as-thin-as-fuck
Last year, in total, British police officers actually fired their weapons three times. The number of people fatally shot was zero. In 2012 the figure was just one. Even after adjusting for the smaller size of Britain’s population, British citizens are around 100 times less likely to be shot by a police officer than Americans. Between 2010 and 2014 the police force of one small American city, Albuquerque in New Mexico, shot and killed 23 civilians; seven times more than the number of Brits killed by all of England and Wales’s 43 forces during the same period.

The explanation for this gap is simple. In Britain, guns are rare. Only specialist firearms officers carry them; and criminals rarely have access to them. The last time a British police officer was killed by a firearm on duty was in 2012, in a brutal case in Manchester. The annual number of murders by shooting is typically less than 50. Police shootings are enormously controversial. The shooting of Mark Duggan, a known gangster, which in 2011 started riots across London, led to a fiercely debated inquest. Last month, a police officer was charged with murder over a shooting in 2005. The reputation of the Metropolitan Police’s armed officers is still barely recovering from the fatal shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, an innocent Brazilian, in the wake of the 7/7 terrorist bombings in London.

In America, by contrast, it is hardly surprising that cops resort to their weapons more frequently. In 2013, 30 cops were shot and killed—just a fraction of the 9,000 or so murders using guns that happen each year. Add to that a hyper-militarised police culture and a deep history of racial strife and you have the reason why so many civilians are shot by police officers. Unless America can either reduce its colossal gun ownership rates or fix its deep social problems, shootings of civilians by police—justified or not—seem sure to continue.
fabulous-lesbian-queen

mediapathic:

nextyearsgirl:

This is an enormous chain and I’m sorry, but I need to say this:

The laws in the Old Testament were set forth by god as the rules the Hebrews needed to follow in order to be righteous, to atone for the sin of Adam and Eve and to be able to get into Heaven. That is also why they were required to make sacrifices, because it was part of the appeasement for Original Sin.

According to Christian theology, when Jesus came from Heaven, it was for the express purpose of sacrificing himself on the cross so that our sins may be forgiven. His sacrifice was supposed to be the ultimate act that would free us from the former laws and regulations and allow us to enter Heaven by acting in his image. That is why he said “it is finished” when he died on the cross. That is why Christians don’t have to circumcise their sons (god’s covenant with Jacob), that is why they don’t have to perform animal sacrifice, or grow out their forelocks, or follow any of the other laws of Leviticus.

When you quote Leviticus as god’s law and say they are rules we must follow because they are what god or Jesus wants us to do, what you are really saying, as a Christian, is that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was invalid. He died in vain because you believe we are still beholden to the old laws. That is what you, a self-professed good Christian, are saying to your god and his son, that their plan for your salvation wasn’t good enough for you.

So maybe actually read the thing before you start quoting it, because the implications of your actions go a lot deeper than you think.

This is a theological point that doesn’t come up often enough.

ourconfidence
Ever notice makeover shows on TV, how the black woman has natural hair (coarse, coily, kinky, or curly) in the ugly “before” picture, and in the pretty “after” picture, somebody’s taken a hot piece of metal and singed her hair straight? Some black women, AB and NAB, would rather run naked in the street than come out in public with their natural hair. Because, you see, it’s not professional, sophisticated, whatever, it’s just not damn normal. (Please, commentors, don’t tell me it’s the same as a white woman who doesn’t color her hair.) When you DO have natural Negro hair, people think you “did” something to you hair. Actually, the folk with the Afros and dreads are the ones who haven’t “done” anything to their hair.
as-thin-as-fuck

childrenmilk:

I thought I’d make a post summarizing Taylor Swifts video “Shake It Off” for the people who don’t want to give her more hate views on VEVO. Maybe instead of giving her 4,000 angry views on youtube we can just give her my one view and reblog this hella so no one else watches it out of irritable curiosity? 

Anyways the video is basically just her dancing singing an anthem that every White person appropriating another culture says, “The haters gonna hate.” There’s no real content or plot to the video, just a lot of dance shots where she’s being really awkward. It’s actually amazing how someone could really pretend to be so innocent and naive yet still convey a very harmful message.

Above I posted some screen caps of the video and after only watching it once I got all I needed to know.  Already from the beginning of the video you see a hard clash between the dancers. There are the prima ballerina types who are all white women, elegantly leaping and stretching and dancing. Then there are the faceless black women who are shaking their asses. Yes, faceless, literally every shot of the “twerkers” are only their asses. There’s also other groups of dancers which include some break dancers (which are all brown men,) and contemporary dancers (which is a group of white people and one girl with an afro.) Oh, yes, I forgot the cheerleading group which was all white cheerleaders and one black girl in the back. I just find it hard to believe that they couldn’t have a solid mixed group of people in each category. She pulled a Miley and Iggy and probably said something like “Well I want a more urban feel! But keep the safe ballerinas white!!” Literally the only group that had a saturation of black women was the twerking group. She even had them squat and shake their asses while she crawled through their legs! So edgy! So urban!

This is the problem I have with Taylor Swift. She’s always trying to convey herself as the innocent one who is “man worthy” (as if being man worthy is even important) while slut shaming other women for being sexual, or even just dressing in “short skirts” and “high heels.” All of the sudden now she wants to say, “To hell with the haters I can have as many problematic exes as I want! Now I’m going to be single and edgy! I’m going to shake it off! And to be single and edgy and sexual I have to dance with a bunch of ass shaking black women!  USE A BUNCH OF BLACK WOMEN AS PROPS

Long story story, Taylor Swift is not only a slut shaming misogynist, she’s ignorant and has obviously racist/stereotypical views of brown and black people.