A Few Guidelines for the Inevitable Back and Forth

Before I get going I would first like to send my condolences to the families of those who were killed in the recent coordinated attack on Paris. To those who may have lost some faith in humanity that evening, medical professionals reported to hospitals voluntarily to assist in aiding the wounded. The numbers currently show that over 100 people were killed in this attack, (over 350 wounded) and the President of France has called this an “act of war” by the Islamic State. Despite the idea that Western countries don’t want to recognize ISIS as an entity, it may have no choice but to do so. The Islamic State has taken responsibility for the attacks as well.

In light of this tragic event, a very scripted argument has been taking place involving Muslims and immigration since President Hollande closed the borders of France. I would just like to interject some simple rules into this argument and perhaps sway people to be more reasonable in regards to this subject. Here are a few guidelines that, in my view, will allow people to have this argument more efficiently and honestly:

  1. When someone says, “The attackers were Muslims,” they are not claiming that all Muslims do this, or spreading hate about Muslims in general. They are simply stating a fact.
  2. When someone says, “Not all Muslims are terrorists, or support terrorism,” they are not claiming that no Muslims are terrorists.
  3. When someone says, “Just because they said ‘Allahu Akbar’ before shooting/detonating doesn’t mean they are Muslims,” they are being deliberately moronic to avoid the obvious.
  4. Being a Muslim is not the same as being of Middle-Eastern descent. Stop making stupid comparisons between races and religions.
  5. You are not the sole decider of what constitutes a Muslim. Someone who follows the Quran and Hadiths to the letter will perform these heinous actions. You cannot disassociate ISIS from Islam. Without Islam, no ISIS would exist. It is the same with Christianity. Without Christianity, no Westboro Baptist Church would exist. Although, this may not be an apt comparison because one obviously causes more mayhem than the other. Peaceful Muslims are not following the text to the letter. They are inserting their own (better) morality and removing the bits that they find immoral or unfavorable. Either that or they rationalize them away. Christianity has gone through this evolution, Islam has yet to do so.
  6. It is not hatred to point out that the vast majority of religiously motivated terrorist acts are committed by Muslims.
  7. Anyone who says “Islamophobia” should be slapped.
  8. You are not immediately a racist for supporting stricter immigration policies.
  9. Muslims who are denouncing the attacks are not necessarily lying about it.
  10. Don’t be like #Mizzou or #BlackOnCampus and complain that the media is ignoring you in favor of these Paris attacks. You are a disgusting human being if you do so. There are actual victims in the case of Paris. Plus, when you set up a “no media safe space,” don’t whine when the media takes the hint.

Hopefully these simple guidelines will allow people to be constructive when discussing these types of things with one another. Islam needs to be able to take mockery and criticism without it being labeled hate. If that can’t be done then we will get nowhere very quickly.

Liberte Egalite Fraternite

Cowardice and The Elusive “Why”

There is a practice I’ve noticed people who disagree with me doing. It is a very strange activity when one is trying to refute an argument, but the general paraphrased contention is this:

“You’re too cowardly to show your face.”

I find this behavior interesting especially when it is busted out in the middle of an exchange of ideas. Of course, anyone who has seen my videos know that quite a few of them have my face contained within. Why would I keep such a striking visage away from everyone? What interests me the most about this behavior is pondering what these people would do if they actually saw my face. In my experience, they do absolutely nothing and quit responding to me. Perhaps they either couldn’t find anything wrong with my face, or (more likely) they had no idea where to go from there. These people are clearly not very rational, so this response is most likely some sort of intimidation tactic. As if the only reason my face isn’t shown in a particular video that means I am either hideous, a coward, or someone who won’t own what they say in some fashion. It is clearly an attack on someone’s character as opposed to their arguments, and I won’t insult my readership and claim they didn’t know this already.

It just goes to show how cowardly the people who actually make that objection are. It’s as if those who raise this point are looking in the mirror and seeing everyone except for themselves. They are scared bullies when presented with information or an argument that will refute their current comfortable ideology. Since their ideology has been threatened they will attempt to tack on to the laziest thing they possibly can. Usually if your face is shown they will attack your appearance. Maybe you have a big nose, messy hair, gross teeth, or a massive under-bite. However, if your face isn’t shown (and they can’t take the seven seconds to look at your other videos with your face in it) they will attack you for being a “coward” for not showing your face. Once you show your face they have something else they can attack. In my experience, no one has actually responded back after I show them my face. Perhaps they are just lazy, or have other shunning they have to get to. However, I imagine the next follow-up would be comments about your appearance as opposed to the substance of what you actually said. The goal is not to actually have the argument. The goal is to divert as much as they possibly can in order to prevent actually detailing why you are wrong.

That is the main ingredient that is missing when feminists decide to launch a “negative comment” campaign against one of your videos.


Yes, yes I laughed too. The incredible might of the feminist equality police really let me have it.


I did receive a few comments of the “omg ur so stoopid,” variety. I merely asked them to elaborate on why I was stupid. I received accusations ranging from being insecure, to being a misogynist, to being a racist, to being a poor video editor, to supporting systemic discrimination, and the ever wonderful “idiot.” Absolutely no substance encased in anything that was said in those accusations among two people. That’s right, two people. They were desperately attempting to shoot into the dark and find something they could use to justify their negative comment, and nothing reasonable could be found. There was absolutely nothing they could cite to prove any of those character flaws in me exist. I think all of us know why the negative comments were left don’t we?

He’s not a feminist, therefore he’s wrong, insecure, a sexist, a coward, a racist, and a [insert whatever I make up next]

It’s a good thing they are feminists then. It’s not like feminists ever have any of those traits, right?

That’s not everyone else in the mirror.