![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I'm not sure what Sarah Palin was thinking when she compared journalists and pundits suggesting that her violent rhetoric was partly to blame for the Tuscon shooting to a blood libel. I can only hope that she had no idea what she was doing when she said it, but that's only marginally better than knowing what it meant and using it anyway. It also doesn't make it any less disgusting. It also makes what Sarah Palin is arguing harder to distinguish: at one point she argues that words don't harm people and that violent acts begin and end with the attacker solely; yet she then insists that by arguing that violent rhetoric is--at least in part--to blame for the Tuscon shooting, people are being incited to violence against her. But if words don't mean anything and violent acts begin and end with the attacker solely then how is anyone being incited to violence? Does it only count as being incited to violence if the criticism is of Palin?
Further reading:
Sarah Palin Breaks Her Silence Includes the video Palin posted on her facebook.
Palin's Persecution Complex Culminates with "Blood Libel" Accusation
Palin Cries 'Blood Libel': Can Words Harm Us?
