3 ms·

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

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.

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.