PC Political Cluelessness Crosses with Reality...

[DKW 86 7,419]

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/7/7509265/charlie-hebdo-cartoons

If Ezra Klein was ever considered a serious voice of commentary, he shouldnt be anymore.

This is the saddest bunch of PC Political Crapola i have ever read.

Let me sum it up for you: "If reality doesnt match our narrative, to hell with reality..."

[homersapien 11,362]

I think you totally misunderstood the piece. Care to indicate exactly what's wrong with it?

[AUDub 11,147]

I'm also a little confused by your reaction. Like Homer said, could you explain what you find wrong with it?

[DKW 86 7,419]

Yes, Charlie Hebdo was a magazine that delighted in controversy and provocation. Yes, it skewered religion and took joy in giving offense. Yes, the magazine knowingly antagonized extremists — Charlie Hebdo's web site had been hacked and its offices firebombed before today; French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius had asked of its cartoons, "Is it really sensible or intelligent to pour oil on the fire?" And yes, Charlie Hebdo's editor said in 2012, prophetically, that "I prefer to die than live like a rat."

But this isn't about Charlie Hebdo's cartoons, any more than a rape is about what the victim is wearing, or a murder is about where the victim was walking.

What happened on Wednesday, according to current reports, is that two men went on a killing spree. Their killing spree, like most killing sprees, will have some thin rationale. Even the worst villains believe themselves to be heroes. But in truth, it was unprovoked slaughter. The fault lies with no one but them and their accomplices. Their crime isn't explained by cartoons or religion. Plenty of people read Charlie Hebdo's cartoons and managed to avoid responding with mass murder. Plenty of people follow all sorts of religions and somehow get through the day without racking up a body count. The answers to what happened today won't be found in Charlie Hebdo's pages. They can only be found in the murderers' sick minds.

Here we go: "This mass murder killing spree BY ISLAMIC TERRORISTS doesnt fit my narrative, so we must not ever call it what it was, a terrorist attack." Now Ezra, ever the PC wonk, cannot just say the simple truth here. He has to take 1000 words to try and make the very weak case that the Charlie Hebdo Murders werent by Islamic Terrorists. That would break the PC Code. No, he wastes word after dull word trying, poorly i will add, to convince the reader that these acts were the actions of simple crazed murderers and had nothing to do with the cartoons. Unfortunately that flies in the face of the terrorists own comments and actions. Fact is that this was exactly what Klein says it wasnt. It was simply an Islamic Terrorist Attack as we have seen before and will see again in the future. The simple truth is what is missing in the media today. We have the talking points PC crowd that have to waste time trying to redefine words and telling us what we saw isnt what we saw. I for one am just tired of the whole PC crapola thing. Call it what it was: an Islamic Terrorist Attack. Are we going to keep calling Islamic Terrorist Attacks "workplace violence" because we are just too PC puss-i-fied to call it what in reality it is?

[WarTim 3,456]

Nailed it. PC insanity. Thanks for stating the clear Truth.

[homersapien 11,362]

Yes, Charlie Hebdo was a magazine that delighted in controversy and provocation. Yes, it skewered religion and took joy in giving offense. Yes, the magazine knowingly antagonized extremists — Charlie Hebdo's web site had been hacked and its offices firebombed before today; French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius had asked of its cartoons, "Is it really sensible or intelligent to pour oil on the fire?" And yes, Charlie Hebdo's editor said in 2012, prophetically, that "I prefer to die than live like a rat."

But this isn't about Charlie Hebdo's cartoons, any more than a rape is about what the victim is wearing, or a murder is about where the victim was walking.

What happened on Wednesday, according to current reports, is that two men went on a killing spree. Their killing spree, like most killing sprees, will have some thin rationale. Even the worst villains believe themselves to be heroes. But in truth, it was unprovoked slaughter. The fault lies with no one but them and their accomplices. Their crime isn't explained by cartoons or religion. Plenty of people read Charlie Hebdo's cartoons and managed to avoid responding with mass murder. Plenty of people follow all sorts of religions and somehow get through the day without racking up a body count. The answers to what happened today won't be found in Charlie Hebdo's pages. They can only be found in the murderers' sick minds.

Here we go: "This mass murder killing spree BY ISLAMIC TERRORISTS doesnt fit my narrative, so we must not ever call it what it was, a terrorist attack." Now Ezra, ever the PC wonk, cannot just say the simple truth here. He has to take 1000 words to try and make the very weak case that the Charlie Hebdo Murders werent by Islamic Terrorists. That would break the PC Code. No, he wastes word after dull word trying, poorly i will add, to convince the reader that these acts were the actions of simple crazed murderers and had nothing to do with the cartoons. Unfortunately that flies in the face of the terrorists own comments and actions. Fact is that this was exactly what Klein says it wasnt. It was simply an Islamic Terrorist Attack as we have seen before and will see again in the future. The simple truth is what is missing in the media today. We have the talking points PC crowd that have to waste time trying to redefine words and telling us what we saw isnt what we saw. I for one am just tired of the whole PC crapola thing. Call it what it was: an Islamic Terrorist Attack. Are we going to keep calling Islamic Terrorist Attacks "workplace violence" because we are just too PC puss-i-fied to call it what in reality it is?

Well, that's a another description of how you understood it, but I still think you are totally missing his point. Those quotes above are your quotes, not the author's. I didn't ask for a more elaborate explanation of your interpretation, I asked what exactly about the article you take issue with.

Granted, his points are subtle, perhaps too subtle for those who are far more comfortable keeping things as simple as possible. Unfortunately, reality is often complex and subtle. I think you are extrapolating his words to fit your paradigm which is too simple to reflect the nuances of motivation that he is addressing.

Perhaps if you picked out a few statements in the article that actually demonstrate your interpretation it would help. For example, I didn't see anything in the article that implies this wasn't a terrorist attack or terrorism.

Was the act not a killing spree? Did it not have a thin rationale? Were the killers not extremists?

The fact he didn't call them "Islamic terrorists" has no significance at all IMO. You seem to be attaching some sort of special significance to that. That's unfortunate, because the problem is not Islam. The problem is with the crazy extremists who use Islam as their "thin excuse". To disagree with that is to miss the problem altogether, and that's more likely to exacerbate things than to address iit.

[AURaptor 1,122]

The author is simply telling everyone to ignore that the murdering monsters were Islamic. Even though they said they were Islamic. Even though they were connected to and likely funded by a militant Islamic group. And they told women to convert to Islam... Yet to the author, they weren't Islamic. Just kooky mad in the head.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

[WarTim 3,456]

"The ONLY way to defeat an enemy is to kill there people until they surrender or are all dead". Care to guess the person who made that statement?

[AURaptor 1,122]

"The ONLY way to defeat an enemy is to kill there people until they surrender or are all dead". Care to guess the person who made that statement?

Probably not Jesus... umm, Patton ?

[homersapien 11,362]

The author is simply telling everyone to ignore that the murdering monsters were Islamic. Even though they said they were Islamic. Even though they were connected to and likely funded by a militant Islamic group. And they told women to convert to Islam... Yet to the author, they weren't Islamic. Just kooky mad in the head.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

How about illustrating the the part where he said that?

[japantiger 4,051]

Yes, Charlie Hebdo was a magazine that delighted in controversy and provocation. Yes, it skewered religion and took joy in giving offense. Yes, the magazine knowingly antagonized extremists — Charlie Hebdo's web site had been hacked and its offices firebombed before today; French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius had asked of its cartoons, "Is it really sensible or intelligent to pour oil on the fire?" And yes, Charlie Hebdo's editor said in 2012, prophetically, that "I prefer to die than live like a rat."

But this isn't about Charlie Hebdo's cartoons, any more than a rape is about what the victim is wearing, or a murder is about where the victim was walking.

What happened on Wednesday, according to current reports, is that two men went on a killing spree. Their killing spree, like most killing sprees, will have some thin rationale. Even the worst villains believe themselves to be heroes. But in truth, it was unprovoked slaughter. The fault lies with no one but them and their accomplices. Their crime isn't explained by cartoons or religion. Plenty of people read Charlie Hebdo's cartoons and managed to avoid responding with mass murder. Plenty of people follow all sorts of religions and somehow get through the day without racking up a body count. The answers to what happened today won't be found in Charlie Hebdo's pages. They can only be found in the murderers' sick minds.

Here we go: "This mass murder killing spree BY ISLAMIC TERRORISTS doesnt fit my narrative, so we must not ever call it what it was, a terrorist attack." Now Ezra, ever the PC wonk, cannot just say the simple truth here. He has to take 1000 words to try and make the very weak case that the Charlie Hebdo Murders werent by Islamic Terrorists. That would break the PC Code. No, he wastes word after dull word trying, poorly i will add, to convince the reader that these acts were the actions of simple crazed murderers and had nothing to do with the cartoons. Unfortunately that flies in the face of the terrorists own comments and actions. Fact is that this was exactly what Klein says it wasnt. It was simply an Islamic Terrorist Attack as we have seen before and will see again in the future. The simple truth is what is missing in the media today. We have the talking points PC crowd that have to waste time trying to redefine words and telling us what we saw isnt what we saw. I for one am just tired of the whole PC crapola thing. Call it what it was: an Islamic Terrorist Attack. Are we going to keep calling Islamic Terrorist Attacks "workplace violence" because we are just too PC puss-i-fied to call it what in reality it is?

Well, that's a another description of how you understood it, but I still think you are totally missing his point. Those quotes above are your quotes, not the author's. I didn't ask for a more elaborate explanation of your interpretation, I asked what exactly about the article you take issue with.

Granted, his points are subtle, perhaps too subtle for those who are far more comfortable keeping things as simple as possible. Unfortunately, reality is often complex and subtle. I think you are extrapolating his words to fit your paradigm which is too simple to reflect the nuances of motivation that he is addressing.

Perhaps if you picked out a few statements in the article that actually demonstrate your interpretation it would help. For example, I didn't see anything in the article that implies this wasn't a terrorist attack or terrorism.

Was the act not a killing spree? Did it not have a thin rationale? Were the killers not extremists?

The fact he didn't call them "Islamic terrorists" has no significance at all IMO. You seem to be attaching some sort of special significance to that. That's unfortunate, because the problem is not Islam. The problem is with the crazy extremists who use Islam as their "thin excuse". To disagree with that is to miss the problem altogether, and that's more likely to exacerbate things than to address iit.

I'm pretty sure Peter Kassig, Steven Sotloff, Franck Brinsolaro, etc., would disagree...but hey, they can't, their dead. Poor Homey is color blind; he can't see black and white; he only sees grey. Life for him must be very hard since everything is so complex and nuanced. And, lets dare not call the problem what it is...since that will "exacerbate" it...and we all know that not calling the problem what is is will cause everyone to live in harmony (well, except those dead folks I listed above; and the other 12 just killed in Paris...and well, yes, the Yazidi Christians too...oh, and well maybe the 3k from the World Trade center...but hey, those of us left could live in harmony, right?).

What we need is clear minded leadership like this:

"We are in need of a revolution...in Islam to reform interpretations of the faith entrenched for hundreds of years, which have made the Muslim world a source of destruction and pitted it against the rest of the world. ... I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move...because this umma is being torn, is being destroyed, is being lost; is is being lost by your own hands"

"That thinking, that corpus of texts and ideas we have sacralized over the centuries, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible; is antagonizing the entire world"

Jan 1, 2015 -- Abdel-fatah el-Sissi, President of Egypt addressing clerics on Muhammad's birthday.

Why is it that a Muslim leader can address the real issue; in a straight forward way; face to face with leading clerics; and Western leaders; and many of you here, can't bring yourself to address the real problem out of fear of "exacerbating" the problem? el-Sissi hits at the essence of the real issue, un-apologetically, Islam is being destroyed by Islam's own words and interpretations.

[homersapien 11,362]

Yes, Charlie Hebdo was a magazine that delighted in controversy and provocation. Yes, it skewered religion and took joy in giving offense. Yes, the magazine knowingly antagonized extremists — Charlie Hebdo's web site had been hacked and its offices firebombed before today; French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius had asked of its cartoons, "Is it really sensible or intelligent to pour oil on the fire?" And yes, Charlie Hebdo's editor said in 2012, prophetically, that "I prefer to die than live like a rat."

But this isn't about Charlie Hebdo's cartoons, any more than a rape is about what the victim is wearing, or a murder is about where the victim was walking.

What happened on Wednesday, according to current reports, is that two men went on a killing spree. Their killing spree, like most killing sprees, will have some thin rationale. Even the worst villains believe themselves to be heroes. But in truth, it was unprovoked slaughter. The fault lies with no one but them and their accomplices. Their crime isn't explained by cartoons or religion. Plenty of people read Charlie Hebdo's cartoons and managed to avoid responding with mass murder. Plenty of people follow all sorts of religions and somehow get through the day without racking up a body count. The answers to what happened today won't be found in Charlie Hebdo's pages. They can only be found in the murderers' sick minds.

Here we go: "This mass murder killing spree BY ISLAMIC TERRORISTS doesnt fit my narrative, so we must not ever call it what it was, a terrorist attack." Now Ezra, ever the PC wonk, cannot just say the simple truth here. He has to take 1000 words to try and make the very weak case that the Charlie Hebdo Murders werent by Islamic Terrorists. That would break the PC Code. No, he wastes word after dull word trying, poorly i will add, to convince the reader that these acts were the actions of simple crazed murderers and had nothing to do with the cartoons. Unfortunately that flies in the face of the terrorists own comments and actions. Fact is that this was exactly what Klein says it wasnt. It was simply an Islamic Terrorist Attack as we have seen before and will see again in the future. The simple truth is what is missing in the media today. We have the talking points PC crowd that have to waste time trying to redefine words and telling us what we saw isnt what we saw. I for one am just tired of the whole PC crapola thing. Call it what it was: an Islamic Terrorist Attack. Are we going to keep calling Islamic Terrorist Attacks "workplace violence" because we are just too PC puss-i-fied to call it what in reality it is?

Well, that's a another description of how you understood it, but I still think you are totally missing his point. Those quotes above are your quotes, not the author's. I didn't ask for a more elaborate explanation of your interpretation, I asked what exactly about the article you take issue with.

Granted, his points are subtle, perhaps too subtle for those who are far more comfortable keeping things as simple as possible. Unfortunately, reality is often complex and subtle. I think you are extrapolating his words to fit your paradigm which is too simple to reflect the nuances of motivation that he is addressing.

Perhaps if you picked out a few statements in the article that actually demonstrate your interpretation it would help. For example, I didn't see anything in the article that implies this wasn't a terrorist attack or terrorism.

Was the act not a killing spree? Did it not have a thin rationale? Were the killers not extremists?

The fact he didn't call them "Islamic terrorists" has no significance at all IMO. You seem to be attaching some sort of special significance to that. That's unfortunate, because the problem is not Islam. The problem is with the crazy extremists who use Islam as their "thin excuse". To disagree with that is to miss the problem altogether, and that's more likely to exacerbate things than to address iit.

I'm pretty sure Peter Kassig, Steven Sotloff, Franck Brinsolaro, etc., would disagree...but hey, they can't, their dead. Poor Homey is color blind; he can't see black and white; he only sees grey. Life for him must be very hard since everything is so complex and nuanced. And, lets dare not call the problem what it is...since that will "exacerbate" it...and we all know that not calling the problem what is is will cause everyone to live in harmony (well, except those dead folks I listed above; and the other 12 just killed in Paris...and well, yes, the Yazidi Christians too...oh, and well maybe the 3k from the World Trade center...but hey, those of us left could live in harmony, right?).

What we need is clear minded leadership like this:

"We are in need of a revolution...in Islam to reform interpretations of the faith entrenched for hundreds of years, which have made the Muslim world a source of destruction and pitted it against the rest of the world. ... I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move...because this umma is being torn, is being destroyed, is being lost; is is being lost by your own hands"

"That thinking, that corpus of texts and ideas we have sacralized over the centuries, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible; is antagonizing the entire world"

Jan 1, 2015 -- Abdel-fatah el-Sissi, President of Egypt addressing clerics on Muhammad's birthday.

Why is it that a Muslim leader can address the real issue; in a straight forward way; face to face with leading clerics; and Western leaders; and many of you here, can't bring yourself to address the real problem out of fear of "exacerbating" the problem? el-Sissi hits at the essence of the real issue, un-apologetically, Islam is being destroyed by Islam's own words and interpretations.

You misunderstood my point. Turning this problem into a simple religious war - which many on this forum seem to want - would clearly exacerbate the problem.

And I agree with what the President of Egypt said.

Sorry for the confusion.

(And yes, most things are a lot more complicated that people would like to believe.)