Now, I don't know why I have so much trouble explaining this but I still really want you to understand that I'm not excusing this mom's actions.

The only thing I'm saying by suggesting her reaction is normal is this:

If I was skating through a public park, not watching where I was going, and I ran directly into someone's kid with a fucking weapon made of wood and steel, knocking them to the ground (except of course for their gravity-defying head), the first thing I would expect is for that parent to come at me.

I would be apologetic, just like the guy in the video because I would know it was ENTIRELY my fault. What I wouldn't do is try to explain to them that I actually bear only seventy-percent of the responsibility and that they shouldn't let their kid stray out of arm's reach in a park.

Sure, I would defend myself because I wouldn't expect that they were just going to immediately forgive me and think only about their shortcomings as a parent. I would defend myself because I still have the right to be safe in a public place, regardless of my actions.

What would I not do though? I wouldn't hit them with a fucking skateboard. Especially not the one I just hurt their child with. I wouldn't do that because I would know the only excuse I had was the petulant, middle-school refrain of "she hit me first!" I wouldn't do that because it would escalate the situation even more and I don't like to use violence to solve my problems. I'm perfectly capable of defending myself without hitting someone's irrational mother.

And then there's the question of pressing charges. Which for some reason to me is just laughable.

Was the lady wrong? Yeah, absolutely. Was she crazy? Maybe temporarily, it might have had something to do with someone running into her kid. I know a lot of people might not have acted the way she did (I would certainly have been more concerned about my own kid than the skater) but I know a lot of people might have FELT the way she did.

I just still don't think her actions were so far from what a person could expect after being a dumbass and skating directly into a little kid.

Maybe I don't get it because I'm an overprotective, irrational parent. Judging by how many times you referred to the child in the video as "it" however, maybe I just shouldn't expect you to understand my side either.

So, what's his motivation? Is he on the take from the military-/intelligence-industrial complex? Is he genuinely worried about the boogeyman to a point of irrational fear? Is he using security as a means to accumulate more personal power?

Whatever his reasons may be, it worries me to see folks just like him in ever increasing numbers occupying positions of power all over the place, all singing the same tune: the implicit right of security trumps all other constitutional rights, so shut the fuck up and obey.

Nothing wrong with irrational fears right? I am afraid to fly so I ride the train when I can, nothing wrong with owning a gun if your afraid of maniacs busting down the door! But it isn't as bad as the comedian is making out, he's just doing his job of being silly. To that end, I haven't owned a gun, but my roomies had...it's just not that big of a deal here in the states.

Kind of reminds me of how I thought of drinking when I was a young, conservative christian boy. Beer and drinking had this mystique in my mind. Being constantly exposed to it, now it is no big deal. Same with guns, guns are just a thing like other things. Unless you were talking about the situation being ridiculous, then I would have to agree. But when I am alone, I do worry a bit more about home invasion and lock up tight. I haven't had the idea to buy a gun, but mostly because I don't trust myself with one.

Hatred sort of implies that it's irrational. There are many things that America has done that deserves the reasoned hatred of many.

I'm just posting to see what other people think, but:
Does something about Democracy Now rub anyone else the wrong way? They report on everything that's generally in my realm of caring, they interview people that, while I can't verify who they say they are, seem to touch on the meaningful subjects from a level of authority, but every Democracy Now clip I've ever seen on the sift just... I don't know if I've upvoted a single one, but I can't explain why at all. It's just this feeling I get from their videos, and I was curious if anyone else had that impression.
I know it's irrational, but that's why I'm trying to find out the cause.

Hillarious, computers have no morals and can't preform rational thought, and they act just like zealots. The writer finds honor and rational in refusing to perform their simple duties and interfering with proper actions of others. Somehow that makes them SMART? Only the unthinking or completely irrational could make that leap.

Or maybe just, men and women are irrational about different things?

What I don't understand, @newtboy, is why otherwise rational, logical, and intelligent atheists even bother trying to talk a religious person out of their views?

To me, that is irrational, illogical, and quite frankly unintelligent.

Who was it above who said you aren't going to argue strangers' out of their beliefs? Right on. So why do otherwise intelligent atheists come back to the well, over and over and over again?

Shiny ain't in this alone. It takes two to tango.

And. Y'all can do what you like. It's just pixels.

501(c)(4) is a status that non-profit social welfare organizations can apply for that exempts them from paying taxes, allows them to lobby without restriction, and allows them to take anonymous contributions. Raising money for political campaigns is not allowed for non-profits that work as 501(c)(4)s .

There was concern that some of these groups with blatantly political names were funneling illegal corporate cash to politicians, hence the IRS investigations out of Cincinnati. The GOP claimed that only conservative groups were targeted, which ended up being false. Liberal groups were targeted as well.

This story is a strategically smart move for the right wing media to play, because they can simultaneously smear the Obama campaign (which had absolutely nothing to do with this), intimidate the IRS from investigating illegal corporate campaign contributions in future elections, keep their base in a state of irrational fear and distract the public from the House quietly voting to take away overtime pay today.They even managed to get Jon Stewart to unwittingly help them out as a bonus.

I love Jon Stewart, but he got played here.

TL:DR: This story is manufactured bullshit, just like Benghazi and the AP email story.

^ All well and good, but it's important not to define and judge people by our momentary interactions with them. I don't think he's saying "THE RAT RACE IS AMAZING AND YOU SHOULD ALWAYS ABIDE BY IT" but rather, when you're in a shitty moment, don't go with your default irrational bitch and moan.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Now you can define yourself and redefine yourself to better eliminate the negative qualities of the status quo, but the fact is, you're going to (metaphorically or not) stand in a line and it's up to you to define that experience.

I'm judged by my extreme nature every day. I sometimes get in peoples faces and challenge them with momentary awareness that they are an interactive object in my environment. It freaks em out, sometimes it makes em smile. Either case, I'm a weird fuckin' dude. The train of perception goes both ways.

Wildflower, don't judge the potted roses just because they judge you. Just challenge them. Add an interactive element. Peaceful, please. hahahahaha

@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.

@hpqp

I'm at work, so I can't write a very long reply and besides which many others (especially @aaronfr) have already expressed ideas similar to what I would have said, so I'm not sure it's even necessary. I will say that I think you've done a great job of responding to comments made in this thread and that the tone of your posts has improved dramatically (I see you've even gone back and toned down a post using the edit function) from when we used to spar on the forums. I know that was something you said you'd be working on, so kudos for that.

Just one thing I would like to point out: Islamophobia can be demonstrably shown to exist. You can see ample evidence of it in the NYPD's illegal surveillance of the entire Muslim community in the NY/NJ metropolitan area and the hysteric outcry that accompanies the building of new mosques in many U.S. states. I understand why you yourself would not want to be labeled an Islamophobe as you've taken great pains to explain your problem is with the religious texts and teachings and not people who happen to be Muslim. But certainly, I think you've recognized that, for example, Sam Harris advocating racial profiling is irrational and not a logical extension of his arguments against Islam's teachings.

Can we not agree then that Islamophobia--defined as an irrational fear of or hatred of Muslims simply because they subscribe to Islam--does in fact exist? I think it's difficult to maintain the position that it doesn't exist in the face of the discrimination many Muslims face in some Western countries.

Ask and you shall receive!

You said: "They have no intention of integrating into the society or the laws/practices of the host country."

That right there, sir, is what we call an opinion--by definition not a fact. You have condemned the entire Muslim population of Britain as not wanting to integrate based on the fact that Sharia courts exist. And that, good sir, is what we call "irrational." As in, it doesn't at all reasonably follow from the previously stated fact. Perhaps indeed the entire Muslim community doesn't intend to integrate into British society (doubtful), but the fact you cited doesn't support that claim in any way.

Next, you state: "A birth rate outstripping that of the indigenous populace of countries they have "settled" by so much, that it is estimated the whole of Europe will be muslim in 50-75 years."

Sorry, good sir, that's not a fact--it's a thoroughly well-debunked lie. See: http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2011/01/27/will-pew-muslim-birth-rate-study-finally-silence-the-eurabia-claim/

You go on to say: "As for "moderate" muslims; when was the last time they marched en-masse to denounce the barbaric practices carried out in their name?"

Muslims regularly protest the atrocities that are carried out in Islam's name--it just doesn't ever make the evening news (after all, they're supposed to be the bad guys!). This website will give you more than ample examples of Muslims protesting the atrocities committed in the name of Islam.

http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

So, is Islam to be feared? Perhaps. Not for any of the reasons you stated, though. And I hope you don't feel like I'm picking on you--again, I agree with the video that you're entitled to your opinion. I would just hope you base your opinion on fact and reason and not hearsay and emotion.

So we can't criticise Islam unless we live under a theocratic regime that doesn't allow us to criticise Islam?

Let me very clear. I believe that the vast majority of muslims (any figure would be a guess, but I'll go with at least 90%) are decent people who, deep down, are probably kinda embarrassed at some of the bullshit inherent in their religion (much as the majority of catholics are truly disgusted at their churchs handling of child rape cases).

But that does not stop me from criticising the ideology within the religion. This is not some hypothetical internet argument; the WHO estimates that 140 million girls have their genitals mutilated annually, most in the name of Islam. (I'm not even going to start on the socially accepted genital mutilation of males).

Finally, I take issue with the term "islamophobia", not because it's an *irrational* fear, but because it's a *fear*. I am not afraid of Islam. I object to parts of it on moral grounds.

So yeah, call me an "internet atheist" if you want. Unless you have some evidence to back up your specious little rant, I'm not interested.

It is intellectual laziness to simply dismiss a premise as "irrational" without backing up objections to it with facts (the religious, do it all the time). Please, go through the points in my original comment and explain one, or any, that could be construed as irrational. I can assure you, you will find not a single one that is not backed up by facts.