Tag Archives: rant

I Just Don’t Get It

When I meet people, and start to develop a liking for them, I tell them straight off, “I’m an asshole. Sooner, or later, everyone says so.” They inevitably say, “No you’re not. You’re just to hard on yourself. I’d never call you an asshole.” So far, I’ve been right. Every. Single. Time. And then, they act surprised, and hurt when they call me an asshole.

My inner reaction is, “Motherfucker, I told you!”

They all promise to never call me an asshole, and they all break said promise. No, I don’t hold them to it. But, I am honest about what I am. I have met about 10,000 people in my life. I’ve liked maybe a thousand, and warned about 200.

I know the flaw is with me. Being an asshole, I mean. I am abrasive, frequently condescending, and sarcasm is my first language. I am intolerant of willful stupidity, and will quickly lose my veneer of civility, and start mocking mercilessly when confronted with it. I am also intolerant of religion while being well versed in it, and its history. It is barbaric, and I think it is cruelty to teach it to children. Especially little girls. Why?

Because quite simply, it teaches them they are property, objects of little worth, and are meant to be subservient to males. I don’t like that. I fight against it as much as I can, where I can.

Why do I bring this up? Well, it’s because of a rather contentious conversation I had with someone very important to me who said that I seem so angry any more, like I have a chip on my shoulder. To her, I say, “No, Angel. This has always been me. You just haven’t seen it too often because I try to stay away from stuff like it, and my veneer of civility is quite a bit thicker. When i swim for too long in the muck of willful stupidity, it washes away a bit.”

I try to be nice, but it doesn’t always work, or last. I’m not really a nice guy. I am, however, an asshole. Am I proud of it? Well… that depends on my mood, and who I’m talking to.

What The Fuck Is Wrong With Americans?

Straight off the jump: I am American, born & raised in Baltimore, Maryland. That’s irrelevant to my rant, but just in case some genius takes offense to my title, and gets his panties in a twist, it’s there. I can, and intend to rant about my fellow citizens.

Ray Rice. Number 27. Running Back. Ranked as the Ravens’ second all-time leading rusher behind Jamal Lewis (7,801) with 5,940 yards, and also second in attempts (1,273). He is ranked second all-time for rushing touchdowns (37) and third for combined touchdowns (43) in Ravens history. Woman beater. Suspended for the first two games of the 2014 season. Convicted of 3rd degree assault. Possible jail term of 3-5 years, and a fine of up to $15,000.

Public outcry, and backlash? Nil.

Michael Vick. Number 7. Quarter Back. In 2006, Vick became the first quarterback to ever rush for over 1,000 yards in a single season.[25] He also set a record by rushing for 8.4 yards per carry. Vick and teammate running back Warrick Dunn became the first quarterback-running back duo to each surpass 1,000 rushing yards in a single season. Dog fighting ring operator. Sentenced to serve 23 months in federal prison, transported to Virginia in November 2008 to face state charges. Received a 3-year prison sentence suspended on condition of good behavior, and a $2,500 fine.

Public outcry and backlash? Protests outside of the courthouse, and his home. Nationwide rants about how he was a horrible person, and should be buried under the jail. Loss of endorsement deals. Threats against his life. Just to name a few.

So, the media, the courts and the rest of the nation thinks that dogs are more important than women. Let that sink in, and percolate for a moment.

But, is that really a surprise? Look at the recent Supreme Court Hobby Lobby ruling. A business was deemed more important than women. Hell, a scary thing about that? There were some women cheering that ruling, too. Seriously.

I really don’t get this. I’m going to wax poetic a bit here: As a straight male, I love women. They are wonderfully fascinating. They are endlessly inventive, intelligent as hell. They are wise, kind, loving, warm and caring. They are also strong as hell. And, then there’s the other appealing aspects of them: They’re beautiful with soft skin, curvy bodies, and delightful… well, never mind. I’m a huge fan of women, is what I’m getting at.

I honestly am confused by how our nation insists on marginalizing, and oppressing them. I get that they do, I see it everywhere. But, I want to know why? Why insist that half of our species is unimportant, and lower than animals?! Why say to them (and brainwash some of them into saying), “Bronze Age superstition is more important than you?”

Does anyone even know? If not, why do it? Oh, and before commenters jump in with other countries, or “not all of us,” let me put it like this: Where is your protest about how lightly Ray Rice got off? Where is your on-air rant about Hobby Lobby? Where’s your service in a domestic violence shelter? Or anything of that nature?

Grrr, Grr, and Grrr, again.

I recently finished reading a romance novel. No, I’m not ashamed to admit it. I read pretty much everything. No, I’m not giving you the title, nor am I linking to it. I only do that with stuff I like, and this was not one of them. Holy crap this book was poorly written. Not just with clunky sentence structure, and flat characters, but it was like the author had a checklist of romance novel tropes and ticked off each one. See what I did there? I didn’t even mention whether the author is male or female. Yes, males write romance novels, too. I’m trying my hand at one.

“But, Rob, didn’t you write a post about arrogant writers a couple of days ago? Aren’t you being a hypocrite?”

Yes, I did write said post, and no, I’m not being a hypocrite. Here’s why: This post isn’t really about that book, it’s actually about a particular trope within it. One with ties to the real world. Big ones. I’ll explain. About the mid-point of the story is the obligatory break up scene. I’ll give the author credit: They didn’t go with the fight and break up, nor the misunderstanding and break up. No, it can about a week later. I guess you could call it the fallout break up. Or the post-fight break up. Okay, so maybe it was the fighting break up. Back to the point I was trying to make.

The female lead is having a conversation with the male where she says she just wants to be friends (ouch). Then, she goes on to tell him how wonderful, and amazing this guy is (also “ouch”). At this time, I rage quit reading; I tossed the book across the room, and punched a wall. Why? Because that is the most aggravating, and bullshit thing ever for me*. Every time I read it, or worse, hear it, I want to scream: “If he (or I) is so fucking great, why don’t you want to be with him* (or me)?!”

Don’t get me wrong, I have no issue with being “friendzoned”. I have a few female friends that I see as folks who are fun to hang out with. What I do take issue with is the inherent lie in the “you’re a wonderful guy*” speech. Evidently, there is something you find wrong with wanting to be with him* (or me). For Feck’s Sakes, be honest with him* (or me). Tell me where the guy* screwed up. Help him* out so he* doesn’t keep messing up relationships, and going years between them. Especially, if during the “You’re a wonderful guy*” speech, you tell him* you want him* to be happy. If any of that is really true, you’d want him* to improve his* chances, right?

*Note: This rant is from a heterosexual point of view because that’s what I am. I’m not edging anyone out intentionally. The same things are for any and all relationships. If you’re gonna break up with someone, maybe be honest with them? Also, that book makes me want to stay away from them for a while.

With Google Glass, everyone can be Little Brother

Reblogged from: Access Now.

It’s not just a style thing: you may have good reason to avoid the geek at the bar or in the park wearing Google’s latest invention, the wearable interface known as Glass. One feature of the interface is the life-logging feature ‘Life Bits,’ intended to help the Glass user log the ephemera of everyday life. Despite its innocuous intent, the design has unintended consequences: Life Bits logs everyone who comes into direct contact with the Glass wearer, transforming them into a mobile recording device.

Google is positioning Glass as a revolution in the way we live, work, and interact with people, online and offline–essentially by projecting your smartphone into your eyeball.

It’s a cool concept, but at what cost? Life-logging devices like the Nike FuelBand FitBit [correction: FitBit is made by a company by the same name] have increasing numbers of fans, but Glass is among the first to capture personally identifiable information in rich media about others. This brings up a number of privacy concerns: How does consent work in these situations? Who owns the data that is collected on these devices? How and where is that data stored, and who will have access to it?

In our daily lives, we’re already under fairly pervasive surveillance: CCTVs in public places are increasingly inescapable, and online your actions are tracked by everyone from governments to marketers. But with tools like Glass, everyday citizens are poised to become Little Brothers without even realizing it.

Perfect digital memory – A good idea?

Committing each and every detail of your life to eternal digital memory is not a new, or even uniquely ‘Googley’ idea. As collecting and storing data becomes infinitely cheap and easy, many are keen to adopt such technologies that remember everything — automatically.

Microsoft has been working on something similar to Glass for several years now, known as MyLifeBits. Born out of a 2001 initiative that explored the possibility of storing all personal information that could be found in PCs, MyLifeBits evolved to try and store everything that could be captured using real-time data collection and advanced “SenseCams”: phone calls, conversations, keystrokes and mouse clicks, pictures and meetings.

And although MyLifeBits grew out of research, the “Memoto” is a pure consumer tool: a camera worn around the neck that takes a picture every 30 seconds. The Swedish startup is based on the premise that the important moments in life aren’t “only the stuff you thought you would want to remember.” The device is small and unobtrusive, and doesn’t come with a delete function, increasing the chances the camera will remain undetected, while committing the user to recording absolutely everything.

Glass: Taking surveillance to another level?

Devices like the Memoto or tools like MyLifeBits might not bother you from a privacy perspective–after all, we’re pretty much always under some type of surveillance every day. Whether at the bank, on the street, in buildings, in the metro, security cameras are littered across our urban areas. We don’t actively consent to those cameras, so what’s the difference?

Unlike cameras operated in public, laws regulating the surveillance of one individual over another are patchy, confused and most likely not well known to average citizens. And unlike Google’s usual privacy dilemmas, this isn’t about what actions the company takes, but about how its users behave.

Contrary to Google’s other products, using Glass means you become the collector of data – scanning and recording information in the real world and uploading it into the Google servers. When Glass becomes part of inevitable partnerships with other services (Facebook’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg has already noted his interest) and the eventual introduction of tools like facial recognition technology, and we’re talking about turning citizens into Little Googles, collecting and storing information wherever they go.

Even before they are widely available to the public, the backlash against Glass has begun. A cafe owner in Seattle has pre-emptively banned them from his establishment, worrying that privacy-loving clients might be driven away. And while coffee isn’t the end of the world, there are plenty of more serious scenarios where indiscriminate logging could create discomfort: what about on playgrounds, schools, parks or other places where small children can be found?

What do we do about life-logging?

Despite the real concerns, it’s inevitable that life-logging technologies will only become more prevalent–and in the very near future. In fact, the Chinese search engine Baidu has already confirmed plans to launch its version of Glass, called Baidu Eye.

So what can citizens do? Ignore the people with the funny looking glasses? That’s not likely to be a real solution, as these technologies will only get smaller and more discreet – after partnering with a trendy glass maker like Warby Parker, isn’t it only a matter of time before a contact company like Bausch + Lomb?

Because of these very real privacy concerns, it will be essential for Google to indicate exactly how life-logging information is collected and where and how it will be stored. It’s no secret that governments around the world are keen to get their hands on the troves of data that consumer tech companies collect–transparency reports from companies like Twitter, Google, and Microsoft show increasing volumes of government requests for user data. It’s not hard to imagine how much more valuable unedited footage would be than metadata to certain interested parties. Or worse: a combination of the two.

There are also pending questions about ownership of the collected data. Does the data belong to the recorder, the person recorded, or the service provider? If I’m passively surveilled in my favourite restaurant, will I have the option to search through Google’s database and delete what has been recorded by the Glass wearer?

These questions must be worked out in some way as these lifelogging technologies become more widespread as these increasingly discrete devices make informed consent harder than ever. Life-logging technologies illustrate the critical importance of having strong privacy standards in place that provide citizens with greater control over their data, as well as ensuring that companies that collect and process our information do so transparently, responsibly and in accordance with data protection laws in the various jurisdictions it operates.

In Europe, a standard setting body on the protection of privacy and data protection, there is such a proposal — to find out more and to get involved, go to privacycampaign.eu.

-by Raegan MacDonald

Yesterday’s Post

This is something I wrote on the 27th. It was how I felt then. With the exception of feeling like I’m not going to continue (which *has* dropped to 70-30 against), I don’t feel the same as I did then. I still hate what I did, but I’m not actively beating myself up over it. She forgave me (mind-boggling, I know, but that’s how she rolls).
As for not continuing, I’ve stopped because my drive to write is gone. With the exception of these two posts, and a writing excercise, I’ve not written in about 3 weeks. I have no desire to, and I can’t “see” anything. I visualize something, and write what I “see”. No visuals, no writing. And you know what? I’m okay with that.
So, relax: I’m not beating myself up, and I’m not punishing myself. The urge is gone. Let’s move on?

One more thing: I find it disturbing that everything I’ve heard about that event has largely been about my writing. That’s disappointing.

The End?

Right now, I’d say the odds are 75-25 that this will be my last blog post. Blogging has been a lot of fun, especially meeting the fine folks that I have through here, but sometimes, you have to wake up and realize it’s time to put away your toys.
Writing has been fun, and a decent outlet for me. Yet, on occasion, reality will haul off and slap you a good one. My face is still stinging this morning. Let me tell you, it shakes you to the core to realize that you are no better than someone from your past. In this case, it was my ex, Christine. She used to kick my ass fairly regularly. Does this mean I hit someone with my hands? God no! If I did something like that, I wouldn’t be writing this now.
No, I did something much worse: I used my words to hurt. It really fucks with my confidence and faith in myself to know I had it in me to do this. What makes it so much more disgusting? I promised this person I would never do it to them because they are getting it from another. What kind of person would do that? The worst kind. Some would say it’s okay because I was upset. I call bullshit on that. That makes it even worse. I feel absolutely like shit that I did this, yet part of me hopes I’m never forgiven by this person. I don’t think I will ever forgive myself.
Am I asking for sympathy? Hell no. forgiveness? No. Not that either. Then why am I writing this, you ask? Simple. As a warning that I’m not a good person despite what may be thought. Good people don’t violate someone’s trust. Good people don’t hurt others with their words.

What was said, you wonder? Without going into specifics, I said to this person they were acting like their abuser in not letting me choose for myself what I was going to do. Real nice, huh?

Mental Illness (Otherwise Known As BS)

Modern natural science relies on laws uninfluenced by human desire or motivation. We use the same physical laws to explain why planes fly & crash, the same chemical laws to explain the therapeutic & toxic effects of drugs, and the same biological laws to explain how healthy cells maintain the integrity of the organism & how the cells can become cancerous and kill the host. We don’t have one set of medical theories to explain normal bodily functions and another to explain abnormal ones.

Except where that relates to psychiatry, that is. We have one set of principles to explain the functioning of a mentally healthy person and another to explain that of the unhealthy, or Mentally ill person. We attribute acceptable “rational” behaviors to reasons, but unacceptable “irrational” ones to causes. The mentally healthy person is viewed as an active agent; he chooses such as to marry his childhood sweetheart. In contrast, the “mentally ill” person is viewed as a passive body: As a patient, he is the victim of injurious biological, chemical, or physical processes acting upon his body, eg., diseases (of his brain), for example, of an “irresistable” urge to kill.

According to psychiatric theory, certain actions by certain people ought to be attributed to causes rather than reasons. When and why do we seek a causal explanation for personal conduct? When we consider an actor’s behavior unreasonable and don’t want to blame him for it. We look for excuses masquerading as explanation instead of simply an explanation that neither exonerated or incriminates.

Holding a person responsible for his act is not the same as blaming or praising him for it – it only means that we regard him as an actor, or moral agent.

The “mental patient” who attributes his misdeeds to “voices” – that is to an agent, other than himself, whose authority is irresistable – is not the victim of an irresistable impulse; he is an agent, a victimizer rationalizing his action by attributing it to an irresistable authority.

It is not by accident that, in all the of psychiatric literature, the is not a single account of a schizophrenic to be especially kind to his wife.

– adapted From Mental Illness: Psychiatry’s Phologiston by Thomas Szasz

A Couple Things That Puzzle Me

The last few weeks, several of my interactions online have boggled my mind. It’s not stupidity (I’ll get to that shortly), it’s the reactions of a few folks to things I’ve said, or done. I’ve chatted on facebook with a couple of female friends and they’ve told me about some of their issues and how they feel. That’s not what confuses me. The part that boggles my mind, is when I tell them how much they mean to me, or compliment them, they act as if I’m the greatest person ever. These are amazing women. Surely I can’t be the only one that sees, and appreciates, this?

Another thing that has me confused: Not too long ago, I talked about how awesome I found a pair of books (1 & 2) by R.S.Guthrie and I also reblogged a post from a funny lady, Sweet Mother. Both of these wonderful people seemed to think I was pretty cool for doing this. The part I don’t understand is, is it simple appreciation, of were my actions that rare? Eh, it’s got to be simple appreciation.

Okay, now for the part you’ve been waiting for: The stupidity I have encountered. Not too long ago, at the place where I do most of my writing (Peace & A Cup Of Joe, if you’re in Baltimore, come check it out. It’s awesome), a group of people came in to hold a meeting. They’re trying to get the U.S. to become a Socialist state. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your outlook), I sat and listened. I don’t remember what their name is, or what their website is, or I’d link to it. (I seem to be link happy today)
So, the stupidity, for me, came in with a few of the things they were spouting. For example: Did you know that in Cuba, they have a vaccine for brain cancer? They can’t distribute it to the world because the United States and our Allies have an embargo on that country. Never mind the fact that Elian Gonzalez came here from Cuba back in the 90s and hundreds of others have, too. Let’s also ignore the fact that that would be worth Trillions of dollars and couldn’t be held back for anything. Let’s focus on what was said with a perfectly straight face: “They. Have. A Cure. For. Brain Cancer. In. Cuba.WHAT?! Let’s break down why this is impossible, shall we?
1) Brain cancer is not caused by viruses. It’s a result of cells mutating uncontrollably.
2) There are about 120 kinds of brain cancer.
3) It’s Cuba. Despite what the pro Cuba people want the world to believe, it’s not a good country. If it were, there would be more people sneaking in not out. They don’t even recognize the Scientific Method. Da fuq?! How can you say Cuba is a world leader in Science without recognizing the most important factor of science?

Another thing these fools spouted got me steaming:
When they come into power (their words), they will take all the money from banks and corporations and give it to everybody, starting with the homeless. What the fuck?! That’s money you and I worked our asses off for! No one is entitled to it but those that worked for it. Listen: I’ve not yet made more than $11,000 a year. You rob Bill Gates to give me some of his money, I’m gonna kick you in the groin and give it back. I don’t do handouts. I’m sure there are other who feel the same as me, but unfortunately, there are too many who will gladly sit on their butts and take. My question is this: Without banks and corporations, there are no jobs. With no jobs there is no money. What are you going to do when no one has anything? Beg for help from others?

And… I’m done for now. Do you agree with me? Disagree? Talk to me!

Islamaphobia (warning: Not safe for work)

It seems to me that every fucking time I turn around, some bleeding-heart Liberal dickcheese is screaming about “Islamophobia.” You know the types. The same types of people who call you a woman-hating sexist if you suggest that maybe an 8-month pregnant woman shouldn’t be loading concrete blocks for a living, or that you’re devaluing a woman and treating her like a sex object if you ask her to have coffee with you. Yeah, these no-brain dipshits.

So today I’d like to take some time to address this “issue” of Islamophobia. There seems to be a lot of confusion out there and it’s caused mainly by the very types of assholes who coined this stupid phrase in the first place. As always, I’m here to clear up your confusion.

First, let’s get back to the basics of how it all started. After the 9/11 attacks, there was a growing anti-Islam sentiment here in America, as well as a general distrust and dislike of anyone middle eastern. The “let’s love and hug everybody” Liberals were quick to point out that most Muslims were peaceful people and it’s racist to consider all middle easterners to be terrorists. And they were right about that, for the most part.

But those are two separate issues being discussed. One was the issue of hating a religious group, the other was an issue of hating an ethnic group. As different facets of an issue, those are legitimate topics. The problem has come when the two have been mixed. Fast-forward to 12 years after the attacks and what we now have is a “conform to our love-all bullshit” mindset where if you have a problem with something objectionable in the religion of Islam, you are now labeled an Islamophobe, which also incorporates the element of racism along with the idea that you hate the entire religion.

It’s sad that I need to actually say this, but here it is anyway: Islam is not a race. Hating it – even openly and unapologetically despising it – has nothing to do with any feelings one may have toward middle eastern people. This is one of those situations where the Left has tried so hard to be non-racist that they’ve actually done something racist. I’d like to ask all who hold this view: Where do you get off, implying that only middle eastern people are Muslim? I mean, if someone is truly phobic of Islam (which is a religion, not an ethnicity), then isn’t that a dislike of IDEAS and CONCEPTS? Ideas and concepts that are held by people of many different ethnicities all across the world, in fact! The idea that hating a religion that is stereotypically middle eastern is an idea that is, itself, racist as fuck! Perpetuating this idea is perpetuating the stereotype, assholes! Let me give a more clear-cut example of the kind of things that’s going on here.

Person A: Man, I hate fried chicken and watermelons!
Person B: WTF? You racist!
Person A: How the fuck is hating food racist?!
Person B: You clearly hate black people!
Person A: Wha…. how? *facepalm*

In the above example, Person A stated that he hated two food items which, in combination, are stereotypically associated with black Americans. Person B, being a sappy ass hippy Leftard, only heard the stereotype and his brain immediately locked on to that stereotype and nothing else, sacrificing the actual meaning of the statement itself. In his fervor to defend against racism, Person B became the racist that he thought he was castigating! Maybe Person A just doesn’t like the taste of fried chicken and watermelons. Maybe Person A wasn’t even thinking of the racist stereotype when he said that. But Person B was thinking of nothing BUT the racist aspect. Ladies and gentlemen, if you dig for racism around every corner, you are sure to find it, whether it really exists or not. And that, IS, racism!

By the same token, if someone states that they hate Sharia Law (for example) and you call them an Islamophobe (implying racism along with it), YOU become the racist! What has Sharia Law got to do with any ethnic group? No more than fried chicken and watermelons. In other words, no more than the connections that your secretly-racist little mind chooses to make! And it’s even more fundamental than that! The very act of using the term “Islamophobia” to imply racism IS RACIST in and of itself! When you do it, you’re associating Islam with middle eastern people in exactly the same way that Person B associated fried chicken and watermelons with black people! THAT’S A STEREOTYPE, FUCKNUT! And it’s racist! Yes, lots of Muslims are middle eastern. That’s true. But also, lots of black people actually do like fried chicken and watermelons. That’s also true. But is it fair to point out that truth to the exclusion of all others who enjoy fried chicken and watermelon; people of every ethnicity? Isn’t it racist to do so? So why then is it not racist to point out that there are middle eastern Muslims to the exclusion of all the many millions of Muslims who are not part of that ethnic group? The answer is simple: It IS racist to pretend that any anger, hate, or mistrust directed at Islam equates to anger, hate, or mistrust directed at people of middle eastern descent. YOU are the racist.

Phew…. Well, now that we’ve managed to get through discussing what Islamophobia ISN’T, maybe we can actually start talking about what it IS instead. Is that ok with you tree-huggers?

What is a phobia? According to dictionary.com:

“a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it.”

So, if we alter the definition to fit Islamophobia specifically, we get:

“a persistent, irrational fear of Islam that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it.”

The trouble with that definition, you see, is the word “irrational.” There’s absolutely nothing irrational about fearing people who have openly stated their goal of gutting the Infidels (that’s us). Those Islamists SHOULD be feared and, in that fear, disliked as well!

“But Galen, not ALL Muslim people are that way, in fact most of them are peaceful and wonderful people!”

Yes, I know. Unlike most of the people who spout this by rote, I’ve actually been friends with foreign Muslims while living overseas. I can indeed attest that every Muslim I’ve ever personally known has been very kind and wonderful. I’d also say that most Catholics are nice people who aren’t running around fucking little boys in the ass, but that doesn’t fucking excuse the ones who HAVE! You see, fucking idiots, when a group of people have become defined by the evil minority in their midst, it is now put upon them to either drive out the evil themselves or suffer the guilt-by-association for their failure to do so! If the Catholic Church had actually taken care of the pedophile priests, there wouldn’t have been a problem, but the leadership of the church and those within the church who had power made a choice to bury the problem instead. The majority of Catholics don’t approve of boy fucking, but what has that majority DONE about it? Not a goddamn thing, that’s what! Likewise, I would ask what have the majority of peaceful Muslims done to tell their leaders that endorsing a terrorist Jihad is unacceptable? About the same as the Christians who support gay marriage have done to let their leadership know to shut the fuck up and stop being hate-mongers. Not a damn thing! And so, in the public eye, all Catholics are seen to support pedophilia (even though most of them clearly don’t), all right-wing American Christians are seen to be homophobes (even though a great many of them are not) and all Muslims are seen to be terrorists are at least supportive of the terrorists (even though millions of them are not).

I’m not supporting unfair stereotypes. Not at all. But there’s the old saying, “If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.” It’s not right and it’s not fair, but it IS the reality. Guilt by association is a powerful motivator and it’s not entirely unjustified.

Be that as it may, that’s not even really the point I was going for. The point is that if I say “I fucking hate Muslims, blowing our shit up all the time!” then it’s pretty damn obvious that I’m not talking about the peaceful nice fluffy cuddly Muslims. Isn’t that obvious to you? Or are you just so fucking eager for a fight that you choose to ignore it?

Another salient point here is that the kinder gentler Muslims are not following their own religion, so it’s difficult to think of them as actually being Muslims. You see, Islamic doctrine DOES command that all Infidels be put to death! Muhammad DID command that all the faithful of Islam should “terrorize” the unbelievers and murder them! See, when I say “I fucking hate Christians with their anti-gay bullshit!” I’m talking about the Christians who actually FOLLOW their Bible, which does indeed say that homosexuals should be put to death. By hating gays and denying them their rights, they are following their religion as much as modern law allows. The difference, for Muslims, is that the ones carrying out acts of terrorism don’t have laws stopping them from doing so. They have governments that support them and help them. And were are these Muslims and their supporting legal systems located?

Yes, now we get right back to it, don’t we? The middle east. When someone is “Islamophobic” it’s pretty obvious that they’re usually not hating the cuddly sweet Muslims. They’re hating the terrorist Muslims. And the terrorist Muslims, for the most part, are middle eastern. So if I say something Islamophobic, your reaction of taking it as racism tells me two things. Firstly, that you know it’s middle eastern Muslims I dislike. Secondly, you know this because you know they’re the ones guilty of all the fucktarded behavior like killing innocent people for not following their religion. So, your shouts of “Islamophobia!” not only show you to be a racist, but they also show to believe that middle eastern Muslims are guilty of terrible evil. I’ve just shown that, in your zeal to combat racism, you’re part of the problem.

But you’re a moron. It really doesn’t have anything to do with race. It has to do with culture, certainly. The fact that the terrorist culture is also of a specific race is an indictment of THEIR racist ways, not ours. I mean, the Third Reich was all one race too, but nobody called the Allied Forces bigoted for going after them! Why not? Because it’s not about who or what they are, it’s about what they’ve done and, in the case of Islam, what it’s still trying to do!

Islamophobia: “a persistent, justified fear and dislike of Islam that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it.”

I don’t support racism for any reason, but I do support Islamophobia. They are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. Fucking say it with me: Islamophobia and racism are NOT THE SAME THING! I despise Islam as I despise all religions. It’s not that the people, as individuals, are bad. It’s that the IDEAS themselves are horrendous! The hatred and fear of Islam is a hatred and fear of IDEAS, not of people or ethnicity. And given the prevalence of immoral, irrational, unspeakable, unforgivable, evil ideas perpetuated by the Quran, this hatred and fear is JUSTIFIED!

I’d also like to point out that I’m Christianphobic for these same reasons. I’m also Scientologyphobic. The only “phobia” that matters here is the fear, distrust, dislike, and outright hatred of unconscionable ideas and pathetic “morals” that cannot stand unchallenged by a rational thinking society!

I’ve always said that the only bigotry I suffer from is a bigotry against the stupid. That remains true. If a middle eastern Muslim emails me tomorrow to say “Galen, I don’t hold those beliefs of killing Infidels and terrorizing other nations” then I will say “Good!” and that person is clearly smart enough to take their religion and throw out the shit they don’t like, which (on a subconscious level at least) is an acknowledgement that it’s all man-made bullshit anyway. Unlike many Atheists, I don’t begrudge someone their religious faith. Religious faith, all by itself, isn’t stupid, it’s just ignorant. Being ignorant is not a crime. But there is no level of ignorance that can possibly excuse the belief that your god wants you to end the lives of other human beings. That’s not ignorance, THAT is stupidity and THAT is what I HATE with every cell in my body!

You don’t get to claim “it’s their religious beliefs!” No. Not a chance, asshat! There’s a difference between a Christian who believes in God because they were raised in that culture and just don’t have the knowledge and understanding to see how it’s wrong compared to a Christian who thinks God’s messages of hate and death in the Bible are just fucking dandy to follow. We have an evolved tendency to assign agency to natural events (that is, to think there is a purposeful intent behind shit that happens), but we also have an evolved tendency to refrain from harming other human beings unless provoked. Both of these aspects of our nature can be overcome, but only one should be! When the former tendency (agent-seeking) becomes a pathway to overcoming the latter tendency (murder aversion), you’re doing it wrong!

And that’s the problem (the ONLY problem) with the Muslim religion. When practiced as its founders intended it to be practiced and as its holy book instructs, it takes ignorance and transforms it into willful stupidity – dangerous willful stupidity!

I do hate that.

I do FEAR that.

Anyone with a critically-thinking intellect will feel the same.

From: snipeme.com