3 ms·

He's famously Jewish and blood libel is an old and notorious anti-semitic attack, used by Nazis and the Holocaust and Imperial Russian pogroms. There are countl

He's famously Jewish and blood libel is an old and notorious anti-semitic attack, used by Nazis and the Holocaust and Imperial Russian pogroms. There are countless of ways to attack Henry Kissinger without debasing one's self in that way.

kopol 5y ago
Please don't baselessly accuse people of anti-semitism. That anti-semites have referenced drinking the blood of children, does not mean that anyone else who says similar is being anti-semitic. Kissinger being Jewish is not the issue here, you have chosen to make it the issue for some unknown reason.
- woodruffw 5y ago
  Nowhere in my original comment or the GP’s response is anyone being accused of antisemitism. Lots of people reference the blood libel without realizing that it’s an antisemitic canard; the object of the comment is to educate rather than shame.
  - throwaway5752 5y ago
    Agreed, I didn't accuse anyone here of anti-semitism, either, my comment was in the same spirit. You can say Kissinger is a ghoul and murderer. I have no problem with that. I endorse that.
  - kopol 5y ago
    It was a finger-wagging, needlessly deflecting type of 'education' that had no real relevance to the actual topic at hand. No-one was discussing his monstrous behavior in terms of his Jewishness.
    - woodruffw 5y ago
      You do see that everybody in this thread agrees that Henry Kissinger is a monster and a war criminal, correct? Nothing has been deflected; we are all on the same page. There is no excuse for invoking the blood libel, barring the basic kind of ignorance that was presumed in my initial response. If you want to describe Kissinger’s monstrosity, you can do better than leaning on cheap antisemitic canards.
      - kopol 5y ago
        There's no evidence that anyone here was invoking a blood libel. That would require anti-semitic intent on the part of the speaker, of which none has been demonstrated.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - quesera 5y ago
        You've used the words "frame", "reference" and "invoke" to describe what the original commenter did vis-à-vis the blood libel and associated antisemitism. All of those words can imply intent. They can also be somewhat neutral. You're doubling, tripling, down on your original comment. I think your original comment was a big leap, honestly. The "obvious" reference to ~"drinking blood of children to preserve youth" (OP now edited out) is vampirism, or possibly Silicon Valley (HBO TV) / Peter Thiel analogue. Not Nazis though, not for everyone at least. You jumped there, and while I do think it's fair to warn of the adjacency, being more clear that you were reading OP charitably would have avoided this kerfluffle. And FWIW, the blood libel accusation is ancient and Christian. The Nazis just borrowed it because it was convenient.
        woodruffw 5y ago
        I think you’re confusing multiple responses. I never said that the blood libel was a uniquely or even originally Nazi invention. I’ll summarize again: it is understandable to be ignorant of the blood libel. It is normal, even. My sole object in this conversation is to identify it, or “call it out” in modern parlance.
        quesera 5y ago
        I think you're ignoring the point of my comment. You keep using words that can be interpreted as accusatory/confrontational/adversarial. I don't think OP deserves that. I think they were probably unaware of the arguably-adjacent antisemitism, but I think your "error" is at least as large, in making the leap from the obvious reference (vampirism) to the strained reference (antisemitism). With the benefit of all of this post-comment context (!) and if I felt the need to comment at all, I'd have gone with something like "We agree that Kissinger was a monster, but you might be careful about the blood-drinking-preserves-youth comment, because it could be twisted into a reference to the ancient Blood Libel accusation against Jews (HK is Jewish)." Anyway that is all for me here. Sorry for wading in. I think you both had innocent/good intent at the start, but that your linguistically ambiguous response turned this thread into something it didn't need to be.
    - jacobolus 5y ago
      Warning people away from accidental invocation of infamous bigoted myths is always worth doing. Just as it is worth warning people away from using ethnic slurs or telling racist jokes, even if explicitly targeted at someone horrible.

kopol 5y ago

Please don't baselessly accuse people of anti-semitism. That anti-semites have referenced drinking the blood of children, does not mean that anyone else who says similar is being anti-semitic. Kissinger being Jewish is not the issue here, you have chosen to make it the issue for some unknown reason.

woodruffw 5y ago
Nowhere in my original comment or the GP’s response is anyone being accused of antisemitism. Lots of people reference the blood libel without realizing that it’s an antisemitic canard; the object of the comment is to educate rather than shame.
- throwaway5752 5y ago
  Agreed, I didn't accuse anyone here of anti-semitism, either, my comment was in the same spirit. You can say Kissinger is a ghoul and murderer. I have no problem with that. I endorse that.
- kopol 5y ago
  It was a finger-wagging, needlessly deflecting type of 'education' that had no real relevance to the actual topic at hand. No-one was discussing his monstrous behavior in terms of his Jewishness.
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    You do see that everybody in this thread agrees that Henry Kissinger is a monster and a war criminal, correct? Nothing has been deflected; we are all on the same page. There is no excuse for invoking the blood libel, barring the basic kind of ignorance that was presumed in my initial response. If you want to describe Kissinger’s monstrosity, you can do better than leaning on cheap antisemitic canards.
    - kopol 5y ago
      There's no evidence that anyone here was invoking a blood libel. That would require anti-semitic intent on the part of the speaker, of which none has been demonstrated.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - quesera 5y ago
      You've used the words "frame", "reference" and "invoke" to describe what the original commenter did vis-à-vis the blood libel and associated antisemitism. All of those words can imply intent. They can also be somewhat neutral. You're doubling, tripling, down on your original comment. I think your original comment was a big leap, honestly. The "obvious" reference to ~"drinking blood of children to preserve youth" (OP now edited out) is vampirism, or possibly Silicon Valley (HBO TV) / Peter Thiel analogue. Not Nazis though, not for everyone at least. You jumped there, and while I do think it's fair to warn of the adjacency, being more clear that you were reading OP charitably would have avoided this kerfluffle. And FWIW, the blood libel accusation is ancient and Christian. The Nazis just borrowed it because it was convenient.
      - woodruffw 5y ago
        I think you’re confusing multiple responses. I never said that the blood libel was a uniquely or even originally Nazi invention. I’ll summarize again: it is understandable to be ignorant of the blood libel. It is normal, even. My sole object in this conversation is to identify it, or “call it out” in modern parlance.
        quesera 5y ago
        I think you're ignoring the point of my comment. You keep using words that can be interpreted as accusatory/confrontational/adversarial. I don't think OP deserves that. I think they were probably unaware of the arguably-adjacent antisemitism, but I think your "error" is at least as large, in making the leap from the obvious reference (vampirism) to the strained reference (antisemitism). With the benefit of all of this post-comment context (!) and if I felt the need to comment at all, I'd have gone with something like "We agree that Kissinger was a monster, but you might be careful about the blood-drinking-preserves-youth comment, because it could be twisted into a reference to the ancient Blood Libel accusation against Jews (HK is Jewish)." Anyway that is all for me here. Sorry for wading in. I think you both had innocent/good intent at the start, but that your linguistically ambiguous response turned this thread into something it didn't need to be.
  - jacobolus 5y ago
    Warning people away from accidental invocation of infamous bigoted myths is always worth doing. Just as it is worth warning people away from using ethnic slurs or telling racist jokes, even if explicitly targeted at someone horrible.