Recent Comments by bmacs27 subscribe to this feed

10 Hours of Walking in NYC as a Woman

bmacs27 says...


Nobody is saying she needs to wear earbuds. She's welcome to tolerate assholes. You seem to be saying there should be stricter limits on their speech.

To me this video suggests a reverse power dynamic. It's about telling lower class folk to be comfortable being ignored by the privileged class. It's about telling them to only speak when spoken to. They should know their place.

It feels like Willie Horton ads all over again. It seeks to instill fear that dark skinned men might rape your white woman at a moments notice. That southern strategy, it gets you eyeballs.

10 Hours of Walking in NYC as a Woman

bmacs27 says...

This. The classist element here is palpable. The video even says, "people from all backgrounds." Coulda fooled me. I didn't see any well-to-do folk in there. I'd like to see the counter video where the tall chiseled guy in the suit says hi to random women on the street and we see their reactions. I bet you get quite a few blushing, smiling, tilting their head and tossing/twirling their hair. The reality is that this video is about undesirables with the gall to come up from the sewers.

Where there is a legitimate point comes from inherent physicality differences. Just the other day I turned around in line to find myself about 6 inches from a guy who's got to be 6'8" 325 pounds. I clock in about 6' 230. I'm not used to that feeling. I suddenly realized what it must be like for women all the damn time. Now if some little dude were to comment on my ass, sure, I will engage and laugh it off... But that dude? Even a "hey there" would make me sweat. That said, it's still a reaction rooted in stereotypes.

This brings me to a final point, which is what I'd call a form of sizism. Not the usual fattism, but rather the assumptions that go along with bigger people more generally. Brawny guys, particularly dark skinned brawny guys, are automatically assumed to be dangerous. BNBG, so to speak. While there is some obvious rational basis to this assumption, I think it has gone way to far and negatively impacts the social inclusion of bigger folk. We big folk have to go way overboard with passivity to not be seen as a rapist in waiting. Else, embrace your inner meat head and go cruise the gym scene.

Trancecoach said:

She seems like an actress engaged in some sort of self-promotion who would be well-served to check her white/cis/thin/heterosexual privilege and realize that People of Color can't harass her because harassment = talking + privilege, and they don't have privilege. Where are all the white guys in $1,000 suits?

And to call most of these pleasantries "harassment" seems to diminish real harassment.

And furthermore, I don't get it: How does someone donate money to end "street harassment?" What exactly does this charity do? Run around and put muzzles on street gawkers? Write citations to anyone who whistles? How do they plan to legislate against people saying "good morning" or "you're hot" to someone on the street?

The Daily Show - Bill O'Reilly Interview on White Privilege

bmacs27 says...

I think he said it in the interview. He's paid to be obnoxious.

VoodooV said:

I still don't even buy it that Bill is really a conservative. I think he's just a guy who is paid enough by his masters to spew what he's told to spew.

If the price tag was right, a lot of us would go on the air to say things we don't really believe.

I knew ocean Sunfish were big, but this...

bmacs27 says...

You ever try sunfish?

I think it's crazy how huge fish basically serve as ocean habitat. It's like a floating reef.

artician said:

That's insane. How are those not extinct? They're massive, slow, and I can't see how they can defend themselves. Unless they just live far outside predatory areas I'd expect them to just be floating buffets for sharks and such.

Three Lions Fight a Crocodile over Elephant Carcass in Kenya

#ALSicebucket Haters... watch this...

bmacs27 says...

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.

Incredibly Fantastic Motorcycle Accident

bmacs27 says...

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.

AeroMechanical said:

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).

Key & Peele: Office Homophobe

bmacs27 says...

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.

scottishmartialarts said:

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.

Key & Peele: Office Homophobe

bmacs27 says...

@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.

Vermont Becomes The First State To Pass Wolf PAC Resolution

bmacs27 says...

This doesn't really make any sense. You are proposing a ban on coverage of elections?

VoodooV said:

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

Vermont Becomes The First State To Pass Wolf PAC Resolution

bmacs27 says...

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.

Januari said:

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.

Vermont Becomes The First State To Pass Wolf PAC Resolution

bmacs27 says...

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?

How To Set An Aerosol Balloon, And Yourself On Fire

Neil DeGrasse Tyson In Slow Motion sounds high as a kite!

Superman with a GoPro

Send this Article to a Friend

Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients

Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon