Here's the irony as I see it:

[xiphias]

So, Sarah Palin says that the violent actions of a person are the responsibility of that person alone: that speech is not a proximate cause of violence. There's a certain sense to that. I may not AGREE with it, but the statement is defensible.

(There is also the separate claim that, even if hateful speech can trigger violence, HER speech specifically wasn't the trigger for THIS violent action, and I do find that provisionally credible.)

She then claims that the rush to judgment that HER speech was a trigger for the media to dogpile on her, and that that was a "blood libel."

The irony here is that a blood libel is very specifically a specific kind of violent hate speech that leads people to take violent actions. That's what it IS. In the very same speech, she says that a particular type of action doesn't exist, that, anyway, she didn't do it, and then accuses other people of doing exactly that same thing. Accidentally, of course -- she was clearly unaware of what "blood libel" MEANS, but the irony still exists.

Comments

[rubynye.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure if she actually is unaware of the real meaning and context of 'blood libel', rather than just counting on the majority of the US being unaware, but that's just a quibble. As ever, you have a really good point.

Well, if you look it up...

[thnidu.livejournal.com]

Glossary of religious terms (B):

Blood libel: A false belief which has endured since the 1st century BCE. It states that members of a religious group kidnap, abuse, ritually murder and sometimes eat the body of a member of another religion. Groups creating this groundless fable include ancient Greek and Roman Pagans, Christians, Nazis, and Muslims. Innocent religious groups victimized by the fable include Jews, Christians, Wiccans, Druids and other Neopagans, and Roma (Gypsies). The hoax exists today mostly among some Muslims (against Jews) and some Fundamentalist Christians (against Wiccans, Satanists and other religious minorities).

Religious Tolerance: Christian myths against Jews 1144 CE to now: Blood libel & host desecration myths

In 1144 CE, an unfounded rumor began in eastern England, that Jews had kidnapped a Christian child, tied him to a cross, stabbed his head to simulate Jesus' crown of thorns, killed him, drained his body completely of blood, and mixed the blood into matzos (unleavened bread) at time of Passover. The rumor was started by a former Jew, Theobald, who had become a Christian monk. He said that Jewish representatives gathered each year in Narbonne, France. They decided in which city a Christian child would be sacrificed.

... The myth shows a complete lack of understanding of mainline Judaism. Aside from the prohibition of killing innocent persons, the Torah specifically forbids the drinking or eating of any form of blood in any quantity. However, reality never has had much of an impact on blood libel myths. This rumor lasted for many centuries; even today it has not completely disappeared. 1

Pope Innocent IV ordered a study in 1247 CE. His investigators found that the myth was a Christian invention used to justify persecution of the Jews. At least 4 other popes subsequently vindicated the Jews. However, the accusations, trials and executions continued. In 1817, Czar Alexander I of Russia declared that the blood libel was a myth. Even that did not stop the accusations against Jews in that country.

"Holy shrines were erected to honor innocent Christian victims, and well into the twentieth century, churches throughout Europe displayed knives and other instruments that Jews purportedly used for these rituals. ..." 7

Nicholl reports that "there are 150 recorded cases of the charge of ritual murder, and many led to massacres of the Jews of the place." 2

Some of the incidents were: ...

Wikipedia

Blood libel (also blood accusation[1][2]) refers to a false accusation or claim[3][4][5] that religious minorities, in European contexts almost always Jews, murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays.[1][2][6] Historically, these claims have – alongside those of well poisoning and host desecration – been a major theme in European persecution of Jews.[4]

[thespian.livejournal.com]

I know...it's funny, there was a thing a couple days ago in which she referred to the people who were pointing out that there was no connection between the shooter and the target map and such, as 'my allies'. Not that her allies were among the people pointing this out, but that the people pointing this out were, defacto, her allies.

I actually growled at my computer.

(btw, did you get email from me the other day about this weekend? we should talk.)

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

I did; I've had almost no time to deal with stuff. I thought that getting a cell phone with internet on it would actually give me more time to check email and stuff. But I still rarely get a chance to check it.

[embryomystic.livejournal.com]

That's pretty much how I see it, too.

[sethg]

And Sharron “Second Amendment remedies” Angle warns: “The irresponsible assignment of blame to me, Sarah Palin or the Tea Party movement by commentators and elected officials puts all who gather to redress grievances in danger.”

head explodes

[dichroic.livejournal.com]

I think her claim is accurate: her words / images were not a *direct* cause of the event. (Sarah Palin doesn't use big words like "proximate". You intellectual elitist, you ;-)

She didn't light the fire. She may have added fuel to the pile, maybe slopped on a little gasoline. But how was she to know it would burn?

[vvalkyri.livejournal.com]

See, I continue to live in my bubble. Are people really saying she was the proximate cause? Hell, even Kelly with his help us remove Giffords from office - shoot a fully automatic m16 with Jesse Kelly wording for his fundraiser wasn't a proximate cause.

My head was going splodey this week, though, with the "the other side is worse and how dare you tell me we're at fault" in response to "y'know, this eliminationist rhetoric is really poisonous."

[dichroic.livejournal.com]

No, I do not think they were. I think people called her a contributing cause. (And I think that's accurate.)

But her response implied they were doing so, presumably in order to cast herself as innocent victim of the evil media who hate her.

Palin

[(Anonymous)]

Based on all the actual evidence, there's not a shred that says Palin or rhetoric or anything else contributed to this attack. The kid has had a thing for Giffords since 2007. He's an anarchist. His friend says he just wants to watch the world burn but he doesn't watch news and isn't political.

I can say with a fair degree of confidence that if Palin had never existed, this shooting still would have taken place.