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

[Kaosium]

If that's the case, is there any such a thing as "senseless violence". . or "senseless" anything?

No, the objection doesn't make any sense. The conventional definition of senseless is much broader than what would justify your position. (Your position being that it's wrong to use senseless in describing the violence perpetrated by the Nazis during the Holocaust.)

Here's what Merriam Webster says about the word:

Context is king, Joe. Read the rest of it.

Kudos for out-pedanting the writer of the piece though. A dictionary quote and everything!

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Context is king, Joe. Read the rest of it.

Kudos for out-pedanting the writer of the piece though. A dictionary quote and everything!

I was responding to what you posted. I read all of it.

You're wrong in saying that it's wrong to use the word "senseless".

No pedantry involved.

And I believe the OP correctly identified the writer's motive. It wasn't pedantry; it was more of an anti-Obama (or anti straw man version of "the left") reflex.

ETA: And I note that you didn't answer my question. With your usage of "senseless", can any violent act be senseless?

There's a gang of high school drop outs around where I live that has been playing what they call the "knockout game" where they attack a victim with overwhelming numbers and beat him or her senseless (another meaning of the word). They don't commit robbery or rape, and it's not a gang initiation. The victims aren't known to them (that is, it's not retaliation, or even perceived retaliation).

But with your approach, it's also not senseless: it's for the purpose of entertainment.

 

[Kaosium]

I was responding to what you posted. I read all of it.

You're wrong in saying that it's wrong to use the word "senseless".

No pedantry involved.

And I believe the OP correctly identified the writer's motive. It wasn't pedantry; it was more of an anti-Obama (or anti straw man version of "the left") reflex.

I didn't say it was wrong, I said it was a pedantic argument actually.

However I will point out the difference between purposeful violence like the Nazis and Islamic militants engaged in, that's more dangerous in my view. Senseless violence like Aurora, Sandy Hook or Columbine is different, as you don't get a third of the vote in modern industrialized countries or raise armies of militants to just slaughter people for no purpose, they're senseless.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I didn't say it was wrong, I said it was a pedantic argument actually.

You said it was pedantic to say that it was wrong to use senseless. You also agreed that it was wrong to use senseless.

However I will point out the difference between purposeful violence like the Nazis and Islamic militants engaged in, that's more dangerous in my view. Senseless violence like Aurora, Sandy Hook or Columbine is different, as you don't get a third of the vote in modern industrialized countries or raise armies of militants to just slaughter people for no purpose, they're senseless.

See? This is you again saying it was wrong for Obama to use the word senseless.

Arguing that the Holocaust was purposeful because it served the purpose of killing Jews and the others is sort of silly since "the Holocaust" may be defined as the wholesale killing of Jews and the others.

Again, if this is true, then the examples you use of "senseless" killing are certainly at least as purposeful. They're for the purpose of perceived vengeance or to get noticed or whatever.

As I pointed out, one conventional meaning of the word "senseless", and clearly the one Obama was using in this context was unlike your unconventional definition (something like "wholly without purpose"), is the one given in Merriam Webster--"destitute of, deficient in, or contrary to sense".

 

[Kaosium]

You said it was pedantic to say that it was wrong to use senseless.

Yes, whenever someone picks a word or phrase out of a piece and then goes and makes a big stink about it like the little boy who made a big mess in the toilet and wants everyone to see, then tries to show how how smart they are and/or how accomplished their spelling is--that's what I call pedantry in argument.

You also agreed that it was wrong to use senseless.

No, I was responding to a couple of posts that suggested she was endorsing Nazism, when she was not.

See? This is you again saying it was wrong for Obama to use the word senseless.

No, actually I could care less.

Arguing that the Holocaust was purposeful because it served the purpose of killing Jews and the others is sort of silly since "the Holocaust" may be defined as the wholesale killing of Jews and the others.

Again, if this is true, then the examples you use of "senseless" killing are certainly at least as purposeful. They're for the purpose of perceived vengeance or to get noticed or whatever.

As I pointed out, one conventional meaning of the word "senseless", and clearly the one Obama was using in this context was unlike your unconventional definition (something like "wholly without purpose"), is the one given in Merriam Webster--"destitute of, deficient in, or contrary to sense".

It would be the 'c' definition in your dictionary quote. It even uses 'a senseless murder' as an example. Doesn't it work out nicely that purposeful is basically an antonym of 'meaningless?' One doesn't raise armies or procure votes with meaningless programs, in the Nazi's case it was their racialist ideology as she details and in the case of Islamic militants that we're the 'Great Satan'--or whatever. Not something meaningless like two utter nutters and two twirps in trenchcoats.

The Nazis and the Islamic militants are another order of magnitude dangerous, but I highly doubt whoever wrote Obama's speech meant anything more than 'absolutely awful.' I got engaged because thinking the National Review, which has both libertarian and neo-conservative philosophical strains,--both of which are hell and gone from fascism--was endorsing Nazism is kinda funny.

 

[Upchurch]

I got engaged because thinking the National Review... was endorsing Nazism is kinda funny.

I missed that. Who said that they were?

 

[Kaosium]

Three of the four posts directly preceding my initial post.

 

[Upchurch]

Three of the four posts directly preceding my initial post.

I did not interpret those the same way you did.

 

[Kaosium]

That's perfectly fine with me!

 

[bonzombiekitty]

This one rules:

View attachment 27548

Heh, that's how I picture Aziraphale from Good Omens.

 

[Ziggurat]

One might make the same point about Osama Bin Laden and 9/11.

Yes, one might. Many people do, in fact. Are you not familiar with the refrain that we caused 9/11 by our foreign policy mistakes? Have you not heard how often our intervention in the middle east is blamed as the cause of terrorism?

The article in question here does not impress me. It seems to be nitpicking and does not even adequately explain the point it seems to be trying to make (namely, evil tends to be seductive because it often appeals to legitimate and logical concerns). But it is hardly a standout in the genre of sympathizing with our enemies.

 

[A'isha]

Yes, one might. Many people do, in fact. Are you not familiar with the refrain that we caused 9/11 by our foreign policy mistakes? Have you not heard how often our intervention in the middle east is blamed as the cause of terrorism?

I'm certainly familiar with that refrain.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

No, actually I could care less.

Whether you care about it or not is irrelevant. The fact is you are continuing to argue that it was wrong of Obama to use senseless this way claiming that anything that had a purpose (even a purpose most of us would agree itself was senseless) can't be senseless.

So again, by that reasoning, is there any such a thing as truly senseless killing? If any purpose--even purposes that are trivial (such as "for the sadistic pleasure of it") or delusional (as in the Final Solution plan)--is enough, then doesn't that rule out all intentional killings? It would only leave accidents as potentially being "senseless" killings.

 

[Ladewig]

Whether you care about it or not is irrelevant. The fact is you are continuing to argue that it was wrong of Obama to use senseless this way claiming that anything that had a purpose (even a purpose most of us would agree itself was senseless) can't be senseless.

So again, by that reasoning, is there any such a thing as truly senseless killing? If any purpose--even purposes that are trivial (such as "for the sadistic pleasure of it") or delusional (as in the Final Solution plan)--is enough, then doesn't that rule out all intentional killings? It would only leave accidents as potentially being "senseless" killings.

If a person had a specific goal and killing a group of people moved the killer away from his goal then that killing might be seen as senseless. I would also argue that Nazis killing Jews really didn't bring them closer to their goals.

 

[Chaos]

Nazism may have been an ideology to which the United States was — and to which the president is — implacably opposed,

Looks like they´re trying to say - but not having the guts to say out loud - that the United States is not, at present, implacably opposed to Nazism.

And since, to right-wingers, "the United States" means them, and them alone, not leftist-progressive traitors like Obama and the Democrats, this must mean that the right-wingers are Nazi sympathizers.

 

[A'isha]

Looks like they´re trying to say - but not having the guts to say out loud - that the United States is not, at present, implacably opposed to Nazism.

And since, to right-wingers, "the United States" means them, and them alone, not leftist-progressive traitors like Obama and the Democrats, this must mean that the right-wingers are Nazi sympathizers.

Bingo.

That particularly odd turn of phrase is obviously intended to imply that Obama (and Obama alone) thinks Nazism is a bad thing, when the Obama-opposed NRO knows better because the Nazi political platform made lots of sense (especially, as the article itself explicitly notes, their anti-semitic racial policies).

 

[Kaosium]

Whether you care about it or not is irrelevant. The fact is you are continuing to argue that it was wrong of Obama to use senseless this way claiming that anything that had a purpose (even a purpose most of us would agree itself was senseless) can't be senseless.

No, that's what you're saying! That won't change no matter how many times you say it, but it will amuse me to find out how many might fall for your jedi mind trick.

What I was saying was something different, merely clarifying the NR point for those who wondered if it was endorsing Nazism, or were joking about them doing so--whatever.

So again, by that reasoning, is there any such a thing as truly senseless killing? If any purpose--even purposes that are trivial (such as "for the sadistic pleasure of it") or delusional (as in the Final Solution plan)--is enough, then doesn't that rule out all intentional killings? It would only leave accidents as potentially being "senseless" killings.

You're making me wonder if she was right originally, if not about Obama but the 'left!' You don't really see a difference between the killing of people to serve an ideology and random killings? She put it like this:

The idea that all violence is “senseless” violence is one that has taken deep root on the left; it’s also, unfortunately, one that poses a major impediment to understanding the world.

Nazism may have been an ideology to which the United States was — and to which the president is — implacably opposed, but it is hardly “senseless.” By the early 1930s, the Nazi party had hundreds of thousands of devoted members and repeatedly attracted a third of the votes in German elections; its political leaders campaigned on a platform comprising 25 non-senseless points, including the “unification of all Germans,” a demand for “land and territory for the sustenance of our people,” and an assertion that “no Jew can be a member of the race.” Suffice it to say, many sensible Germans were persuaded.

On September 12, 2012, President Obama also lamented the “the kind of senseless violence that took the lives” of four Americans in Benghazi. That, you may recall, is the day the president supposedly said the murders occurred as a result of a non-senseless terrorist attack carried out by jihadists.

This sanitized version of events, both past and present, is surely more comforting. It’s also truly senseless.

Now, my assumption is that Obama (at the very least) understands the difference here, and 'senseless' is just a stand-in for 'grotesque' or 'hideous.' The context of the rest of the statement screams that out with the need to resist hate and persecution as well as noting the macabre instruments of that program: the cattle cars, ghettos, and concentration camps. Thus I thought she was just being a twit.

However you are in the process of convincing me that you don't understand the difference! Let me put it this way: both of those examples were/are campaigns that drew in other people in support or in the execution of, they could somehow justify it to themselves, and perhaps even thought they might be vindicated. There's people today who might support either aim still, there was a program behind it, an ideology.

 

[Travis]

I didn't say it was wrong, I said it was a pedantic argument actually.

However I will point out the difference between purposeful violence like the Nazis and Islamic militants engaged in, that's more dangerous in my view. Senseless violence like Aurora, Sandy Hook or Columbine is different, as you don't get a third of the vote in modern industrialized countries or raise armies of militants to just slaughter people for no purpose, they're senseless.

How were the shootings in Aurora, Sand Hook or Columbine "senseless" by your definition?

I'm pretty sure the killer in all those instances intended to kill their victims and thus, going by your definition, makes them "purposeful" acts of violence.

Basically, if you want to go that far with the pedantry, the only acts of "senseless" violence are when violence is initiated without anyone actually intending violence. Drunk driving maybe?

 

[A'isha]

How were the shootings in Aurora, Sand Hook or Columbine "senseless" by your definition?

I'm pretty sure the killer in all those instances intended to kill their victims and thus, going by your definition, makes them "purposeful" acts of violence.

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

 

[Kaosium]

How were the shootings in Aurora, Sand Hook or Columbine "senseless" by your definition?

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

I'm pretty sure the killer in all those instances intended to kill their victims and thus, going by your definition, makes them "purposeful" acts of violence.

Basically, if you want to go that far with the pedantry, the only acts of "senseless" violence are when violence is initiated without anyone actually intending violence. Drunk driving maybe?

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?