Who would win in one foot of water?
My frustration is that they don't turn this into a push to write your representative. The few million raised by this campaign are absolutely trounced by seemingly insignificant percentage cuts to the NIH budget. We're talking billions of dollars. Relying on the goodness of people's hearts and distributed contributions will not get it done. Awareness is amazing, but people should be aware of the actual numbers, and how much further just a little action from congress could go. While not all the money will go to ALS necessarily, I promise you it will all go to worthy research. Make your ice bucket challenges a challenge to write congress pleading more funding to be directed towards medical research.
My understanding is that motorcyclists are taught to drive aggressively because it is thought to be safer. That is, on your bike you are safer passing than being passed. I'm not sure I buy the logic though, and these idiots have got to go.
I'm thinking maybe that tickets for moving violations on motorcycles should be stricter. If you're determined to consistently drive well above the speed of traffic, weaving around cars, you probably shouldn't have a motorcycle license. Though they're certainly a minority amongst motorcycle riders generally, I still regularly see quite a few people (typically younger dudebros) driving in a way that makes a gruesome accident a statistical inevitability regardless of their skill level (that they likely overestimate, to make things worse).
You dismissed as offensive humor targeting the vast majority of relatively inconspicuous gay men. You also suggested that we were "supposed to" interpret the character as straight... As though a normal gay man ought be surprising. For the record being transgendered in the workplace is a completely different thing. Expressing your gender identity is normal. Expressing your sexuality is inappropriate for the most part.
And how exactly does it dismiss it? I no where said that gay men must be flamboyant. I said that suggesting that gay men must look and act straight or face the consequences is deeply problematic. I have no problem with gay men who feel they only differ from straight men with respect to who they like to date. I do have a problem with someone suggesting that ALL gay men need to look and act that way. To me that seems like trying to manage difference so it's palatable to mainstream norms. Full disclosure: I'm a transsexual, and unless you were extremely lucky or started transitioning before the onset of puberty, that means spending part of your transition, or in the worst case the rest of your life, looking visibly "not normal" to everyone else. I was not flamboyant, I was polite, unassuming, and did my best to fit in, but for a few years my mere existence was, to many people, as obnoxious and offensive as the flamboyant man in this video. Does that mean I deserved the hate and discrimination I got? I sure hope not. The fact that this video seems to say don't look different or you'll get what's coming to you, hits a nerve for me because for several years I COULDN'T look "normal" however much I wanted to. I'm just thankful I'm past that phase and people now see me as I see myself, treat me how I want to be treated, and I can live a "normal" life, because if this video is anything to go by then that's the hurdle you have to clear before you've earned the right not to be hated or discriminated against.
@scottishmartialarts The trouble I have with your interpretation is that it dismisses the perspective of the gay guy that does just want to be seen as normal. Many gay people feel pressure to conform to an overtly sexual culture born out of a necessity for expression in the face of persecution. The fact is that they'd rather call out overt sexuality as tacky just like any other classy individual. It's your right. You just look dumb... like the tart in the tube top, or the bro waving his dick around. Get it together.
This doesn't really make any sense. You are proposing a ban on coverage of elections?
The only way to have a level playing field is to eliminate all private money from elections. disband all parties, People have the constitutional right to peaceably assemble and throw their weight behind a candidate, but that doesn't mean government has to acknowledge it or give them legitimacy. A candidate should stand or fall on their ideas, not whether or not they have an R or D behind their name and not how many billionaires they've cozied up to. Give every candidate a publicly funded wikipedia-like website that only the candidate's staff can edit where they can put their stances on ideas and their platform Hell, give them a basic camera so they can upload videos to the website if they want, but no professional production studios
One question in Citizens United v. FEC was "what constitutes a campaign contribution?" Michael Moore had just made an anti Bush film, and decided to personally pay to run ads for his film just before an election. The ruling was basically that Michael Moore had just made a campaign contribution. That is, if David Koch's PAC had made a documentary about Obama's birth certificate and ran a bunch of ads for just before the election, that's effectively giving a campaign contribution as well. Whether the campaign spent the money, or someone spent the money on behalf of the campaign, it didn't matter. An ad is an ad, and ads cost money. However, if you extend this logic, nobody can produce any positive or negative media about a candidate during the election run-up. That is, the NYT couldn't run a photo of Barry O smiling on the front page. That sort of exposure has value, and would thus constitute a contribution. Otherwise, what would stop me from producing a huge pile of fliers with smiling candidates on them and dropping them from my helicopters? This is how we end up running up against free speech. Personally, I don't think we should put those kinds of restrictions on media. People will always play games, and find ways of couching themselves as other forms of protected media in order to keep funneling huge sums of money into biased political messages. That's just how it works. But I'm not comfortable limiting political speech, least of all around an election run up. The risk for unintended consequences is too high.
I very much understand what your saying, but the difference is when the NY Times endorses a candidate they do just that, PUBLICLY endorse a candidate. That is the key difference. They'll have to stand on their record. With citizens united the money is direct, massive, and almost completely untraceable.
I'm actually torn on Citizens United these days. The issue is with carefully defining terms. For example, how do we define campaign contributions? If the New York Times runs an op-ed endorsing a candidate, is that a contribution? If Michael Moore makes a film favorable to one candidate or another, is that a contribution? (hint... hint) Nobody likes the Kochs, but how do you sort out one from the other? What if the rich guys just decide to go buy newspapers instead? http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/09/business/media/the-return-of-the-newspaper-barons.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Sometimes I think evolution doesn't work at all.
Soooooo.... That's my man.
I can't prove it, but I think it might be fake.
What you mean to say is that the nerdy guy is appreciably overweight, and the nerdy girl is not. And you are correct, even this forward thinking video could not bring itself to put an overweight woman on camera.
1. The nerdy guy in the second ad isn't hot by any definition (sorry dude) but the nerdy girl is just an attractive woman wearing glasses. Is it really so hard to find an ugly woman?
That actually wasn't particularly weird. If those had just been ads, and not put I this context, I wouldn't have thought anything of it. You probably would have sold fewer chips though.
I think I heard an Oh long johnson in there.
I'm firmly in the Ignostic camp.
Not yet a member? No problem!Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?Recover it now.
Check your email for a verification code and enter it below.Don't close this box or you must fill out this form again.
Already signed up?Log in now.
Remember your password?Log in now.