If the media used such terms it would encourage widespread racism and vigilante-ism against a whole group of people that don't deserve it, or have anything to do with it.
By not using Islam or Muslim in their descriptions of these attacks, the media is practicing a good deal of social-responsibility, because hindsight teaches us what happens when you place entire groups of people under the umbrella defined by a few.

We should just use "angry person" as a synonym for "terrorist", and understand that Western culture is an offense to the rest of the world, and needs to change. If you don't think your culture needs to change, look at your politics, look at your economy, look at your communities, and consider that all this violence might actually be in response to the same things you're mad at yourself.

Thanks

You're certainly not alone there

My old avatar might have made it more obvious - http://goo.gl/1EqwgC - this one is a mash-up of @Lann's umbrella, @eric3579's burning man, and the lizard

The other thing that my username has reminded people of is otter pops.

Who is this "we" of whom you speak?

Because I have proudly called myself a feminist since at least 1976, if not before.

I started calling myself a Humanist also maybe in 1990? Somewhere around there? I am not giving up the term Feminist though. No matter who tries to co-opt it or suppress my use of it.

Or even "oppress" my use of it, if I might go that far. Why do I have to fight you to use a simple word to describe myself?

The scolding continues, by the way. Telling me that I am wrong to use a term I have proudly used for over 40 years. Because you and some of your friends don't like it and don't want to use it, for your own valid reasons.

Please stop telling Feminists that the word was never "descriptive of their goals" when in fact it is very descriptive.

Equality for women. Period.

I'm not telling you to stop labeling yourself only a Humanist. I was clear that I understood your point when I said that Humanist is an umbrella word that covers Feminist.

Is this going to be one of these long back-and-forths, where you try to talk me out of something? I really don't want to go there. It's exhausting.

Maybe the real question you might consider asking yourself is -- why is it so important to you that I hew to your definitions? Is it just an intellectual exercise, the fun of the argument? Well, it isn't fun to me. It feels lecturing and minimizing of my personal experience and knowledge and life lessons I have learned.

I know you don't intend that. However, I am telling you straight out, clearly, that is how it feels to me and I don't like it. I've been on the receiving end for FORTY FUCKING YEARS why it is inappropriate for some reason or other to call myself a feminist. The reasons change, but the goal always seems to be same: To stop me and others from overtly saying that we care about women and their place in society.

It's not going to happen. After 40 years, it just isn't going to happen.

I'm a feminist. I care about women and their place in society.

To quote Rashida, it is important to become more sensitive before being less sensitive.

I agree that being a Humanist is more inclusive. However, that umbrella word covers the valid word "feminist."

Trying to erase the word "feminist," scolding women and men for labeling themselves feminist, ignoring their particular need for that label as equality is struggled for is anti-Humanist, @newtboy.

Just sayin'.

And I'm the first person to speak up for how hard it is to be a man. Men are HORRIBLE to each other, for starters. In fact, I said it just last night, more than once, during a convo on the patriarchy after watching the 2007 movie made in Turkey called Bliss." There was some serious oppression of women in that movie -- very hard to watch. And it is important that the pressures that men are under are seen as just that -- human struggles and repressed pain that is masked by some really shitty outward behavior.

No need to tear down anyone else who is trying to improve their life and society in general. It is called being a Humanist.

Somewhat disappointed that he didn't include my personal favorite argument against Pascal's Wager: conflicting faiths.

Instead of a 4-cell chart (2x2 from believe/don't believe and god exists/doesn't), the chart should arguably be a LOT bigger. Plenty of individual branches of Christianity will tell you that *their* specific brand is the only one that will get you into heaven. And that's just relatively minor distinctions -- different sorts of Protestants, or Protestants vs Catholics, etc. We haven't even got to Christianity vs Judaism vs Islam -- all of which fall under the "Abrahamic" umbrella -- but very few Christian faiths think that Jews or Muslims are just as eligible to enter heaven as they are (or vice-versa). From there you can get to things as disparate as Hindu vs Ancient Egyptian vs Zoroastrianism, and everything else.

With that sort of chart, it is just as easy to say that choosing to believe in the *wrong* god could possibly be associated with a more negative outcome than washing your hands of it and going Atheist. Maybe I chose to believe in Ra the Sun God when Zeus ends up being the one true deity. Come to find that Zeus, as it turns out, tolerates people who don't believe in him as long as they don't believe in one of his competitors (like Ra). Therefore I get a lightning bolt to the keyster and a trip to Hades while my nonbeliever buddy gets a ticket to Elysium.

Of course it's all a load of bollocks, but if your argument is a load of bollocks (like Pascal's wager) you don't get to complain when somebody flips it on its head and uses it to argue the exact opposite...

People talk about how much dollar value media exposure he got for free, but I think it's more the lack of criticism by networks afraid of losing access to him. That and being afraid of alienating the viewers who support him.

Instead you get the usual news equivocation of opposing views as equally valid and the treating of his policy ideas as serious proposals no matter how loony.

Similar to the Daily Show under Stewart, polit-satire shows like Colbert are able to get away with more direct criticism because it's under the umbrella of 'it's comedy, so everything is fair game' so I wouldn't equate him with more general TV news coverage.

Plenty of written coverage has been very good (Economist, Vox, hell even Fox had some good criticism):

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/05/03/any-republican-who-thinks-its-better-to-elect-trump-than-hillary-needs-their-head-examined.html

But obviously that has a much narrower reach or effect on publicity.

not really-life = sentient life is the only assertion which i clarified and this assumption was stated from the beginning so was implied. the suggestion that this changes everything is a classic straw man fallacy.

the imperatives which i am espousing on are merely non-violence and a rejection of oppression, exploitation and using others as property and economic commodities which almost every human believes when it concerns humans and perhaps a few other species. it is only the others whom should be considered under the umbrella of moral concern which is the key point of the issue for most people.

as far as the population, the main reason WHY the human population IS such an issue is due to the consumption of animal products. along with the obvious moral and ethical issues of murdering other sentient beings, the production of animal based foods requires many times the resources to produce an equivalent calorie compared to plant based food which drives things like climate change, resource depletion, water scarcity, biodiversity, species extinction and other aspects of environmental devastation.

when a video such as this one comes up which highlights people being kind to an animal, it is disturbing that people are so disconnected that they do not make the connection between the animals in the video whom they feel good about being rescued and the countless others which are being tortured and murdered for their dinner plate. this is exactly what the short article i posed above articulates so well.

“Ask ten people on the street if they think it’s wrong to injure or kill animals for one’s amusement or pleasure, and nine or ten will say yes, of course. Chances are all ten of those people freely consume animal products, simply because they like to and they’re used to doing it." - Karen Manfrede

Oh, you mean the small area between Poland and Lithuania? The one that Russia is pouring troops and weapons, -- including missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads, into at such a rate that the region is now one of Europe's most militarized places?

Moscow is stationing "thousands of troops, including mechanized and naval infantry brigades, military aircraft, modern long-range air defense units and hundreds of armored vehicles in the territory."

I mean, it's only scaring the piss out of two of our friendly countries in the region. Well, more if you consider that Russia's military buildup in the region allows them direct coverage of Sweden, Germany, and other nations that really don't trust the former USSR.

So, to use your example, I would absolutely expect Russia to get antsy and not sit by idly if we suddenly moved a LARGE portion of our active military forces to the Florida Keys. All of this is more posturing and sword rattling by Putin, a direct throwback to the USSR leaders of old. If he thought he could get away with it without open warfare, he would be rolling tanks into all the old USSR satellite states.

It isn't just this incident alone, either, as Russia has been steadily stepping up calculated shows of force and close encounters with our forces well away from anything close to their territory. Primarily, if you ask me, because the world outcry over the Ukraine situation stifled their little miniature coup attempt from taking over the entire country.

***Edit***

I just wanted to add, I don't want to go to war with Russia. I agree that many of the things that we are doing, such as considering adding former Soviet states to NATO, are antagonizing them. But I feel that in some cases our hands are tied by the fact that Putin, directly or indirectly, is making a lot of those former states think that he is planning on re-absorbing them under the umbrella of a new USSR. If he would keep his nose out of their internal affairs, I am pretty sure we wouldn't be building up in response.

I felt the same way at first, but he's kinda growing on me. (quick google search says his name is Michael Aranda)

Scishow being under the same umbrella as the Vlogbrothers, one inevitably ends up comparing him to John and Hank Green. And, well, he doesn't.

BUT, as awesome as those guys are, it took some time for them to develop their "instant gravitas" ability, and they only have so much time to devote to Vlogbrothers and associated stuff. So, I'm kinda willing to give this guy the benefit of the doubt and think he can develop into another very good presenter.

Maybe.

I didn't see any gorillafish, but I did notice a flounder with an umbrella.

Mugger: "Give me all your valuables."
Umbrella Man: "Hiiiya! Cha! Woohaa!"
Mugger: "Dude... there's a psych ward just up the road, here, let me take you."

There's no power or technique in those kicks, they'd do close to nothing.

The umbrellas would do less damage than a stick off the ground due to the padded like outer form.

The first person he hits with an umbrella linking to another umbrella, he'll lose the furthest one.

I've seen people who were able to wield items as 'unorthodox weapons'.. this is not one of those times.

どういたしまして (dou itashimashite, means "you're welcome").

Usually when you feed Japanese into Google translate, what you get back tends to be gibberish... and I don't speak Japanese... but the general gist of it is that this is from a 30 year old salaryman, demonstrating umbrella twin hook and kicking skills while wearing a suit.

Your video, Dog Riding Scooter Has A Job To Do, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.