The right really DOES take the opposite position as Obama no matter what the issue is

[Kaosium]

Especially the Columbine killers. They had a definite reason, purpose, and plan for what they did.

Initially I thought you were correct (and still do) about the reaction to Obama's statement, however since then it has become obvious she had a point about (some of) the rest of the 'left.'

 

[A'isha]

Initially I thought you were correct (and still do) about the reaction to Obama's statement, however since then it has become obvious she had a point about (some of) the rest of the 'left.'

No, she doesn't. She's purposefully hairsplitting about Obama's use of the word "senseless" in the exact same way Reagan did to describe the Holocaust, for the sole purpose of attacking Obama and "the left".

That she had to twist around the definition of "senseless" in order to make those attacks, and defend the anti-semitic Nazi racial policy (among their other policies) as perfectly "sensible", is entirely on her.

And that you're both apparently giving her a pass on completely (and deliberately) misconstruing the colloquial definition of "senseless" as used by both Obama and Reagan, and adding your own meaning to the word by injecting the requirement that non-senseless violence can only be done for ideological reasons by "masses of people" just so you can join in on her baseless attack on "the left" is entirely on you.

EDIT: Er, by which I mean that just because people might disagree with your entirely unorthodox definition, that doesn't in any way, shape, or form provide any kind of evidence for the NRO author's bizarre claim about "the left".

 

[Kaosium]

No, she doesn't. She's purposefully hairsplitting about Obama's use of the word "senseless" in the exact same way Reagan did to describe the Holocaust, for the sole purpose of attacking Obama and "the left".

I agree.

That she had to twist around the definition of "senseless" in order to make those attacks, and defend the anti-semitic Nazi racial policy (among their other policies) as perfectly "sensible", is entirely on her.

No, that's not what she meant. In her context the antonym of 'senseless' is not 'sensible.'

And that you're both apparently giving her a pass on completely (and deliberately) misconstruing the colloquial definition of "senseless" as used by both Obama and Reagan, and adding your own meaning to the word by injecting the requirement that non-senseless violence can only be done for ideological reasons by "masses of people" just so you can join in on her baseless attack on "the left" is entirely on you.

The ones who still (apparently) don't get the point she was trying to make are the ones who reveal there was some insight in her post, if not about Obama but others.

EDIT: Er, by which I mean that just because people might disagree with your entirely unorthodox definition, that doesn't in any way, shape, or form provide any kind of evidence for the NRO author's bizarre claim about "the left".

Yeah, it does.

 

[A'isha]

No, that's not what she meant. In her context the antonym of 'senseless' is not 'sensible.'

It absolutely is. She even uses the word "sensible" to describe the German people who happily bought into the Nazis' "non-senseless" political platform.

Yeah, it does.

Not even close, since her accusation was specifically "The idea that all violence is 'senseless' violence is one that has taken deep root on the left". Which is neither something that Obama thinks, nor is something that anyone has argued in this thread.

In fact, in this thread, it's you who is taking the side of "this violence is senseless" in opposition to Travis.

 

[Kaosium]

It absolutely is. She even uses the word "sensible" to describe the German people who happily bought into the Nazis' "non-senseless" political platform.

So it made sense to a third of Germans (they embraced the ideology that led to it) as she pointed out, now do you think by saying it was sensible to them she meant she approved of it? Or do you just figure 'turnabout is fair play?'

Not even close, since her accusation was specifically "The idea that all violence is 'senseless' violence is one that has taken deep root on the left". Which is neither something that Obama thinks, nor is something that anyone has argued in this thread.

I agree that the context of Obama's speech (or was this just a statement released?) that it's clear he didn't mean it that way. I am unclear that anyone else understood the point she was trying to make which suggested to me perhaps there was some insight to be gleaned from it, however it was revealed.

In fact, in this thread, it's you who is taking the side of "this violence is senseless" in opposition to Travis.

No, I was giving examples of senseless violence in opposition of the ideological sort, the distinction she was making.

 

[A'isha]

So it made sense to a third of Germans (they embraced the ideology that led to it) as she pointed out, now do you think by saying it was sensible to them she meant she approved of it? Or do you just figure 'turnabout is fair play?'

No, I just think that if you find yourself arguing that the Nazi's racial policy makes perfect sense in order to attack the President of the United States for describing the Holocaust the exact same way Reagan did thirty years before, perhaps you ought to step back and rethink what you're doing.

No, I was giving examples of senseless violence in opposition of the ideological sort, the distinction she was making.

Which, as I said, has zip to do with what she said about "the left", which was specifically that they think that "all violence is senseless violence".

And since you claimed that you thought the reactions here showed that "it has become obvious she had a point about (some of) the rest of the 'left'", either you're making the odd claim that the people who are saying that Columbine, Aurora, and Newton was not senseless violence nevertheless somehow think that "all violence is senseless violence", or you're projecting your own argument about some characteristic of "the left" onto her NRO article that she was not, in fact, actually making herself.

 

[Kaosium]

No, I just think that if you find yourself arguing that the Nazi's racial policy makes perfect sense in order to attack the President of the United States, perhaps you ought to step back and rethink what you're doing.

That's not what she was saying!

Which, as I said, has zip to do with what she said about "the left", which was specifically that they think that "all violence is senseless violence".

Do you think there is a distinction to be made between types of violence like she did?

And since you claimed that you thought the reactions here showed that "it has become obvious she had a point about (some of) the rest of the 'left'", either you're making the odd claim that the people who are saying that Columbine, Aurora, and Newton was not senseless violence

Now I'm lost! If in the context of her post you don't think that's an example of senseless violence, then what kind is it? Something akin to the holocaust or a terrorist attack? If that's the case then her point still stands that some can't make a distinction between violence that can be approved of or embraced by otherwise sensible people because of ideology and random-type slaughters like the three events mentioned.

If not then why in her paradigm or Obama's wouldn't those three be an example of 'senseless violence?' Anyone can take that out of context again if they want, but why make this more confusing than it actually is?

nevertheless somehow think that "all violence is senseless violence", or you're projecting your own argument about some characteristic of "the left" onto her NRO article that she was not, in fact, actually making herself.

Not quite. It's by her pointing out 'sensible' Germans embraced this ideology and thus it wasn't 'senseless' in her context which would be defined as C from Joe's dictionary post which I'll reproduce here:

Definition of SENSELESS

: destitute of, deficient in, or contrary to sense: as
a : unconscious <knocked senseless>
b : foolish, stupid <it was some senseless practical joke — A. Conan Doyle>
c : meaningless <a senseless murder>

If one figures 'mindless' is akin to 'unconscious' then 'A' would apply too, as while the Joker, the two kids and the guy in Sandy Hook may have had intelligence they'd clearly lost their minds in a way that cannot (really) apply to the holocaust or a terrorist attack. The chilling thing about the Nazis is (most of them) weren't insane in that sense, and they were working to achieve a larger goal.

Obama meant it as 'B' I think, just as an adjective for something horrific, and might very well use the same term for the other three, but not for the reasons the NRO article claimed in my view: he'd just be using it in the pejorative sense, not the descriptive like she took it.

 

[Travis]

No ideology, no greater purpose outside the 'gratification' of the ones involved.



You don't actually see a difference between planned programs of violence involving masses of people to achieve a goal and serial killers or these mass shootings?

Violence is senseless when it achieves no noble goal or could have.

So violence in the name of a senseless ideology is itself senseless. So violence in the name of Nazism is senseless. So would violence in the name of the Easter Bunny.

 

[Kaosium]

Violence is senseless when it achieves no noble goal or could have.

The frightening thing is that goal might have seemed 'justifiable' (over there) had the Nazi's won because they had the nasty habit of squishing those who thought differently!

So violence in the name of a senseless ideology is itself senseless. So violence in the name of Nazism is senseless. So would violence in the name of the Easter Bunny.

Fair enough, I understand what you're getting at, but it's not the same thing she was saying.

 

[A'isha]

That's not what she was saying!

Yes, that's what she was saying, flat out explicitly. Calling the Holocaust "senseless" is such a decades old and bog-standard way of describing it that the only way she could think of to attack Obama for saying the same thing Reagan did was to talk about how much sense the Nazi political platform made, including specifically mentioning as "non-senseless" the most senseless of the Nazi's policies, their virulent racist antisemitism!

Do you think there is a distinction to be made between types of violence like she did?

She made no such distinction. All she said was that "the left" thinks that all violence is senseless, and that the Nazis had an ideology that was not senseless (not that it was not senseless because it was an ideology, as you're arguing, but that it was an ideology and wasn't senseless).

If that's the case then her point still stands that some can't make a distinction between violence that can be approved of or embraced by otherwise sensible people because of ideology and random-type slaughters like the three events mentioned.

No, that's not her point. Her point was that Obama was wrong for calling the Holocaust "senseless violence" because the Nazi ideology as described in their 25-point party platform (explicitly including their hatred of Jews and crackpot nonsensical racial theories) was "non-senseless" and followed by many "sensible" people. Oh, and that "the left" thinks all violence is senseless, which is a rather odd criticism to make of a president who has ordered far more terrorist assassinations and drone strikes than his right-wing predecessor.

Not quite. It's that by her pointing out 'sensible' Germans embraced this ideology and thus it wasn't 'senseless' in her context which would be defined as C from Joe's dictionary post which I'll reproduce here:

That's right, she's twisting the context of Obama's description of both the Holocaust and what happened in Benghazi to attack Obama for purely partisan reasons, by pretending he meant something he didn't. And in her zeal to attack Obama, her twisting resulted in her defending not the non-senselessness of the violence of the Holocaust, but the sensibleness of not just Nazi ideology, but the most vile and crazy parts of their 25-point political platform.

And both she and NRO are so blinded by their desire to oppose even the most innocuous of Obama's statements that they're perfectly fine with that.

 

[Kaosium]

And both she and NRO are so blinded by their desire to oppose even the most innocuous of Obama's statements that they're perfectly fine with that.

I think this country (and the world for that matter) could use a little more understanding and a little less partisanship to the point they're parsing each and every word and phrase just to 'score points.'

She didn't mean what you think, but nevermind about that now.

 

[Travis]

Just so I'm clear: violence committed by Nazi's in their insane bid at world domination in the name of their clearly delusional ideology = senseless

Violence committed by those defending their country from invasion by said Nazi's = sensible

One side just wants to keep living while the other wants to purposefully invade and "purify" the populations of others with violence. That right there is the key distinction between "senseless" and "sensible" violence.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

I think this country (and the world for that matter) could use a little more understanding and a little less partisanship to the point they're parsing each and every word and phrase just to 'score points.'

She didn't mean what you think, but nevermind about that now.

What she might have meant and what she actually said are two different things.

 

[Kaosium]

What she might have meant and what she actually said are two different things.

I think the context makes it clear what she meant from what she said.

 

[A'isha]

I think the context makes it clear what she meant from what she said.

What she meant was "Obama is bad and he should feel bad even though there's nothing at all bad about what he said!" What she said was "the Nazi racial policies made sense which is why a lot of sensible Germans followed the Nazis."

In other words, her essay is an embarrassing, potentially offensive failure no matter how you slice it.

 

[Travis]

If someone can show me a noble and humanitarian goal that the holocaust might have achieved if successfully prosecuted I will begrudgingly admit it might have been "sensible."

 

[Chaos]

If someone can show me a noble and humanitarian goal that the holocaust might have achieved if successfully prosecuted I will begrudgingly admit it might have been "sensible."

It all depends on what you consider "noble and humanitarian". I am quite sure that Hitler and those who shared his ideology considered their goals - the ones they killed tens of millions of people to achieve - superhumanly noble.

 

[crescent]

Pretty much everything people do makes sense to the people doing it, while they are doing it.

The shooters in Columbine probably thought that their actions made sense in the context which they were thinking. The Aurora theater shooter and the Virginia Tech shooters probably also thought that their actions made sense, even if that was only due to untreated schizophrenia (or other mental illness). When North Korea kidnapped Japanese people, it made sense to the North Koreans at the time. The guy who recently shot the bus driver, kidnapped the child, and fled to the bunker probably thought his actions were the only sensible response to the situation he perceived himself to be in.

Sometimes is only in the larger sense, the big picture, when any objective logical standard can be applied. By that standard, the Holocaust was pretty damn senseless, even if it seemed logical by those who were implementing it at the time.

 

[cwalner]

If someone can show me a noble and humanitarian goal that the holocaust might have achieved if successfully prosecuted I will begrudgingly admit it might have been "sensible."

It could have rid the world of Gefilte fish?

Seriously, I am a Jew and was raised on the stuff, and I maintain that it is the only food that manages to offend all 5 senses.

 

[Ziggurat]

It could have rid the world of Gefilte fish?

Seriously, I am a Jew and was raised on the stuff, and I maintain that it is the only food that manages to offend all 5 senses.

Just be glad it doesn't offend your sense of proprioception.