I think Mark Ruffalo is a great actor. I thought he was one of the best things about the first Avengers movie—his diffident charm as the beleaguered Dr. Banner, punctuated by moments of whip-smart intellect, as well as his geeky bromance with Robert Downey's Tony Stark, made "The Avengers" more than watchable.
But as with so many Hollywood acolytes, Ruffalo doesn't know what he's talking about when staring terrorism in the face. He recently tweeted this:
Don't allow this horrific act allow you to be drawn [sic] into the loss of your humanity or tolerance. That is the intended outcome.
David Burge, a.k.a. the snide conservative Iowahawk, replied:
Oh really? I could've sworn the intended outcome was hundreds of dead people. My mistake.
My own take is somewhat different: it's about Ruffalo's logic—to the extent that any logic is in evidence. Is Ruffalo really saying that the terrorists' intention is to erode tolerance...so that the French will eventually lose it and drive all Muslims out en masse? I seriously doubt it. No: terrorism is about terror, and terror is about domination and control. The terrorists don't want to be driven out: they and their cause are here to stay. What they want is a France on its knees, Mr. Ruffalo. Remember that.