3 people stealing the same bike [video]
Social experiment on the reactions people will have over three different people stealing a bike.
One white girl, a white guy and a black guy.
People gave the white guy a few glances and asked him what he was doing and he clearly made it known he was stealing the bike. - People did nothing.
The white girl got no reaction from most people walking past. When asked what she was doing, she clearly stated “I’m stealing this bike”. - People offered to help her.
The black guy, dressed in a similar way to the white guy, gets stopped countless times, people take photos of him, a crowd emerges, everyone is yelling at him, trying to stop him by taking his equipment, the police get called instantly and everyone seems to be hilariously emotional that this guy is taking a bike.
I’m a Christian, and even I can recognize how ridiculous it is for people to oppose gay marriage based on the grounds that “The Bible defines marriage as one man and one woman.” That’s simply not true.
If these are barbaric and no longer acceptable practices, then I think we can say that prejudice against queer people is also barbaric and no longer acceptable.
Hey, traditional marriage!
And people say Islam is misogynistic.
In my opinion, the only real sexual orientations are heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual. All this stuff like pansexual, demisexual, etc just sound immature and attention seeking. Like, you need to be different, so you’re pansexual instead of bi. No, if you like guys and girls, you are bi. You can like them for their personalities instead of their genitals, but it’s still bisexual. Stop making up names to be different or get attention. It just sounds really immature and nobody really cares. If you feel the need to associate with something like that, just provide explanation when you say you’re gay, straight or bi. Though that really isn’t necessary and nobody cares. If they ask you, they’re just interested in knowing if you like girls, guys, or both.
(Also, you can put all the hate you want on this post. I’m posting it to an unpopular opinions blog on purpose. I know it’s unpopular. I don’t needs swarms of children telling me so)
The replies to this, oh the replies. Why won’t they stop, make them stop!
"Bi-" means two. Like how a bicycle has two wheels. A bisexual person is attracted to two genders, male and female. “Pan-” means all. Pansexual people are attracted to all genders, including trans, cis, intersex, anyone.
so very, very, very wrong. People can be bi, but not be interested in trans. That’s what pan is for you ignorant shitstain.
I think pansexual qualifies because it includes transgenders and genderqueers, since sex can be kind of confusing. Bisexuality is implying that you’d go with cisgendered people only.
Trans men are men and trans women are women. We are not some special third category of sex.
Bisexuals can be interested in us. Heterosexuals can be interested in us. Homosexuals can be interested in us.
We don’t need a special category of sexuality for someone to like us, for the same reason that someone who will only go out with twinks doesn’t need a special sexuality to define that they are not into body hair. Yes, people can have preferences to not like trans bodies, yes, it can be that bisexual leanings become more needed (but not completely necessary) the less fully transitioned someone is.
But to suggest that we need a special category of sexuality is, in my opinion, derogatory. It is saying that we are not men/women, we are alien inbetweens, so horrifically alien that only a small wonderful subset of society could possibly see anything worthwhile in us.
Yo I understand where you’re coming from but there are genderqueer and intersex folks who get really squicked if you try to assign them a gender/sex that fits the binary so when people ID as pansexual they’re including people whose identities don’t fit the binary.
It is a messed up thing to do to put trans people into a category that is “other”, but it’s also really not cool to put genderqueer and intersex people into categories they don’t fit or even want to fit.
This is actually a really good comment (and one I was considering making, but was too tired to properly word).
I think the problem here is using “Trans” as an umbrella term when relating to sexualities can be problematic as hell, instead of specifying that they are attracted to non-binary individuals (which would cover both intersex people who do not assign themselves to any gender, and non-binary trans people).
Which is kinda the tip of the iceburg with my problems concerning “trans” as a catch-all umbrella term, but I won’t go into that here.
Basically y’all if you are pansexual it means you like the binary genders (which includes binary identified trans people, so be kind and don’t put them into a third gender they do not assign themselves to), and non-binary genders. It’s just more respectful that way, honestly.
Yes that. Thank you!
It’s worth mentioning, though, that the definition of bisexual has evolved to not just include the binary genders.
I would label myself bisexual mostly because I have negative associations with the word pansexual (I do know people who have insisted that it means they’re attracted to the person, not the gender, and made me feel shitty because of that) and I would also be attracted to people who don’t fall within the gender binary.
These “women are free to make lesbian pornography but not to marry” and “how can you watch lesbian porn and not support gay marriage” posts bother me so much because they’re implying that
1) actual lesbians and women who make lesbian porn for men are basically the same group, even though het porn actresses can get married already and lesbian/bi/queer women’s legal rights have nothing to do with their “freedom” to make porn
2) lesbian pornography is representative of lesbian lives (“if you accept one, you should accept the other too because they are the same”), which is bullshit
3) it’s okay for men to fetishise lesbianism and watch lesbian porn as long as they support same-sex marriage, which is, again, bullshit.
It is important to talk about the ways in which lesbianism is turned into a fetish and made all about pleasing men and why that is wrong, but the conclusion should not be that lesbians should be accepted because it’s accepted to fetishise them; the point is that lesbians should be accepted and not fetishised.
Drug warriors often contend that drug use would skyrocket if we were to legalize or decriminalize drugs in the United States. Fortunately, we have a real-world example of the actual effects of ending the violent, expensive War on Drugs and replacing it with a system of treatment for problem users and addicts.
Health experts in Portugal said Friday that Portugal’s decision 10 years ago to decriminalise drug use and treat addicts rather than punishing them is an experiment that has worked.
“There is no doubt that the phenomenon of addiction is in decline in Portugal,” said Joao Goulao, President of the Institute of Drugs and Drugs Addiction, a press conference to mark the 10th anniversary of the law.
The number of addicts considered “problematic” — those who repeatedly use “hard” drugs and intravenous users — had fallen by half since the early 1990s, when the figure was estimated at around 100,000 people, Goulao said.
Other factors had also played their part however, Goulao, a medical doctor added.
“This development can not only be attributed to decriminalisation but to a confluence of treatment and risk reduction policies.”
Many of these innovative treatment procedures would not have emerged if addicts had continued to be arrested and locked up rather than treated by medical experts and psychologists. Currently 40,000 people in Portugal are being treated for drug abuse. This is a far cheaper, far more humane way to tackle the problem. Rather than locking up 100,000 criminals, the Portuguese are working to cure 40,000 patients and fine-tuning a whole new canon of drug treatment knowledge at the same time.
None of this is possible when waging a war.
"Monosexism kills. Biphobia kills. Bisexual people commit suicide, bisexual people get sick, bisexual people lose our homes, our families, our friends, our communities, our support, our jobs, our money, our education; bisexual people suffer violence and sexual violence; we are beaten, brutalized, bashed, raped, and sexually assaulted; we get STI’s, no information, no treatment ; we get exploited, alienated, marginalized, disempowered, dismissed, erased, derided.
And after all of this we are told that it’s all in our heads, that monosexism and biphobia do not exist, that those problems are our personal problems: We are pathologized. Our experiences, our lives, our pain, and our oppression are written out and wiped clean of history, culture and community.
But this is not our “personal” problem, this is not “just in our heads”. It is not a figment of the imagination. It is real, and we see it and feel it in our bones, as we struggle to survive and as we struggle to live. We testify as we also remember those gone: Monosexism kills. Biphobia kills."
in a not at all surprising, but still very upsetting, turn of events, the “equal marriage” bill that is probably going to become law in the UK is really shitty for trans* people
Summary for those lacking time or inclination to read the whole thing:
- Since 2004, England allows trans* individuals to apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate, which amends the birth certificate to reflect their gender. If somebody had a spouse of the same gender they had to get divorced and switch to a civil union, which meant forfeiting widow(er)s’ pensions. This rule will no longer apply with the new law, but the couples who were already affected in the last nine years will not receive compensation.
- The marriage bill requires a spouse’s consent before getting a Gender Recognition Certificate.
- Failure to disclose the existence of a Gender Recognition Certificate before marriage is grounds for annulment.
So the usual path to equality then: Stomp on the people at the bottom of the ladder. Great.
"LYDEN: You commissioned a dozen studies on women in media from the Annenberg School at USC. Some of the figures just really boggled the imagination when you think that women are half of all moviegoers. If we didn’t go to the movies, maybe this would make more sense. But we turn out in droves.
DAVIS: I know. It really does boggle the mind. In family films and kids television shows, for every one female character, there are three male characters. But lest people think that it’s all bad news, we were able to see an increase in the percentage of female characters in family films, such that if we add female characters at the rate we have been for the past 20 years, we will achieve parity in 700 years.
DAVIS: And my institute, we have dedicated ourselves to cutting that in half. And we will not rest until it’s only 350 years.
LYDEN: Why is this the case?
DAVIS: My theory is that since all anybody has seen when they are growing up is this big imbalance that the movies that they’ve watched are about, let’s say, five-to-one as far as female presence is concerned. That’s what starts to look normal. And let’s think about in difference segments of society - 17 percent of cardiac surgeons are women, 17 percent of tenured professors are women. It just goes on and on. And isn’t that strange that that’s also the percentage of women in crowd scenes in movies? What if we’re actually training people to see that ratio as normal so that when you’re an adult, you don’t notice?
LYDEN: I wonder what the impact is of all of this lack of female representation.
DAVIS: We just heard a fascinating and disturbing study where they looked at the ratio of men and women in groups. And they found that if there’s 17 percent women, the men in the group think it’s 50-50. And if there’s 33 percent women, the men perceive that as there being more women in the room than men.
LYDEN: Oh, my goodness.
DAVIS: So is it possible that 17 percent women has become so comfortable and so normal that that’s just sort of unconsciously expected?
LYDEN: Why else, Geena Davis, do these kinds of disparities matter?
DAVIS: What we’re in effect doing is training children to see that women and girls are less important than men and boys. We’re training them to perceive that women take up only 17 percent of the space in the world. And if you add on top of that that so many female characters are sexualized, even in things that are aimed at little kids, that’s having an enormous impact as well."
Previously, when this stuff has happened in other countries, it’s been all over tumblr, and I’ve seen none of it today, so:
same-sex marriage passed in the UK this morning!
it’s not a perfect bill, in fact some of the trans* stuff in it is pretty fucking awful (stavvers has written a very good post on this) but, y’know. PROGRESS.
This reminds me of something a friend’s poli sci professor told them: “Both sides are wrong, but at least the Democrats are making sandwiches for homeless people.”