Timeline for Is "blood libel" too provocative a tag for the main site?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 6 at 10:12 | answer | added | Wag the mainstream media dog | timeline score: 1 | |
| Mar 31 at 6:11 | comment | added | Italian Philosopher | The origins of the claim, at least wrt to the risk of famine itself, if not what is causing it, are numerous alarms raised by specialist organizations. As well as concerns voiced by some of Israel's closest allies. You are veering very close to censorship here. Why do think the US is airdropping aid? My linked definition of antisemitism gives one criteria: Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation. Well, is being concerned about a famine unexpected from democratic nations? | |
| Mar 31 at 5:54 | comment | added | Radically Reasonable | @Greendrake i know what it means. And from the Wikipedia link you cited: "The term 'blood libel' has also been used in reference to any unpleasant or damaging false accusation, and as a result, it has acquired a broader metaphoric meaning. However, this wider usage of the term remains controversial, because Jewish groups object to it." I haven't heard any strong objections to its metaphorical use, but I don't doubt that they are present. Personally I think it's descriptive enough that just like "lynching" it can refer both to the specific act and the metaphorical extension. | |
| Mar 31 at 5:51 | comment | added | Radically Reasonable | @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica if it turns out that the claim of famine in Gaza will have been false, a question about the origins of the claim will qualify. | |
| Mar 31 at 1:27 | comment | added | Greendrake | I just went to see what "blood libel" actually means, and the meaning seems to be much much narrower than what you are proposing to use it for. On that basis alone I would vote against (not even looking at the degree of its provocativeness). | |
| Mar 30 at 23:25 | comment | added | Italian Philosopher | So, out of pure curiosity, which posts would be eligible beneficiaries of this dubious honor? Would a Ukrainian complaining about Russian trolling get to use it? Would a Russian denouncing criticism of Russia be eligible? Did you have something more specific in mind? If so, why not come right out and say it? | |
| Mar 30 at 18:48 | history | edited | Radically Reasonable | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Mar 30 at 18:42 | comment | added | Radically Reasonable | @thegodsfromengineering that question is not a counterexample. An inherent inconsistency would be the one provable solely by showing a logical contradiction without reaching for any additional facts. | |
| Mar 30 at 16:31 | review | Close votes | |||
| Mar 31 at 17:32 | |||||
| Mar 30 at 16:18 | answer | added | 264 champagne bottles on ice | timeline score: 2 | |
| Mar 30 at 16:06 | comment | added | 264 champagne bottles on ice | "Any content about inherent inconsistencies would get removed there." Not really skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/56818/… Of course, it somewhat depends what you mean by 'inherent'. | |
| Mar 30 at 9:07 | history | asked | Radically Reasonable | CC BY-SA 4.0 |