• givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
    24·
    11 hours ago

    That’s an insane conclusion to draw!

    The people who assumed the person who mentioned blood libel… Was talking about blood libel…

    Used such a leap in logic that you can’t even imagine how someone could make it?

    Jesus…

    • jacksilver@lemmy.world
      5·
      9 hours ago

      I think I’m even more confused after reading all of this.

      I know Miss Rachel is getting attacked for calling out the atrocities in Gaza, but what is all the blood libel stuff?

      Sounds to me like we’ve just got someone upset that Miss Rachel is not asking for more kids to be killed, but you seem to believe there is something else going on?

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
        21·
        9 hours ago

        but you seem to believe there is something else going on?

        …

        Whoever Rachel is, she was clearly referencing Gaza and the ongoing genocide.

        Eve then (likely intentionally) misunderstood and acted like Rachel was talking about Jewish blood libel. Which is a bigoted belief going back millenia that part of traditional Jewish religious rituals include child sacrifice.

        Evan then “dared her to explain why that would be antisemitic”.

        My point is that is not as effective as clarifying what was going on and why it’s not…

        But I can admit when I’m wrong, clearly I was overestimating people.

        • jacksilver@lemmy.world
          3·
          8 hours ago

          I don’t think it was overestimating, more just not realizing that the term “blood libel” isn’t a widely recognized antisemitic concept. I know a lot of Jewish people and have never heard blood libel used that way.

          I just read it as meaning some sort of lie revolving around death like “you’ve got blood on your hands” kind of thing.

          Edit: Also thanks for the explaining your perspective to me.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            6 hours ago

            I don’t think it was overestimating, more just not realizing that the term “blood libel” isn’t a widely recognized antisemitic concept

            Yes…

            I overestimated people by thinking if I explained what “blood libel” is, I didnt have to literally say “blood libel is___”

            They’re implying the original tweet means threat to kids isn’t from the genocide, and instead it’s the bigoted (and false) stereotype that there are secret Jewish rituals that kill children as blood sacrifices.

            When I said “bigoted (and false) stereotype…” You could substitute that for “blood libel”. I just pre-emptively explained it not everyone knew what it was.

            And rather than ask questions, a bunch of confused people furrowed their brow and down voted.

            But you asked questions, so now you know:

            Blood libels often claim that Jews require human blood for the baking of matzos, an unleavened flatbread which is eaten during Passover. Earlier versions of the blood libel accused Jews of ritually re-enacting the crucifixion.[10] The accusations often assert that the blood of Christian children is especially coveted, and historically, blood libel claims have been made in order to account for the otherwise unexplained deaths of children.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel