If the US wasn't so steeped in immature, hypocritical puritanism, the fact that two adults did sexy things in the WH would be a "thing" only between Bill, his wife and the intern (except if she was coerced/sexually assaulted, a different thing entirely). Instead, Bill felt he had to lie, and that's what most sensible people hold against him.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that those who "only" think being gay is wrong ("love the sinner hate the sin" Bible BS) are not part of the problem? Because you couldn't be more wrong. The long-lasting poison of being made to feel like who you are is "wrong" by your family, friends, society, etc. is often much more devastating than the full-blown hatred that bubbles up and takes its force from that "moderate" majority.

Good point, and I love your freudian typo, "legal and legal immigrants" (if you have a link to the doc...). The problem of homeless immigrants here is a complicated one: there are shelters for asylum-seekers but they a) are not numerous enough to keep up with the growing influx, b) try to prioritize women/children, c) have trouble with interethnic squabbles (which can grow to full-fledged knife-fights, thank FSM we don't have guns in easy circulation), d) have to deal with the profiteers/criminals giving them a bad rep.
In addition to this, those who have been denied permission to stay are less likely to show up at state-run shelters where they are liable to be found out and escorted out (of the country). Finally, criminal tourism* in Europe (especially the richer countries, like CH) is a real problem, one the US does not experience.

*a huge topic of its own, but some examples in CH are French car-thieves, Romanian mafia-organised begging/breaking-and-entering (often using children so as not to get penalised), North African drug-dealing (the hard stuff), etc. None of these make it easier for the population to be more accepting of the vast majority of non-criminal foreigners from these parts, because it is as usual the criminals who are the most visible.

Damn, that's not cool. And you were making such a positive "life goes on" point too!

@Fletch I made a most evil-sounding laugh because of you.

Oh dear, you have been possessed by the Photoshop demon. You are going straight to hell, you harlot!

I was extremely confused for the first minute, even Wiki'd Tig Notaro, until I realised I had heard "vasectomy" and not "mastectomy".

@Jerykk said "gross generalisations based on no evidence and a complete lack of understanding of how society currently works (or, in this case, does not work)."

The mentally ill: I live in Switzerland and, while our politics are far from perfect, you will not see mentally ill homeless people because they are cared for and given work by social institutions. If the mentally ill are homeless, it is society's fault.

The uneducated: almost unequivocally poor as well; it is the responsibility of any self-respecting, "civilised" society to make sure their entire population gets proper education. This doesn't mean everyone should have a PhD; learning a trade is also an education (& no useful job a human can do should be denigrated).
The way you say it, it's as if you're blaming uneducatedness on the uneducated, but would you know anything about how our societies work, you'd know that is completely illogical.

The irresponsible: considering what you follow up with, you basically mean here "the poor/uneducated", and you regurgitate the Fox News cliché of the dumb and reckless poor person wasting money and making all the wrong decisions. Yes, people with limited-to-no education (see above) will be easier to dupe into debt, bad credit/mortgages, etc, and they will also be less likely to know of (or accept the use of, you asshole Christianity) contraceptives, nor be able to afford abortions should they need one.

Second chances and recidivism: there's an interesting quote from an article on recidivism (taken from the Wiki): "Former criminals rose to become some of America's greatest leaders in law, industry, and politics. This possibility seems to be narrowing as criminal records become electronically stored and accessible."
The fact that, the more you treat a person who has committed a crime as a criminal, during and after hir internment, the more that person will have hir choices narrowed to exactly that. Especially when, on leaving detention during which nothing was learned (countries with the lowest recidivism have their inmates work and learn trades), society still brands them as criminal and refuses to let them survive in a legal fashion. Not to mention the ridiculously out-of-proportion rates of incarceration in the US, and for a number of non-crimes as well; what a great way to harden and anti-socialise your youths.

Are there lazy moochers and irreconcilable criminals out there? Definitely, but they are not the norm.

@draak13 A person can become homeless for a number of reasons, not all of which include "being unable to manage themselves". You may fall ill/have an accident that costs you your job (or ruins you with healthcare bills *hint hint US*), and if you are living on the ropes (or in debt) you can easily end up on the street. A spouse who was depending on the revenue of hir partner may be suddenly thrown out, perhaps with the added bonus of infant mouths to feed. A bunch of greedy assholes may rig a complex banking/housing system in such a way that when it crashes, they got shitloads of cash while you and hundreds of others get kicked out of your homes. The list goes on.

@SDGundamX

I cannot agree with that definition. The problem I have with the concept of "Islamophobia" is as I've stated above: it conflates the individuals and the ideology, thus causing those who use the term to be guilty of the error they are often accusing their opponents of. And that conflation lets it be used - by Islamists as well as by self-righteous (or ill-placed-guilt-ridden) lefties - to silence criticism of Islam. This term has been particularly abused in this manner in Europe, where the ghost of the Holocaust weighs a lot heavier on politicians and the media than it does in the US.

"Muslimphobia" may not roll of the tongue quite as nicely, but it would at least be a more honest and acceptable term to denote the irrational fear/hatred of Muslim people. Mostly, what people refer to as "Islamophobia" is a combination of religious discrimination, xenophobia and racism, and we should not be afraid to use those meaningful terms in our criticism of such discriminatory behaviour. It may even help to break it down in that way, instead of trying to wrap it up in a simplistic and ambivalent term.

There is another big problem with "Islamophobia" which I have already discussed here: http://videosift.com/talk/Dare-we-criticize-Islam, (the difference to be made between what one is and what one believes).

As for Harris' unfortunate and highly irrational/illogical defense of racial profiling, the Cephalopod Prof says it better than I can (as he often does).

edit: ach, how can I be such a cad and forget to thank you for the kudos? I still have much to learn, but thank you for taking note of my reduced antagonisation, knee-jerk reactions and general verbal belligerance.

Who knew Draco Malfoy was in a 90's boysband? (@1:27)

edit: 1999 was such a great year for cinema.

Please, for your sake and the sake of others, go get therapy. Preferably with voluntary internment, until you sort out your aggressivity and thinly veiled homophobia (or FashionPolicitis, whichever).

I find it saddening that "college" (in the US sense) so often connotes stupidity (and a sport culture that fosters sexual abusers) instead of what it's supposed to be about: learning/becoming more educated.

*Quality *History rhymes! Now to watch it again.

And thank you for not holding my own mean sarcasms against me.

Love the contrast between the rugged sport-gloves and those fabulous tights.


Oh, and that bridge passage definitely earns this a *FTW (although I really wish he did have some chalk.)