiday of Purim. The story celebrated on Purim, recounted in the Book of Esther, takes place in ancient Persia (modern-day Iran). A 2004 story from Iran speaks of Jewish doctors stealing organs of Palestinian children in Israeli hospitals.[18]

It should be noted that some Arab writers have condemned these blood libels. The Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram published a series of articles by Osam Al-Baz, a senior advisor to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. Amongst other things, Osam Al-Baz explained the origins of the anti-Jewish blood libel. He said that Arabs and Muslims have never been anti-Semitic, as a group, but accepted that a few Arab writers and media figures attack Jews "on the basis of the racist fallacies and myths that originated in Europe." He urged people not to succumb to "myths" such as the blood libel.[19]

As for the term "semantic bleaching", it occurs in my linguistic textbooks as well as being used by linguist Deborah Tannen, also in the first site I linked...

So, Hatuey. another :failpail: on your part.
 
Who said that unfairness becomes fair?

I'm saying that unfairness doesn't automatically make someone a victim. Ultimately, the timing is unfair, but she could have prevented it altogether by not engaging in the tactics that she has over the past few years.
Which tactics, the so called violent rhetoric used by both sides?
 
Since Palin is now receiving unfair blame for a huge tragedy that she had nothing to do with, maybe she could ask Muslims for advice about how they cope with the same problem.
You're right, Islamic terrorism is not actually a problem. :roll:
 
Sorry. I haven't been very clear. My brain is failing this week.

I'm saying she deserves criticism for her rhetoric. She doesn't deserve to be associated with the shootings.
But, if she defends herself from being associated with the shooting, then she'd playing the victim right? Sounds like a vicious cycle.
 
She deserves criticism for her rhetoric. She doesn't deserve to be associated with the shootings.

Not only the rhetoric, itself, but her handling of issues such as those arising when her followers yell out "kill him" in regards to Obama after her invective gets them all riled up. Her smirks and sly smiles when they do so certainly gives no indication that she finds the assassinations of others to be a particularly bad idea. She could have stopped her speeches at any moment and actually chewed out those who advocated assassination, but didn't.

It is patently hypocritical of her to cry foul when she has been as enabling as she has.
 
You're right, Islamic terrorism is not actually a problem. :roll:

If you fail to see the valid comparison, then you will forever be asking questions with obvious answers like the one that you did just before posting this, in post 379.
 
Smirks and smiles? Seriously? And, of course the actual shooter never even saw one of those murderous smirks that we know of...
 
Smirks and smiles? Seriously? And, of course the actual shooter never even saw one of those murderous smirks that we know of...

When you bring up the shooter like that, in response to remarks only about Palin and her rhetoric, it makes wonder if you have facts the rest of us don't that give you reason to believe that there is a connection between the two. Please, gush!
 
If you fail to see the valid comparison, then you will forever be asking questions with obvious answers like the one that you did just before posting this, in post 379.
I had to go back and look. I genuinely don't know if Tucker meant the so-called volatile rhetoric, or the victim mentality rhetoric he attributes to Palin.
 
When you bring up the shooter like that, in response to remarks only about Palin and her rhetoric, it makes wonder if you have facts the rest of us don't that give you reason to believe that there is a connection between the two. Please, gush!
Isn't Gardner basically saying that her sly smiles and smirks led, in some way, to an atmosphere that caused the shooter to do what he did?
 
It's everyone.

hardly

obama in tucson: " For the truth is that none of us can know exactly what triggered this vicious attack. None of us can know with any certainty what might have stopped those shots from being fired, or what thoughts lurked in the inner recesses of a violent man’s mind."
 
link the smirks and sly smiles

stop the inciting
 
HAH, no kidding. remember that loon who claimed he'd been to 57 States?

whatever happened to him, anywho?

That's odd I don't recall you calling Bush a "loon" for all his verbal slips. Oh that's right you use a different standard for him.
 
At the same time, though, it's important to be even-handed in the criticism. The people who are treating her like an accessory deserve just as much criticim for their rhetoric.

And as far as the "blood libel" comment by Palin goes, big deal. I don't think it was the most appropraite term, and I think she is one of the worst offenders for using victimization rhetoric out there (which is something I've been criticising her for from well-before this shooting occurred), but it it's pretty much a "big deal" situation for me. Something to make a few jokes about, perhaps explan why it isn't the most appropraiate term (as compared to witch hunt) and continue talking about her penchant for victimization-mentality nonses (which, as I've said, I've been doing for quite some time no), but it isn't something to get all riled up about.

Right now, I think the person most deserving of being attacked for his rhetoric is the sheriff who turned this whole thing into a political debate. If not for him, this discussion about rhetoric could have been had in a more appropraite venue, but now it's going to end up becoming exactly what it should be trying to fix.

Again, I wholeheartedly agree.

I think the sheriff let his emotions get the best of him, unfortunately.
 
Isn't Gardner basically saying that her sly smiles and smirks led, in some way, to an atmosphere that caused the shooter to do what he did?

I am saying that, as a politician, she has a certain responsibilities in regards to her conduct, her rhetoric, and the way she handles her crowd.
 
No, there isn't. But that doesn't have any bearing on the fact that she is at least partialy responsible for the "attacks" against her. The attacks against her aren't really that she was an accesory to murder or anything like that. They are about the possible effects of her rhetoric.

The context which the criticism is being give is unfair, but the criticism itself is deserved. Thus, she ain't a victim.
So you planned to start a thread on this to gig everyone equally, right? You are independent, and not a shill for the left.
 
Not only the rhetoric, itself, but her handling of issues such as those arising when her followers yell out "kill him" in regards to Obama after her invective gets them all riled up. Her smirks and sly smiles when they do so certainly gives no indication that she finds the assassinations of others to be a particularly bad idea. She could have stopped her speeches at any moment and actually chewed out those who advocated assassination, but didn't.

It is patently hypocritical of her to cry foul when she has been as enabling as she has.

Exactly. Her rhetoric is designed to spark an emotional reaction in her supporters. And she uses the rhetoric of victimization quite well. She plays on people's natural tendency to blame otehrs for tehir own predicaments and associates her political opposition with everything that is bad in people's lives. She works away at the seeds of anger in people's hearts and nourishes that anger, cultivating it for political gain.

It's a common practice used by both sides. Bush dealt with it to an extreme level too.

It's exacerbated by the fact that there are many problems in the coutnry right now and emotions are at a high level. While her only real goal is to get support for herself and her views. There are side-effects of this. It's divisive, it ignores the issues and presents nothing in the way of potential solutions to the problems.

She's a politician in a sound-bite society. Like many people who are in her position, she takes the lazy approach to garnering support by playing emotions and not logic.

These tactics have a detrimental effect, both on the nation and with disturbed individuals. We are seeing the results of these kind of tactics (which are coming from the left right now), with the death threats and such being made towards Tea Party people and Palin herself. This is happening because instead of actually trying to address these kinds of tactics, many people who are offering criticism are using them. they aren't really criticizing the tactics, they are criticizing their opponents.

There is no doubt that the degree of polarization in the US political scene today is getting even worse. Both sides are doing it, and it damages the country as a whole.
 
So you planned to start a thread on this to gig everyone equally, right? You are independent, and not a shill for the left.

I didn't start any threads on this going after any side.

I've gone after plenty of different people in different threads, though.
 
I didn't start any threads on this going after any side.

I've gone after plenty of different people in different threads, though.

The President has spoken, a plainly shutdown all allegations that rhetoric caused this. He didn't just allude to it, he said it directly.
 
I think the sheriff let his emotions get the best of him, unfortunately.

His actions were completely out of line. He doesn't deserve to have excuses made for him. If he cannot control his emotions, he shouldn't be in the position he is in and he shouldn't be planting himself in front of every camera he can.
 
Back
Top Bottom