Ghimeabragh, twitter

Rightwing Sleight of Mouth or the Right tries to redefine “Blood Libel”

I’ve decided to update this post with the entire exchange. oldest tweet to last. I am ExitPass

grivno Ben Grivno
Did you know that it’s impossible for historic terms to take on a broader meaning? So sayeth the Blood Libel obsession crowd! #TeaParty #p2
@grivno Blood Libel has a vry specific meaning. 1 that incited, & still incites anti-Jewish sentiment. It’s bn adopted by the Arab states.
@ExitPass Language is not a permanent fixture. the meaning of terms can broaden. the obsessive focus on a single term looks kinda crazy.
@grivno so, “nazi” no longer means “white supremicist“? “Christkiller” no longer means “Jew“? “Spic” no longer refers 2 “hispanics”? Gotcha
@ExitPass “racist” no longer means “one who believes his/her race is superior.” now it means “one who opposes the progressive agenda”
@grivno (cont) So,#Giffords accused Palin of “Blood Libel” when she criticized the “surveyor’s” symbol ovr her “surveyed” district as provacative?

From: @grivno
Sent: Jan 12, 2011 7:51p

@ExitPass the “blood” part refers to group of genetically-related people, this could expand to mean ideologically-related people

@grivno nice try. As a Jew, I KNOW whaT it means, and it means “Jews murder christians and use their blood in matzoh”. THAT’S what It means

@ExitPass I was setting up a logic framework, not dissing your intelligence. I figured U knew what it meant.

I happen to really like this essay on “Sleight of Mouth


The language masters, on the other hand, are skilled at using their choice of words or syntax in a way that can redirect a listener’s attention to, as well as perception of, their own (often times limiting) beliefs, values or attitudes. The ability to use language to redirect this kind of attention and perception and create an alternate internal experience is called Sleight of Mouth.

There are two basic patterns that facilitate the use of Sleight of Mouth. They are Complex Equivalence and Cause/Effect .

Complex Equivalence is:

X means Y.

Cause/Effect is:

X makes/causes Y.

Part of these language constructions may be implied, and not openly stated.


The classic Sleight of Mouth examples are credited to Robert Dilts and Todd Epstein,

X = Y

“Saying mean things means you’re a bad person.”


Chunking up to a higher logical level:
“Saying mean things means you’re a bad person.”

Sleight of Mouth takes the meaning of the original statement to apply to a more general category of information:

“So how I communicate is important to you.”

“So how someone says something to you is important.”

“How do you know that saying mean things means someone is bad?”

“How do you know something is mean?”

Chunking down to a lower logical level:

“Saying mean things means you’re a bad person.”

This Sleight of Mouth pattern looks for more specific to create distinctions and differences with the original statement. Exaggerate, or find out what’s important to the about this.

“What makes something a mean thing to say? As it the tone of voice, the choice of words or the volume?”

“Bad how /mean how/ which things/ to whom specifically?”

Chunking laterally:

“Saying mean things means you’re a bad person.”

This is a broad generalization of the category of redefining meaning, or reframing the meaning of the original statement.

“It’s not that I said a mean thing, it’s that I’m: direct.”





Redefine behavior (of X):

“Saying mean things(X) means you’re a bad person(Y).”

This Sleight of Mouth pattern enlarges the interpretations and meaning of the behavioral part of the equivalence. Reframing the statement even more specifically. What other meanings could X have? When you give a new definition to X does the relationship hold up? It follows the format “It’s not X it’s…..”, or “A/=B, A=C and that’s D.”

You read an attempt at this in the above twitter exchange. You read/hear it every time you listen to the folks on the Right.

One thought on “Rightwing Sleight of Mouth or the Right tries to redefine “Blood Libel”

Comments are closed.