-9

There is a number of questions on the main site which get a fairly poor reception because they essentially ask whether there is good solid evidence for a commonly made accusation of one sort of another.

This is usually poorly received because such questions are seen as loaded because they are presumed to be pushing an agenda.

But when it comes to military actions, both aggressive and defensive, there is bound to be seemingly plausible explanations for at least some of the accusations being thrown around. On the other hand, anyone trying to defend against a legitimate accusations is likely to abuse this tag to try to push the point that a well-documented atrocity hasn't happened.

In other words, the flip side of the blood libel is the power of rationalization.

Btw, just to anticipate the potential suggestion that such questions should be moved to skeptics.SE, they would get closed there because skeptics is not about skepticism. It's exclusively about fact checking. Any content about inherent inconsistencies would get removed there.

I would ask that if you are tempted to downvote or close this question, because you think I should know better for this reason or another, then, please, afford me some benefit of the doubt and give your reason why you think that.

Just what do you think? Is "blood libel" "too hot to handle" on this site?

7
  • "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'.
    – 264 champagne bottles on ice
    Commented Mar 30 at 16:06
  • @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.
    – Radically Reasonable
    Commented Mar 30 at 18:42
  • 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?
    – Italian Philosopher
    Commented Mar 30 at 23:25
  • 4
    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).
    – Greendrake
    Commented Mar 31 at 1:27
  • @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.
    – Radically Reasonable
    Commented Mar 31 at 5:51
  • @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.
    – Radically Reasonable
    Commented Mar 31 at 5:54
  • 2
    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?
    – Italian Philosopher
    Commented Mar 31 at 6:11

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
2

There's already a tag for . Personally I found some content under that chapter a bit problematic because it's nearly as a easy for someone to label something a conspiracy theory as to call someone a fascist. (More riguos definitions exist for both terms, but they're seldom applied in everyday political discourse.) Probably the same applies to 'blood libel', judging by what some users on this site call a 'blood libel' in their comments.

Anyhow, we also have a tag for antisemitism, both on the main site and on the meta, so I'm not sure what could not be reasonably be tagged with a combination of these, to require a new tag, on the main site at least.

Yeah, inserting 'blood libel' as comment-tag on a Q you disagree with is likely to devolve into an edit war. There are other mechanisms to deal with that: downvote and/or vote-to-close. Possibly flag as abusive too, although that flag has been abused a bit lately, IMHO.

Tagging a question with 'lynching' in the metaphoric sense (that you appear to suggest in a comment) doesn't seem a good idea either. Just like 'witch hunt' etc.

11
  • The "antisemitism" tag attributes a certain intent which people may believe not to be their motivation. And they may be right in that belief and yet still be spreading messages designed to stigmatize more than to inform.
    – Radically Reasonable
    Commented Mar 30 at 18:51
  • Also, "blood libel" is not exclusive to falsely stigmatizing Jews. "8 years of bombing Donbas" is pretty clearly a blood libel.
    – Radically Reasonable
    Commented Mar 30 at 19:09
  • @RadicallyReasonable: I thought you were going to bring up ISIS being a tool of the US/Mossad/Ukraine. That's far more en-vogue lately jpost.com/israel-news/article-793361
    – 264 champagne bottles on ice
    Commented Mar 30 at 19:16
  • 4
    I don't think "blood libel" is a commonly used term in general political discourse. Few people would think of using it. The antisemitic version of it is highly specific as to what it claims and has nothing to with regular warfare. Besides being a conspiracy theory.
    – Italian Philosopher
    Commented Mar 30 at 23:29
  • @thegodsfromengineering I have seen that one, but probably mostly in the past week. Presumably because ISIS is active again.
    – Radically Reasonable
    Commented Mar 31 at 5:42
  • @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica I would say that's the original, or the "proper", blood libel, the one from which the term gets its name.
    – Radically Reasonable
    Commented Mar 31 at 5:46
  • 3
    @RadicallyReasonable No one else uses blood libel in any reasonable fashion, nor is it much appreciated by Jewish people when it gets used to talk about other issues. Now, if someone actually did come with the actual conspiracy in question about Jews here, then I'd be 100% behind a minimum 1 year ban. In the meantime stop relabelling everything you don't like in such an over the top fashion.
    – Italian Philosopher
    Commented Mar 31 at 6:04
  • 2
    And try basing your accusations on a formal definition of antisemitism instead of deciding on your own what is what. Here's one, for example. Now, how does your "blood libel" post apply to this filter?
    – Italian Philosopher
    Commented Mar 31 at 6:09
  • @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica i am gonna put you in the "no", column then? We should probably stop it at that before YOU lecture ME more on what "the Jewish people think."
    – Radically Reasonable
    Commented Mar 31 at 11:04
  • 2
    @RadicallyReasonable I was referring to the use of the term on other subjects than purely antisemitic ones. (from wiki): 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. Making its applicability questionable at best on Donbas. This was specifically cited as offensive by Jewish groups when Palin used it to snipe back at some controversy she's landed into.
    – Italian Philosopher
    Commented Mar 31 at 14:59
  • @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica I am familiar with the claim in bold. In fact, I quoted it in one of my comments above and responded to it. The fact that some group objected to its use in a political context doesn't make it a general objection to its metaphorical use. When a false accusation of gratuitous or a ritualized murder is made, with the purpose of stigmatizing an identifiable group of people, it is a blood libel both metaphorically, as an allusion to the blood libel made against Jews, and as the plain English meaning of the phrase.
    – Radically Reasonable
    Commented Mar 31 at 19:32
1

Blood libel refers to specific actions and past events - so what the question really means is misusing this tag to characterize the ongoing events... which is often a bit of a stretch, like calling the events in Gaza genocide or accusing Israel of deliberately starving Palestinians... which seems rather commonplace here and doesn't arose much objection.

4
  • Well, the original blood libel was a way to dehumanize Jews. To make the ignorant (literally ignorant, with ~80% of the population being illiterate) underclasses imagine Jewish rituals being demonic. I think any repeated attempts to demonize identifiable groups in such a way should be seen as a similar type of effort. I have no doubt that "8 years of bombing Donbas" is the same type of nonsense.
    – Radically Reasonable
    Commented Apr 8 at 6:14
  • I am not even sure I can clearly state what my opinion is about Gaza because too many on this site will accuse me of whitewashing something they believe is happening, but which will ultimately be proven to not have happened. But I think the metaphorical use of "Blood libel" doesn't detract from how terrible the original was. It contextualizes it rather than trivializes it. In fact, it may help others develop more empathy for the plight of Jews subjected to the Blood libel if they see that it can happen to other groups.
    – Radically Reasonable
    Commented Apr 8 at 6:15
  • So... a bit like rappers using the n-word? We have a term which is considered offensive by Jewish people when it doesn't concern antisemitism. A term which, again, applies to a particular act, ritualized murder. And now can apparently - says you and OP - be repurposed to describe generic accusations, presumably as long they are "antisemitic" in nature. Otherwise, well, as Sarah Palin found out, not too cool to use the term in other contexts. What could ever go wrong? FWIW I don't particularly object to what rappers sing, but it is a close analogue. -1
    – Italian Philosopher
    Commented Apr 8 at 15:55
  • @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica I don't see how this comment is related to what the answer says. There are certain actions that qualify as blood libel or genocide or whatever, but one cannot use this term to describe just anything that one doesn't like.
    – Wag the mainstream media dog
    Commented Apr 9 at 6:54

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .